For the record, what Whedon was saying wasn't that the DC characters are too large. He was saying that it's difficult to get a collection of people all with their own personalities and identities to mesh together as a single unit and that DC would have harder time of this because their characters are essentially larger than us. Their motives are harder to understand. Marvel has characters whose motives you can play on because they're ones we can comprehend and realize how they mesh together because they are that human and we can bring that chemistry on to the screen and let them play off of that.

Basically the difference between Marvel characters and DC characters? Marvel Characters are people who happen to be heroes, that makes them easier to write because they're coming from a place we understand them. DC characters are the inverse. They're heroes who happen to be people. It's not about them being down to earth or relatable. Marvel characters have a face. I'll be honest I'm more prone to think of Spider-Man as Peter Parker, and Bruce Banner instead of Hulk and Tony Stark instead of Iron Man. But when I see a DC character... it's always the Symbol. Superman is Superman. Batman is Batman, Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman, Green Lantern is Green Lantern, the Flash is the Flash.

For the record, what Whedon was saying wasn't that the DC characters are too large. He was saying that it's difficult to get a collection of people all with their own personalities and identities to mesh together as a single unit and that DC would have harder time of this because their characters are essentially larger than us. Their motives are harder to understand. Marvel has characters whose motives you can play on because they're ones we can comprehend and realize how they mesh together because they are that human and we can bring that chemistry on to the screen and let them play off of that.

Basically the difference between Marvel characters and DC characters? Marvel Characters are people who happen to be heroes, that makes them easier to write because they're coming from a place we understand them. DC characters are the inverse. They're heroes who happen to be people. It's not about them being down to earth or relatable. Marvel characters have a face. I'll be honest I'm more prone to think of Spider-Man as Peter Parker, and Bruce Banner instead of Hulk and Tony Stark instead of Iron Man. But when I see a DC character... it's always the Symbol. Superman is Superman. Batman is Batman, Wonder Woman is Wonder Woman, Green Lantern is Green Lantern, the Flash is the Flash.

@RainEffect said:

@cattlebattle said:

STFU Whedon....your not that great..

You're*

Also, the Avengers dominance at the Box Office and overwhelmingly positive critical reception beg to differ.

hahahhaha pwned,

@cattlebattle said:

@RainEffect said:

@cattlebattle said:

STFU Whedon....your not that great..

You're*

Also, the Avengers dominance at the Box Office and overwhelmingly positive critical reception beg to differ.

1. We are not in grammar class ...so who gives a crap2 Avatar also has amazing box office numbers...doesn't mean its a master piece 3.Bias is obvious from your avatar

who has a grammar class?

@Manwhohaseverything: Yes. Why does a princess of a pretty much utopian society risk her safety and welfare for random people? Why would she leave her island to join up with the Justice League and how does her ideals, which supports killing when necessary, mesh with the ideals of Superman or Batman who think killing is wrong and strive never to cross that line. Or why does the alien from another world with powers beyond all of humanity who spends his whole life "trying" to fit in then immediately go out to put on a suit and rise himself above humanity and turn himself into an icon of fame and stardom. Why does a man who started his mission with the concept of avenging his parents and being a lone wolf against the forces of the night join up with a team of characters whose powers mean that they should be fighting threats far beyond anything he could handle making him essentially useless. Why does the aloof alien from the.... wait I feel like.. oh right not Superman. Why does the aloof alien who is so far removed from humanity and knows it make such efforts to protect it. The Green Lantern is the only one who logically makes sense in this enviroment as he's basically just a police officer with super powers.

You'd need a threat so great as to force these people to join together, form a team, work through the differences in their personalities and function as a unit and that's not easy to do. Think about it, DC has spent alot of time trying to convey the Humanity of Superman. The dark struggles of morality for Batman. Etc. They have larger than life personalities that make them harder to capture as characters. And those personalities don't necessarily coalesce. Transpose those with the characters in the Avengers. Black Widow is a russian super spy who is dragged in primarily because Hawkeye is in trouble, Bruce just wants to be left alone with his curse but can't resist the puzzle, Stark is an arrogant jerk primarily intersted in his self who gets talked into it, Captain America is a soldier and a man removed from his time fighting for his country, Thor is in it to put down his evil brother. These are all easy motivations and puts them all on a common goal, to stop Loki, and even then making this unit look like a real unit of people and presenting them as characters and everything is still a difficult task to achieve and it's twice as hard with characters whose personalities are larger than life. Who are walking ideals of Justice, of Truth, of Hope. Etc. They have higher expectations to adhere. Where as the Avengers, the only people who'd complain are people familiar with the characters and fans of them, even casual fans and people who don't read comics have been introduced to the JLA characters. They have higher expectations.

