Do Marvel Characters lend themselves better to films?

Watched Thor again last night and I just so love that movie. Action, sad bits, funny bits, its a very watchable film Ditto Iron Man, X Men, Spiderman, Avengers. So where are the DC movies? 3 Batman films, GL and MOS is all we've had in the 13 years since X Men strode onto the screen. Compare that with something like 15 marvel movies! I admire Stan Lee and think he was very clever in the way in which he imagined characters in the 60s and just wonder if they are better suited to films? If you take Peter Parker, I think a lot of teenagers and young adults identify with him. By comparison, Green Lantern is a bit "out there", more like star trek. Batman is a very dark vigilante type character and Superman the boy scout became so old fashioned they had to re-boot him and that has upset a lot of fanboys. The Batman trilogy was very good, but there's no way I'd let my kids watch any of them, due to the violence and sinister overtones, whereas that's no issue with Avengers, Thor, Iron Man etc. So is this part of the problem, or just Warner Brothers not getting their act together? Perhaps a Wonder Woman film could be just the trick?!

I always felt that DC's heroes work better in TV shows and cartoons whereas Marvel works better in film. I feel like television really showcases the DC universe a bit better because you aren't limited to movie technology, the 2 hour time limit, or the live action component. The last being a big issue. I think a lot of DC's heroes are harder to translate into live action, not to say it can't be done, but it definitely is much more challenging because I think the fact that DC's heroes are so iconic (and sometimes too overpowered for some peoples taste), they struggle trying to make them relevant to a more cynical society and so that is why they seem to be going for the whole "dark" approach unfortunately. Whereas, I think with Marvel, because outside of X-Men and Spiderman, many of their heroes were not as well known to the mass public, they could do almost whatever they wanted.

@juliedc:

but it definitely is much more challenging because I think the fact that DC's heroes are so iconic (and sometimes too overpowered for some peoples taste)

For the casual moviegoer the problem would be scale and suspension of belief, most of them are just schmucks with disastrous imagination limited to a heist or at most a city blowing up to smithereens. As comic readers from multiple medias we are more conditioned for high end fiction (same problem why novels had to be dumbened down for the average moviegoer), our worlds are different. When we look up at the skies we see a hero lifting a plane, when they see a battlefield they see a hero mowing down thugs.

they struggle trying to make them relevant to a more cynical society and so that is why they seem to be going for the whole "dark" approach unfortunately

They are revisiting the nineties era of comics, and somehow translating what is arguably the worst era of comics into screen.

@bezza: Stan Lee revolutionized comics with 'relatable' characters, and with the media powerhouse such as disney they are making a storm.

Most likely yes.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, they fit better for more grounded films.

DC characters overall tend to go by a bigger scale which is harder to do on the big screen for the most part.

Outside of Superman and Batman, DC's heroes aren't very well known, especially not to younger people. Any of DC's characters can be rebooted and redefined, and not many people would care.

I'd say "no." Like you said Marvel has had a LOT of films, and to be honest, most have been duds/average (Fantastic 4 movies, Ghostrider movies, Elecktra, any movie with a "3"- well, I think IM3 was decent.) Then you have movies with split opinions (Hulk movies, Captain America, ASM) Then the ones most folks seems to like. (Spider-man 1-2, Avengers, Iron Man.) About the same batting average as DC, but a bigger sample size. I'll give Marvel credit for churning them out, and for starting this new trend, (Which I think they started with Spider-man, not X-Men)

I also disagree that DC's heroes "aren't as well known outside of Superman and Batman. I bet most young kids know who Flash, GL, Wonder Woman, etc..are.

You have to remember that half of Marvel's movies are licensed out to other studios which is why there are so many compared to DC.

And a lot of Marvel's have been bad. FF, Ghostrider, Elektra, Punisher, etc. I'd rather DC be wary and focus on making a few great movies than pump out a dozen and half of them be bad. Hopefully thats what happens.

