Marvel and DC Movies

Since I saw Iron Man last week, I've been thinking about a few differences between Marvel and DC comic book movies. I like movies from both and I'm not saying one side is necessarily better than the other.

For the sake of brevity and to keep me from rambling too much, I'm not counting sequels. The Dark Knight comes out in July and Spiderman and X-Men both had successful sequels. But I'm not talking about those--just the first installments.

Here's the list of why I think Marvel is more willing to take risks but still respects the comic book origins of its characters.

1) Marvel jump-started the superhero movie genre with X-Men.

I think most people consider Spiderman the beginning of the current trend of comic book movies because it was so successful, but mutants were in theaters two years earlier with X-Men in 2000. We had the Superman movies in the late 70s and early 80s, and Marvel brought back spandexed heroes in the 21st century.

2) It's okay to change the costume, but be sensible.

Brandon Routh's Superman and Tobey Maguire's Spiderman donned darker colored suits than their traditional bright costumes, and that worked out well. Hugh Jackman's wardrobe went a step further by replacing Wolverine's yellow suit with black leather. This change might have offended classic fans, but it was a smart move. Silver-screen Wolverine in sunshine yellow just wouldn't have been as intimidating. Or nearly as cool. Marvel knows when comic book and cartoon colors won't translate to real life.

Click for larger images

.....

3) Main characters can be serious and funny in the same movie. Really.

Every comic book movie to date has its bright and dark moments, but I think Marvel does a better job of balancing the two sides. Peter Parker's geekiness and the younger X-Mens' lack of control add some comic relief to their movies. "But wait," you say, "Clark Kent's dorky. That's funny sometimes." That's not enough. You need smart, funny dialogue. A broad sense of humor that appeals to a lot of people.

Iron Man has it: Tony Stark's snarky, sarcastic personality, his flops in developing the suit, his quirky robots. Comedic timing in there throughout the movie.

Sure, Clark's a dork, but I'm not laughing when he gets stabbed with Kryptonite seconds after Lex mocks him. I am, however, cheering on Iron Man even as he's fighting a machine 3 times his size. Batman Begins has it's moments, but I mostly remember rain, sewers, and Batman's cape billowing across the screen. Uplifting moments have to stick out if you're going to remember a movie's light-heartedness.

4) Changing minor things is okay, but please leave major aspects of the character alone.

I can make this point brief. Giving Spiderman organic webbing is (arguably) cool. Giving Superman an illegitimate son is (definitely) not.

5) You can appeal to more than superhero fans. (Yes, it can be done.)

Marvel movies do a great job with giving the audience a brief origin story and necessary background information with plenty of time left for an awesome movie made of action scenes, character development, suspense, humor, and a little romance. We see Peter Parker get bitten by the spider, and then he gets his powers. Does the movie have to tell us how his parents died? No, so it doesn't. Tony Stark builds his iron suit while being held captive, but we don't hear anything about his mother (and that's okay). We meet the heroes and then they're off to save citizens and fight crime.

DC has a different method. We see Bruce Wayne watch his parents' murder. We see he's afraid of bats, and he becomes Batman to overcome his fear and fight crime in Gotham. That's really great, but is all of that introduction necessary? Even with the movie reigniting the franchise? I don't know. I would have been fine going into the movie knowing this Batman was slightly different from past incarnations. I wouldn't need multiple scenes to explain it to me. Then there's Superman Returns. Good fun if you're a long-time Superman fan and enjoy spotting all the references to past incarnations of the Man in Steel. The film's crew obviously spent a lot of time working those references in, but that work will be appreciated only by a small audience who already loved Superman. What good are those homages to the casual viewer?

The scene where Superman catches Kitty's speeding car is well-shot and exciting. But how many people know that Superman's stance as he lowers the car to the street is a throwback to Action Comics 1, the first comic book in which Superman appeared?

Or for another example, how many people saw the bartender near the beginning of the film and thought he looked familiar? Superman fans know the actor is Jack Larson, and he portrayed Jimmy Olsen in the 1950s live-action Adventures of Superman series (with George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent).

Those bits in the movie are great for existing Superman fans, but the general audience doesn't care. Superman Returns is a decent movie on its own, but there are several confusing things in the plot-holed script. What's going on with Superman's son? Since when does Perry have a nephew (involved with Lois)? Is the Fortress of Solitude broken? More knowledgeable fans can guess answers to these questions, but everyone else is lost.

6) Marvel makes movies for its lesser-known heroes.

DC have given us Batman and Superman, and that's great. But everyone knows Batman and Superman, so their movies both had a pretty good chance at success. Marvel, however, takes its chances with lesser known characters (or at least looks past its most popular franchises). Marvel gave us the X-Men, Spiderman, and the Hulk, but it also gave us Daredevil, the Fantastic 4, and Iron Man.

DC could risk a little more. They've got Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Hawk Girl, Green Lantern...all those characters have potential to be great movies. So where are they? I really want to see a live-action Batman Beyond. With Inque. Hey, I can have high hopes.

Comic book movies are in right now, and they're successful at the box office among a broad audience. Marvel seems to know what its doing with its characters. I'd like to see DC step up and give us more characters, smart (and tidy) plots, action, and humor. The films can be deep and thoughtful at times, but really, I want to be entertained. Give me super-powered escapism and I'll enjoy every minute of it.

Superman Returns screencaps are from Follow Tomorrow.


Technorati tags: Superman, Ironman, Marvel, DC, comics, movies, Batman, X-Men, superheroes

Michael Rosenbaum moves out of Smallville

Michael Rosenbaum (Lex Luthor) won't be a season regular for next year. (Smallville fans should already know this). In contrast to Gene Hackman's menacing but comical Lex in the 1978 Superman movie (which is also entertaining, but for other reasons), Rosenbaum's Lex is intelligent, approachable yet threatening. Lex's character was written better in earlier seasons, but Rosenbaum has continued to bring depth, sympathy, and believability to his character.

