[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

In the lobby of the Lowes Harvard Square today, while waiting for Million Dollar Baby, I saw the following two posters side-by-side, much like they are below if your browser window is quite large.

Both these movies are distributed by Warner Brothers. They're both comic book adaptations. They ought to both appeal to a similar audience. What are the execs at Warner Brothers thinking? This is why Marvel-based movies are on a fairly strong run, while DC-based movies are not.

Comments

[princejvstin.livejournal.com]

This is why Marvel-based movies are on a fairly strong run, while DC-based movies are not.

Um, Bryant, what about Daredevil (and now the sadly wasted Jennifer Garner in Elektra)?

I think that DC just hasn't hit the highs that Marvel has, but both of them have had their share of stinkers. Or at least their due share thanks to Sturgeon's Law.

[bryant]

Starting in 1998: Blade, X-Men, Blade II, Spider-Man, Daredevil, Hulk, X2. Quality doesn't start slipping till Daredevil, in 2003, and 2003 also sees X2 (which was good) and Hulk (which was flawed, but not for the usual reasons comic book movies are flawed).

I'll stand by it -- they were on a strong run between 1998 and 2003. One bad movie during that time doesn't derail the claim.

[kodi]

Hulk (which was flawed, but not for the usual reasons comic book movies are flawed).

Personally, I thought the usual flaws were there, too. "Oh no! An unstoppable monster! Get the foam!"

[rfrancis]

I think the run is still strong. To my recollection, since the end of your list we've had Punisher (which I thought was good, although it had moments where they thought "hey, comic books!" and got stupid, like the final monologue), Spider-Man 2 (excellent), and Blade III (haven't seen it, but admittedly haven't heard much good about it so far.) Oh, right, and now Elektra, which, well, whoops, from what I've read. Okay, maybe they stumbled a bit at the end of 2004.

-R

[death-by-monkey.livejournal.com]

I'd take exception to Blade II being in that list, but then I like Wesley Snipes only slightly more than I like Keanu. Other than that, I generally agree with the good run theory.

I can understand Marvel thinking about Luke Cage/Iron Fist/Shang Chi in the current Kung Fu renaissance and I suppose I can see Ghost Rider, Werewolf by Night, and Man-Thing as attempts to get back into the monster movie/anti-hero market (as well as the flush of racing movies for Ghost Rider like Torque, TFTF, 2F2F, etc), but Namor the Sub-Mariner???

Namor's only slightly more exciting than Aquaman because he can fly and has a pissy attitude. Other than that, he talks to fish. Deathlok, Black Widow?

Marvel has a whole universe of characters they can make movies of and THESE are the ones they choose? I mean, I know Cap America flopped every time they tried to bring it to the big screen, but they can do better than that. They've proven that.

I think Dark Horse's success with Hellboy disproved what may have been a popular notion with DC and Marvel that they can only make movies of characters that are already well-known to mainstream America. Maybe that's why they're bringing up these third stringers, but....really!?

[bryant]

I can understand not liking Blade II. What did it for me is that old del Toro magic; it was so damned Grand Guignol that I forgave the CGI fight scenes and everything else.

Black Widow is a great spy character. Namor is the goof. The only explanation I can think of is that everything from Blade until Punisher made $70 million or more -- usually much more. That's a hell of a golden cow. Alas, the execs clearly lost track of why those movies made money.

[death-by-monkey.livejournal.com]

Black Widow is a good spy character (which is why in some ways she sometimes seemed out of place amoung the flashy superheroes) and may play better to the big screen than to comics.

You do make a good point about Guillermo del Toro. And if it weren't for Blade II, he probably wouldn't have been able to make Hellboy for Dark Horse.

And you also make a good point about Marvel's golden cow (which I would name Mooby from Dogma). In a time when fewer and fewer kids are buying comics and it's a relatively small number of 18-35 year old males buying them, I imagine that they see this as making up for market share lost to video games, CCGs, and other things the younger kids are into. While Marvel does have inroads into these, they don't have the market share in them like they've got in the comic market.