Their powers are a bit more explainable and to a mass audience it works better. I love Green Lantern, but he's real hard to do a solo movie. He'd be a must in a JLA movie, even if he's not fully explained. If you can't explain him quickly, then don't. Just unleash him.

@tim2081: this

I don't think it has to do with the characters. I think Marvel and DC just have different philosophies regarding their approach to making superhero movies. Marvel is owned by Disney so they're going to make movies that are more "family-friendly" geared towards kids, more campy w/ constant one-liners. DC used to be like that with Donner's Superman and Burton/Schumacher's Batman, but that all changed when Nolan arrived. I can honestly say that DC films like Nolan's Batman trilogy, Watchmen and even the recent Man of Steel are not "family-friendly" and frankly I don't think they're really appropriate for children. WB is willing to take more chances thinking outside the box w/ a more grounded, realistic take on their superheroes geared towards adults. Completely opposite compared to Marvel's approach. Yeah I know Superman isn't exactly realistic, but they made an effort to make that film as grounded as possible. More grounded than any Marvel film to date that I can think of. It's just two different styles and I can appreciate both.

Not true. Disney owns a lot of properties, and they don't micromanage all of them. They will sometimes use the characters for their kid-friendly shows, but characters like the Punisher will not be branded with the Disney logo. Keep in mind Disney owns ESPN also, and you never see Mickey Mouse popping up during Sportscenter.

Nobody knows Flash's origin, that's completely wide open if someone wants to create a brand new one for a movie. Same with Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Green Lantern. People know the names and costumes, not the personalities or origins. Marvel started at the same place. Everyone knew the Captain America name and costume, but everything else could be restructured.

@tim2081: I didn't say it was impossible, but rather it is more challenging, that is a big difference. I think Royal and Decoy hit it on the head the other major problems DC faces in trying to make movies that makes it harder for them than it does Marvel. Marvel and DC are different companies with different heroes and different approaches in handling them. The Green Lantern movie is a great example of the problems DC has with lesser known characters compared to Marvel.

Well, you are not really taking into account quality or anything.You are just basically saying that Marvel is better fitted because films based on their characters are pumped out left and right. Its all a matter of opinion too....for instance I think Iron Man 2 is one of the worst movie sequels to ever be made.

The thing with DC is a lot of their character rights were always tied up, and they seem to be more cautious. They have had a lot of movies they produced turn out to have a bad reception, so they didn't want to just put anything out there...until they saw the amount of money Avengers made, now it seems they don't care anymore.

it's not really the characters...the problem is that DC/WB is trying so hard to make their characters down to earth and realistic and Marvel is just embracing the characters for who and what they are....I think that if DC would go this route and forget this realistic crap then we may not get Oscar worthy movies but we will get some really great fun comic book movies and I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather have a really fun comic book movie that stays true to the character over a down to earth realistic movie that doesn't really get the character at all

@danhimself: Very good point, I could see (and do want) a Justice League movie as well as flash and green lantern movies work if they would move away from dark and gritty and embrace the comics and forget about the sector of the audience who cant enjoy heroes that aren't realistic. Also would help if they would invest in better writers, directors, and actors.

It's so weird seeing folks say DC is "darker, more grounded" and Marvel is "lighter/more family oriented." Not because it's not true, but because for so many years (like 30 of them) it was the other way around. I always thought Stan Lee's biggest contribution to the comic industry was how he made Spider-man with so many real problems as Peter Parker. (Money problems, girl problems, best friends going crazy problems...) Things that neither Bruce Wayne or Clark Kent went through in the 60's or 70's. (Much.) Even when the 80's started, Marvel's two best books (by critical acclaim anyhow) X-Men and Miller's Daredevil, were both plenty dark and gritty. Heck, I'm not so sure Daredevil was even appropriate for 10-12 year olds back then. Marvel, I think, made their mark by being more serious and dark than their DC counterparts.

