Definitely a lot of good points raised in that article.
Simply put, McMovies that stick to the right formula, not too comic, not too dark, not too risky,
ALWAYS make good money. (Marvel). And that's not to say they are bad. I always look forward to the next Marvel movie with great anticipation. Some more so than others, but I've never seen a Marvel title in the pipes and thought "IDK about that one, looks like it won't be good".
(and kudos to Marvel for publishing a 3+ year timeline with dates so I can mark the calendar and start anticipating the movie years in advance!).
But, I'm not deluding myself either. I don't walk into a Marvel movie expecting an oscar worthy story or cinematic greatness. I walk into a Marvel movie expecting EPIC L33T FANBOY greatness, and I never walk out disappointed. There's nothing worse or more corrosive than unmet expectations. Marvel understands manages viewers expectations carefull. Fans are not led on to expect a cinematic masterpiece and thus be disappointed. Marvel delivers the l33t goodness that fans expect, without taking chances and trying to tell a deeper cinematic tale
at the risk of NOT delivering it well.
Which brings me to my thoughts on DC, easily summed up by saying "the exact opposite of what I just said about Marvel".
DC's comic titles are darker, more human. The stakes are smaller, grittier than cosmic level extinction. How does the mind warp its head around the cosmic significance of Marvel's Infinity Gauntlet? In DC's universe, THEY DON'T. The heroes have fewer powers, The Joker and Batman are "normal" humans. The Flash has powers, but we're not talking Dr. Strange level powers.
It's a different universe, a different style of characters. And that of necessity produces a very different style of movie. If DC were to make McMovies like Marvel, but using DC characters, It would be like the Disney Channel creating a Walking Dead spinoff - the resulting product would have no relation at all to the source material outside of sharing the name.
DC's titles lend for logical adaptation as raw, gritty, impactful cinema... unfortunately that style of cinema is hampered at the box office for two reasons:
--1--
Artful cinema is always risky. When its done right and "clicks", oh boy does it click. Stunning, impactful, movies that take your breath away. But those are rare. Most fall short. and when that style falls short, it tends to go downhill FAST, going from
"must see again and again" to
"I can't even remember the name of that one movie that came out last month" in the blink of an eye.
--2--
Gritty, human story superhero movies don't have the same universal appeal. You can't always bring the whole family to see it. If it's really well made art, not everyone appreciates that kinda thing. I don't say that disparagingly, I'm just saying that not everyone appreciates the subtlety of "great" cinema. They're there for the simple linear movie plot for a couple hours of enjoyment, and that's it. Nothing wrong with that.
All that said, I do have to admit, I'm not yet happy with the DC franchise's movie adaptations yet. I like gritty movies that make you think, but MOST of DC's movies seem to fall short of something "memorable" for me. A string of often solid movies, but too many that just don't inspire a wrong reaction good or bad from me. Nolan's Batman was certainly good, but too many others were not.
They also have a SERIOUS branding issue. There's a lot of DC movie titles that I've seen, but not being a comic book fanatic, I never really realized they were DC property until reading them mentioned in the article.
ahh well, I've been rambling on way too long....
[Reply]