I don't know how they're going to write Lex out of Smallville. It's not like the writers can send him to Metropolis. Clark, Lois, and Chloe already spend a lot of time in the city.

This excerpt from the article is interesting:

In season eight, Clark will face his ultimate challenge with the appearance of the legendary, unstoppable destroyer Doomsday, who appears on Smallville for the first time. As comic book fans know, Doomsday is notorious for being the only character in the DC Comics universe to have killed Superman.

I don't read comics, but I did see the animated Superman: Doomsday film that came out last year. The movie was entertaining enough, and the battle between Superman and Doomsday was epic. If a full-fledged Superman died at the hands of Doomsday, what exactly is Smallville's Clark supposed to do? He doesn't know how to fly yet. He has some experience fighting super-powered villains, but he hasn't gone up against anyone near Doomsday's level. I'm not sure the show can pull it off unless they fast-forward ten years or so.

Technorati Tags: Rosenbaum, Smallville, Superman, television, Doomsday

Summer Superhero Movies

The New York Magazine posted an article about this summer's four superhero movies--Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, and Hellboy 2--and speculated on which ones may not live up to the hype.

Here's my take.

Iron Man looks pretty good. Fun, lots of action, bits of humor. I don't know much about the superhero but if the trailers are anything to go by, this looks like perfect summer entertainment.

The Dark Knight will undoubtedly be good, but probably more dark and creepy than shiny fun. I liked Christian Bale's portrayal of Bruce Wayne/Batman in Batman Begins (even with the ninja tendencies), and everyone knows Heath Ledger is phenomenal as the Joker.

It's really too soon to remake the Hulk, and The Incredible Hulk doesn't look that compelling. It might have a better story, and the Hulk isn't supposed to keep getting bigger as the movie progresses, but those are the only two good things I'm aware of. Besides that, I don't know that many people take the Hulk seriously. It's a lot more fun to watch the animated grumbling Hulk who can barely piece sentences together and enjoys smashing whatever he can.

Hellboy 2...I didn't know there was a first one. I haven't heard much about this movie, and I just found out today that Guillermo del Toro directed it (also directed Pan's Labyrinth and El Espinazo del Diablo). I think that's a problem--not a lot of people know about it. Good story, good acting or not, it doesn't matter if no one goes to see it.

Technorati Tags: Ironman, Batman, Hulk, Hellboy, movies, summer

Internet Distractions

For all the necessary, useful activities we use the internet for (researching essays, communicating with faraway friends...), we also have access to unlimited distractions. Some are consistent. You have to check Facebook every ten minutes to see if someone wrote on your wall. You want a twenty minute break from work, so you play a few levels of Bejeweled.

The fact that these distractions are so easy to access makes it difficult to keep a steady work pace. (Your favorite forum is only a few clicks away in a separate tab, after all.) Outside of self control, though, we have a few options. There are programs out there that you can use to self-block yourself from specific web sites. Lifehacker recently featured an article on LeechBlock, a small application that lets you set which sites you want to block, on which days, and at what times.

That works great if you put off work by visiting a handful of sites. You can keep yourself away from LiveJournal, GoogleNews, and Yahoo!Games--whatever you use to procrastinate. For me though, specific sites aren't an issue. I get bored of social-networking sites (like Facebook and LiveJournal) fairly easily, so even if I check them before I dig into an assignment, I won't spend much time on those sites. Same thing with online gaming sites--they can hold my attention only for so long.

And then I look for something else. I find a new blog or a random article. I even take a break from web-surfing to reorganize files on my computer (or my bookmarks, which I sorted through for forty minutes the other night).

Blocking yourself may be of some help, but really, it's up to the person to focus on work instead of procrastinating. I'm not much of a help to myself when it comes to buckling down and getting to work, though. I just downloaded StumbleUpon, and I love it! It's a toolbar application that not only brings up random web sites, but finds ones tailored to your interests. Then you give sites a thumbs up or thumbs down to tell StumbleUpon more about what you want to see. The more you stumble, the better the sites match your interests...Because I needed another way to avoid writing essays and such.

Technorati tags: internet, Lifehacker, distractions, StumbleUpon

Good News For Smallville

Miles Millar and Alfred Gough, the creators and executive producers of Smallville, have announced their resignation and so will not be involved in season 8. Mania.com posted their open letter in which they thank everyone involved in Smallville and talk about how proud they are of the show.

What makes this good news? Other shows' fans might be concerned when the show's creators step down, but in Smallville's case, this is exactly what the fans have been wishing for. Millar and Gough deserve credit for rethinking Clark Kent's teenage years and creating an intelligent, well-written series that explored Clark's discovery of who he is and his journey to become Superman. But that all went down the drain after season 3.

Season 3 is perhaps the most compelling year for Smallville, but it carried darker themes and story arcs, so Millar and Gough promised an upbeat season 4. That promise translated to shallow plots and even worse uses of Kryptonite (Kryptonite Gatorade and plastic surgery??). Clark and Lana continued their off and on relationship and three years later, that pairing is still central to the show (and now we have Kryptonite-laced gum). Season 5 hinted at a move to Clark and Lois, but then Lana faked her death and moved onto the Kent farm (do I smell soap opera?), and here were are back in season 1 with Clark trying to make a relationship with Lana work. The series has become repetitive and tiresome, hindering most of its characters' development.

But now Millar and Gough are gone, and hopefully that means their Lana-centered arcs are gone too. The best thing for Smallville now is someone to step in who knows the Superman mythos well and can morph Smallville's stagnant Clark Kent into America's most iconic superhero.

Technorati Tags: Smallville, television, Gough, Millar