No.

@manwhohaseverything: What do the comics have to do with anything? We're talking about the film adaptions. And you cant deny almost all of Marvel's films are kid friendly.

Just saying it's weird, in any way, for me to hear DC described as "darker" than Marvel. Marvel's whole thing when they started was to be grittier and more mature than DC. Simply noting that things have come full circle in a way, in that we have a medium where DC is seen as the darker/grittier company. I guarantee that anywhere from 1960-1980 if you had told someone "Both these companies will make a lot of movies someday, and Marvel's will be the more light-hearted films" not many comic fans would've believed you.

It's really all about the execution. The right creative team can make a good movie about anything and the wrong creative team can ruin a perfectly good idea.

Did anyone in 1997 really believe that Blade would be the success it would be in 1998? That guy who runs around with the Midnight Suns and swings around a pair of cheaply drawn swords is going to be in a movie? Who would go and see that? No one who read the comics, that's who.

Up until their purchase by Disney, Marvel had one huge advantage: they could shop their properties around. Sony have a good script and director for Spider-Man? They can buy Spider-Man. Fox is willing to take a risk on a team-based movie like X-Men? They can buy X-Men. DC didn't have this option. All of their properties had to be done through Warner Brothers, and all of the ideas had to go through a very small number of producers that Warner's head-honchos assigned to the job. You can listen to Kevin Smith's rant about one in particular on his Evening With Kevin Smith DVD if you want. And so we got Superman pushing a mountain of Kryptonite in Superman Returns and Green Lantern making Hot Wheels tracks for constructs in his movie too.

There are much more Marvel movies at the moment. They started their Phase 1 in 2008 while DC is starting theirs this year with Man of Steel. Marvel characters tend to be for more younger audiences which is probably why there are more movies. Plus, they're spread over multiple companies (Sony, Fox, Disney...) while I believe DC is mostly Warner Brothers.

I do disagree that Marvel characters are more well known (with the exception of Spider-Man). Before the movies, Iron Man, Thor, and the such weren't very well known to non-comic book fans. While on the other hand, DC has Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Flash, who are some of the most popular heroes out of the Big Two.

I think that DC has to build more fictional places (Themyscira, Atlantis, Krypton, Oa) while Marvel (with the exception of Asgard) is more grounded on Earth.

And honestly other than "Iron Man, Avengers, and possibly Thor," (not counting the movies before Phase 1-XMen, Spidey), the movies aren't exactly that great. Still enjoyable, but movies like Captain America, ASM, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Iron Man 3 are getting only decent to solid reception, with pretty mixed reviews. Then you have the bad movies like Daredevil, Elecktra, Fantastic 4 (Movies 1 and 2), Ghost Rider 1 and 2...

DC has the Dark Knight Trilogy, (which I'm pretty sure we can all agree is the most popular/critically acclaimed superhero series up to date), Man of Steel, and Watchmen. The bad movies include Green Lantern, Jonah Hex, and that's basically it.

Marvel has the movie spotlight because they have been putting out tons of movies (quality over quantity). But props to them for taking initiative and doing the movies.

For the most part, yes.

You do know that all Disney handles is distribution while Marvel just makes the stuff, right? Compare and contrast the people who grow drugs in Columbia and make them all nice and neat and the dudes from Miami to New York who have to move it around.

Marvel Studios, Inc. is a subsidiary of Marvel Entertainment, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, an organization that knows a little about movies and distribution. Warner Bros. isn't an amateur either but, I think with Disney being involved, they avoid some of the violence and sinister undertones (overtones.)

"I just don't know what came over me officer. Guess my hand slipped.."

"He was found face down in a gutter with both arms missing."

@i_like_swords: Haha ok it wasn't HORRIBLE but it could've been done better.

@redlantern23: In what way?

The Harry Heck character was really bizzare and just plain cheesey. I didnt care for the whole neighbor subplot either. It just felt like it could've been a better movie. I LOVE Thomas Jane as Frank. I just think the movie needed a better script.

This

This. Marvel makes more movies, but I like the few good DC films more than the good Marvel ones.

Same - mostly.

No not really, it depends on whose in charge of making the film. Marvels willing to experiment with different characters, where as DC sees one failure as one to many. Its all about taking risk and trying new things and DC,s just not wiling to do that, instead they'd rather just soak up the success of their most financially stable character Batman, but i really think Man of Steel is going to change a lot in the way of DC movies, now the possibility of a Justice League movie is being taken into consideration and more characters will hopefully get a chance for there day in the cinematic sun.

I prefer so much more the few dc movies out than the marvel ones. I will only count the disney owned marvel movies into what im saying because in marvels cinematic universe spiderman and x-men don't exist. I think some marvel movies are great pop corn flicks to watch and have some fun but honestly i prefer dc for the reason that its focus is making movies towards more mature audiences! Which i think is smart because they are making comic book movies be considered actual serious plot oscar worthy movies! Think dark knight that won an oscar.

I'm sorry, what?

Marvel = X-Men which is very well known, especially Wolverine, Iron Man was DEFINITELY known before the comics. Captain America? You know, one of the biggest comic symbols ESPECIALLY in the time of WW2. There's also Hulk. Pretty sure people know alot more Marvel villains as well, but I'm just gonna let that one go.

2. Who's faults that? DC takes big steps, and then doesn't back them up. It's DC. We should probably be used to that. No reason to put Marvel down for being realistic within their settings.

3. Yeah, DC released Green Lantern, which is probably the worst super-hero movie to date. DC fans can't talk about bad movies when they have that one tagged on, and we're not going to forget that Shaq/Steel movie.. They messed up one of their bigger icons with that Green Lantern movie. Captain America, Iron Man 2 and 3, ASM. Pretty much stick true to the comics, which make them better COMIC movies. In this movies, they also highlight lesser known characters, which gains those characters more popularity.

DC stays in their Batman/Superman shell because they don't want to risk it.

4. Most overrated, since most of the fame came from The Dark Knight. And I'm pretty sure we know why that one pretty much excelled. Especially since that movie did a horrible representation of most of the characters featured in it, but guess we're gonna leave that alone. And if we're talking about "bad movies" by what critics say? Man Of Steel isn't doing that well by those CRITICS term. So.. should probably watch that one.

5. Yeah, Marvel releases more so they can show off their characters more, which means they can lend their characters to the big screen better because they build up their popularity. DC sticks with twenty Batman titles, and fifteen Superman titles. Yeah..

Swear, that whole post sounded like one giant Marvel bash that DC fans just love to sneak in.

For the people bashing Marvel? At least they stick true to the comics. Have fun with your miniature Bane, your overhyped Joker, Green Lantern Ryan Renolds, and the shit in mouth Batman representation. Don't go throwing shots at Marvel because they try to stay true.

@sideburnguru:

Quoted for the Truth.

@sideburnguru: I'm not taking shots at Marvel. I love the movies and characters. I'm answering the question and giving reasons to why I don't think Marvel characters necessarily fit better in film than DC characters. So no, I am not bashing Marvel. Sounds to me like you're the one bashing on DC, trying to insult all of their movies. I clearly stated that the Marvel movies were still enjoyable and I like every single one of them (the ones part of the Avengers route). I'm just stating what the viewers say.

Plus, do you honestly think that the Green Lantern movie was worse than Daredevil, Elecktra, Fantastic 4 (Movies 1 and 2), Ghost Rider 1 and 2?

If we go by Marvel's MCU movies vs Dc's movie, Marvel curbstomps DC. Simple as that

@sideburnguru:

1. Iron Man was a b-list character before the first film and you know it. Popular among comic fans? Yes. A household name like Batman and Supernan? Not even close.

2. What does "DC being DC" even mean? Please, keep your groundless and petty insults to yourself.

3. If you think Green Lantern was worse than Elektra or those awful Ghost Rider movies, you are out of your mind. And really, Iron Man 3 sticks to the comics? Funny, i must have missed the part where one of Iron Man's biggest villains is actually an drunk actor. What a freaking joke.

4. Say what you will. Nolan's series has both financial and critical acclaim. It's quality speaks for itself. You're obviously in the minority with thinking it sucks.

5. Half of Marvel movies suck. Obviously not such a great plan create that many films if the quality isnt there.

And quit being a hypocrite. You complain when people bash Marvel but you turn around and do the same to DC?

@redlantern23: Thanks for backing me up man. Exactly what I've said. Sounds like he was just hating on the movies just because he doesn't like DC.

@batmannflash All of them? Hardly. I actually enjoyed the movies that were even called terrible. I'm saying, they're grossly overrated. TDK series especially. As said, if we're stating what the VIEWERS/critics say? Man Of Steel is an "okay" movie on that note then. We both know that isn't true, by any means.

To be fair, I enjoyed DC's older movies than their newer.

@redlantern23
Should already look at your name and expect some kind of biased argument, but whatever. I'll bite.

1. The hell he was. B-List was Flash, not Iron Man. Household name at the time? Definitely was. Was he brought up as much? No. But people definitely knew who Iron Man was.

2. Oh, cry some more. DC being DC means they won't give more than one shot for any character, and they rather stick to their big names, and that being it. Only putting their top known characters in everything, instead of trying to properly build up lower ones. Let me give an example.

In UMvC3, Marvel chose alot of lesser known characters for people to get a taste of. Such as Nova. Who also played a good part in the Spider-Man cartoon, to hopefully build up his popularity. Characters like Deadpool are getting to that point, by featuring him in different things and getting people into him, which make people want to check out the comics. With NO offense to DC, when was the last time they really tried that?

3. "Awful Ghost Rider movies." Hey, at least it looked nice, and Ghost Rider himself worked out prettty well. The other scenes? Nope. But as said least Ghost Rider had some pretty nice looking scenes. As for Elektra, I thought it was a summer action movie. Nothing impressive. Green Lantern was the bigger let down because of the character it was about. People were waiting for that, for a LONG time. And that disapointmen came out. Oh yes, let's use that one example on Marvel DARE doing a twist to it. They never SHOT down the character, they shot down the character in that movie. People don't grasp that.

4. "It's quality speaks for itself." Lots of action, make it really dark looking, have Batman talk like he has shit in his mouth, and get it's main popularity from the death of Heath Ledger [And no disrespect to him with that.]. Give me a damn break, the series took of at The Dark Knight for that exact reason.

5. Lol, that biased comment. I wouldn't really expect you to know differently. Funny enough, most of their movies still do well enough to justify sequels. They didn't have the misfortune of an actor dieing to help boost their movies, and that's not an insult.

Again, keep your tears flowing champ.

@redlantern23:

When you say half of Marvel movies suck, are you talking about Marvel movies produced by Marvel Studios or just all comic book movies based off of Marvel characters?

@sideburnguru:

1. If you think Iron Man was as well known as Superman, Spiderman, and Batman before his movies you straight up do not know what you are talking about. There's no other way around it. Show someone's grandma the Superman S or ask who Batman is, they would know. Find me someone who DOESNT know who Superman is. An almost impossible task. If you REALLy think the same can be said for Iron Man before 2007, you are delusional or just plain stubborn.

2. In what way does DC give their characters "one shot?" I dont understand your point.

3. First you said Green Lantern was the worst comic book movie ever. Now its just the most disappointing. Which one is it? I'm not defending the movie, i just know there are way worse ones that have been made. I like how GL was this awful p.o.s. but Elektra was a "summer action movie" Give me a break. Your bias is showing.

Its also funny how you criticise TDK for changing the story, but Iron Man its "taking a risk" Be consistent with your opinion.

4. Is having a "dark looking" Batman movie supposed to be some kind of bad thing? Duh, its Batman. I wouldnt expect anything less. Better than "hey, lets have Robert Downey Jr make stupid quips for 90 minutes and have Pepper Potts whine that she never sees him"

5. Like I said, you're a small percentage who dislikes the films. Make up whatever lame reason you think the film is successful. Its not true. Its successful because ut was good.

@wolverine08: Movies based on Marvel characters

@redlantern23: The biased DC fanboy replies yet again with more "biased" insults. That's cute.

1. Never said he was on that level. I'm saying, he was definitely a well know name OUTSIDE of comic book fans. Your stubborness is showing. I know, it would probably kill you to admit that there are Marvel characters who are just as known as DC characters. DC fanboys try to deny that constantly. It's okay.

2. One shot, as in if they don't succeed from that one shot, they get shelfed behind Batman or Superman. Technically, you nailed my point. "SUPERMAN and BATMAN." Has been DC's two big characters that they always rely on, while Marvel has how many built up again? Yeah, actually you really did just prove my point for me.

3. Okay, so let me get this straight. I said it was the most disapointing comic book movie. Which should suggest it's the worst as well, I never changed that up. Also, no one was really looking foward to Elektra as they were Green Lantern. Green Lantern IS a bigger character than Elektra, and the movie for Green Lantern was hyped up for how long? It comes out, and it's a terrible p.o.s. I feel like Elektra was just a quick money grab for Daredevil, and it's not like people were getting as hype for the Elektra movie as they were Green Lantern. Also, not like yours isn't, bud.

Keep on trying to praise DC but not giving any credit to Marvel, then calling me biased. Lol, okay. Also, again. I'll try to break it down on your level, okay?

When I said, IM3 did it as a twist, they didn't completely shoot down The Mandarian. Did they do it for that movie? Yes. If you remember when the actor is talking, he says "He's not The Mandarian." He stutters a bit, making it seem like there IS a mandarian, but he's not that guy. He doesn't KNOW if that guy exsists. Remember, we could EASILY see a sequel mentioning him. TDK changed the characters completely, and it wasn't as a twist. It just didn't follow the comics. It also pretty much shot down any kind of thought there could be alternate versions of the characters.

4. Overly dark. As in, to the point where it seems like a Hot Topic goth fest. Gotham City didn't even resemble Gotham City for the most part. It resemebled New York. Hell, Gotham City should've been alot more lively with alot more lights as it's represented in the animated series, and the comics. In the movie.. it's just a dead New York.

Look at that other biased statement. Rather watch Iron Man, than The Dark Bore. Oh, and let's talk about some absurd things. How about that genius Dark Knight Rises? Where we barely get Batman, we get ALOT of Bruce Wayne, we make Bane look like a complete opposite of what we see in the comics, or how he acts. Let's leave so many plot holes in, like how Batman gets to the other side of the world for Gotham from that hole. No, you can't critize movies if you think TDKR was a better movie. I wouldn't expect that to get through your biased mind though.

5. Yeah, you keep trying to deny that The Dark Knight only succeeded because of Heath's death. Amazingly, the movie did better than the first one and the third one. The first one.. didn't even do that spectacular did it? The Dark Knight did. Gee, I wonder why it took off more than the first one.

On a seperate note, with some of your comments? You're the last person to call anyone biased. I own just as much Marvel as I do DC.

I just know DC fanboys will take jabs at Marvel all the time on this site. So why not join the other side?


@batmannflash
Keep making ASSumptions there, bud. Yeah, I mean I definitely don't like DC.

Forget the fact I post more about DC, and my damn background on my profile is a DC CHARACTER. I definitely don't like DC. Tots.

@sideburnguru: Please, cry and say the word biased 10 more times. Its funny, you think I'm biased simply from my username. I collect equal amounts of Marvel and DC as well. I've seen every modern movie both DC and Marvel have put out, as well as most of the older ones. I'm no fanboy. I just think your claims are idiotic and far fetched.

1. Nice backtrack once again. First you say Iron Man was a household name. Now he is just well known. Not the same thing at all. And I think you need glasses, because clearly you are having trouble reading. I said SPIDER MAN along with Superman and Batman as the biggest names didnt I? Last time I checked, Spider Man is Marvel right? But oh no! I'm just an evil DC fanboy out to destroy Marvel!

2. Where are these occurences of DC giving characters one shot? Give specific examples. Oh wait, there are none. The only modern DC movie besides Batman/Supes is Green Lantern, and sequel/reboot rumors are starting to swirl.

3. Worst movie is not the same as most disapointing. At all. Green Lantern was a better movie than Elektra. Bottom line. No matter what lame excuse you bring up to justify it. Moving on.

And my god are you reaching for the Mandirin. He stuttered? So there MIGHT ve a real Mandirin? Besides, you cant speak for what MIGHT happen. As of now, the Mandirin is a drunk idiot actor, nothing else. The Extremis guy ADMITS the Mandirin was a ploy, a cover up! Plain as day. As for TDK, the director was going for a realistic approach and he nailed it. Oh no, Bane wasnt a giant monster but his character was still amazing! Wahhhhh!

4. Keep reaching champ. God forbid a comic movie have a serious tone meant for someone over the age of 14.

5. TDKR is still one of the top grossing comic book movies of all time. It didnt do better than TDK, but since when does that matter? TDKR still is critically acclaimed, and Heath wasn't in the movie. Your arguement holds no weight.

@redlantern23:
Talk about crying. You're definitely not biased. It's not like you only supported DC through this whole argu- oh wait.

1. I still think he's a household name, and was. As BIG as Superman? No. But I still believe he was a household name. Before you start to get sarcastic, maybe YOU should put on some glasses.

2. I meant in comics too. Swamp Thing? You know, the guy in your cover? Who they tried to push for a bit, then they suddenly just dropped him. Or how about Lobo? Huge in the 90s, then they suddenly dropped him to push Superman and Batman? Yeah... How about that Wonder Woman movie that never happened? Hey, forget that. Let's just give Batman a whole bunch of movies.

3. Grow up. "I'm right, you're wrong.". Green Lantern had higher expectations, and it failed completely. Not like anyone was expecting tons of stuff from Elektra. I meant, it was the most disapointing, which to me was also the worst due to it being the most disapointing. Again though, you apparently have no idea what an opinion is. So again, as I said the first time. Grow up.

"Was still amazing." Oh totally. He put Bruce in a cave that he easily escaped from, and he got wiped out by Cat Woman. Watch out, your fanboyism is showing.

He mentioned that HIS Mandarian was a ploy. Yeah, we can speak for what MIGHT happened, since they never COMPLETELY debunked it. Hell, that drunk idiot actor was more entertaining than that poor excuse of a Catwoman we got in TDKR anyway.

4. What the hell did any of that have to do with a serious tone?

5. Lol. So, yeah. I did some searching. Funny enough, The Avengers and Iron Man are nearly right up there with The Dark Knight when it comes to reviews. Both of those movies did far better than the first of the triliogy and the last. It was hardly "critically acclaimed."

So yeah, I think it's pretty safe to say the second one, The Dark Knight, only did so well for ONE reason. Heath. Keep crying.

@sideburnguru:

You're doing the SAME thing with Marvel. What a hypocrite.

1. You must have a very very very low standard for what is considered a household name.

2. What exactly do comics have to do with it? We were discussing film. And the fact is, DC has never gave a character "one shot" when it comes to films. I dont know what you meant by the Swamp Thing comment. He's doing just fine.

3. Quit trying to beat around the bush. You've made a handful of excuses for a horrible movie because you're too stubborn to admit you're wrong. Forget expectations. Forget the motive for the film being made. As a film, Green Lantern is better than Elektra, and a few other comic films. By no means the worst.

4. So you're saying Iron Man has he same tone and setting as The Dark Knight?

5. The Dark Knight trilogy has an average RT score of almost 89, with no title getting lower than 85. The Iron Man trilogy has an 81 average with only one title getting higher than an 80. Phase 1 of the MCU, aka all the Avengers movies, have an average score of almost 80, with 5 of the 7 titles getting lower than 80. So yeah, The Dark Knight is critically acclaimed. Batman Begins got pretty positive reviews (better than 5 of the 7 phase one films) And Ledger wasnt in it. You're grasping at straws. Please, throw more of your lame opinions at me.

@redlantern23:
1. Keep crying.

2. One oppritunity. Then they dropped him out of the main stream. I was talking about comics on that selection, but hey if you want to go to film. Could we also mention how only the BIG names are shown in the movies? Never lesser known characters. Y'know, Grundy or Killer Croc. While.. again, y'know. Marvel throws out Abombination, The Lizard, going to be putting The Vulture in, Captain America is going to be focusing on Bucky. Guess that's for another argument.

You know, the.. who can build up characters and give their lesser known character movie spots argument.

3. Grow a pair. And yeah, coming from you, you can't tell anyone "You can't admit your wrong.". I didn't have much expectations for Elektra, I don't feel as though anyone did. People were pumped for Green Lantern, it was shit. I'd put it as the worst. In competiton with Howard The Duck, if that counts. But hell, at least Howard The Duck showed the character for all it can be.

4. The first one? No. It had it's serious moments, but it also realized it was a comic book movie and had fun with that.

5. "Almost 89." Good to know you throw numbers out there. Again, my argument was this: Dark Knight was the movie that exceled in high rating. Please, if I really wanted to make you look like the lame DC fanboy, I could just use the whole argument, that the only reason the sequel got any kind of justice, is because of what it's the sequel to. HEATH LEDGER'S big movie. Guarnteed, Heath Ledger didn't die? That movie wouldn't have done jack shit.

But don't worry, it's always good to know the only success DC ever has with movies is Batman. Since.. that's the only character that went over will "CRITICALLY" in the DC Movieverse. I'll give you a fun game. Without.. or hell, even with counting The Dark Knight, go and compare all the reviews with all DC's movies, then with Marvel's movies. At least Marvel TENDS to stay on the positive [Counting out Ghost Rider, and Elektral] even if they didn't go over 100 percent positive. I don't see DC having that luck.

I won't burst your poor little DC fanboy heart though. You keep helping onto that Batman rope. On that note, I did enjoy Man Of Steel, Watchmen, and Jonah Hex [Somewhat. VERY BIG somewhat.]

Too bad since you like to use the "critically acclaim" argument, none of those did better than most of Marvel's movies.

@sideburnguru:

1. Keep up with those great counter points ;)

2. How is he dropped out the mainstream? His comic is still going strong, and getting good reviews for that matter. Are you just pulling random garbage out of nowhere because it sounds cool?

3. Once again, failed expectations are not the same as an overall bad movie. And by the way, saying GL is worse than whatever obsure movie you bring up isnt helping you at all. it just makes you look stupid. "hurrr Dat shaq movie wuz better than green lantern!!!1" You're nothing but a troll at this point. Its kind of pathetic actually.

4. Aka targeted at children and young teens. Marvel goes for mass appeal.

5. 88.8 if you want the exact number :) I rounded up on all the numbers to be fair. Seriously, thats the thing you chose to pick out of my arguement? How desperate. And once again, Batman Begins was just as well received critically as TDKR. No Heath Ledger in that movie. Your point is invalid.

And considering DC hasnt made many modern comic films, they have to small of a sample size to really judge properly. There's no point in arguing with you anymore. Keep being a Marvel fangirl though.