@Manwhohaseverything: I concur for the most part. I think Whedon meant that, the characters of the Justice League are larger than life. They're epic iconic characters. Even for people who aren't into comics, most people know Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Some might even recognize Green Lantern and Flash. But those three have personalities and expectations larger than life. It's where Marvel differes. Short of X-Men and Spiderman and the Fantastic Four, there's no real household names. They pretty much only exist to comic fans. That's where Whedon and by proxy all the people in the Marvel Movies have an advantage. They can make the characters appeal to you because you can see yourself in them. Admitedly, it's not the only way to approach it. DC characters face different challenges, they're essentially Gods struggling to find the humanity in themselves. They're Icons. He's essentiallysaying "It's hard enough to make a movie with a bunch of characters and make it appeal and make sure people understand how different these characters are etc., But when you have the larger than life icons, it becomes even harder." He's not saying his way is the best way to do it, he's basically saying, "I know the burden they're facing and it's going to be even harder because of just the scope of the characters." People are reading it like it's ego. He's actually paying a compliment here saying "This is a big burden, bigger even then the one I had putting the Avengers together." I think we can all agree to that.

My personal opinion at least from how the article reads.

@DangerousLoki said:

@Manwhohaseverything: I concur for the most part. I think Whedon meant that, the characters of the Justice League are larger than life. They're epic iconic characters. Even for people who aren't into comics, most people know Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Some might even recognize Green Lantern and Flash. But those three have personalities and expectations larger than life. It's where Marvel differes. Short of X-Men and Spiderman and the Fantastic Four, there's no real household names. They pretty much only exist to comic fans. That's where Whedon and by proxy all the people in the Marvel Movies have an advantage. They can make the characters appeal to you because you can see yourself in them. Admitedly, it's not the only way to approach it. DC characters face different challenges, they're essentially Gods struggling to find the humanity in themselves. They're Icons. He's essentiallysaying "It's hard enough to make a movie with a bunch of characters and make it appeal and make sure people understand how different these characters are etc., But when you have the larger than life icons, it becomes even harder." He's not saying his way is the best way to do it, he's basically saying, "I know the burden they're facing and it's going to be even harder because of just the scope of the characters." People are reading it like it's ego. He's actually paying a compliment here saying "This is a big burden, bigger even then the one I had putting the Avengers together." I think we can all agree to that.

My personal opinion at least from how the article reads.

The other problem is that these character have goals beyond the goal of your average human. We can relate to "stop brother" or "fight for country" or "save lover." It's a lot harder to relate to "stop giant asteroid" or "save world." Also with a lot of the DC heroes, there's more of a power gap (my personal theory on why Batman is so popular). With someone like Thor: he hits super hard and can take a licking, he has a weapon, he can fly, he can summon lightning. That's more or less it, and except for the summoning lightning those are more or less things you can envision yourself doing with the right training/tech and he's one of the more powered Avengers. Compare it to superman: they can both hit hard, fly, and take a licking, but superman also has the laser vision, not only can he hit hard he can make coal into a diamond, he has super speed, super senses, and there may be more about him. His powers are beyond our comprehension. We may be able to imagine what it's like to be Thor, but not Superman. This is even more so the case with Hulk: he has the super strength and endurance, but he feels more powerful when he loses his temper and can't control himself when he's angry: that's incredibly human! I may be wrong, but it seems like the Marvel guys are less "punch a guy into space" than some of the DC ones.

However, their humanness also makes the team more believable. Why would Superman have to team up with anyone baring Kryptonite? Why would he team up with the JLA instead of Power Girl or Super Girl? I don't really know the answer to either of those questions. Why would Thor team up with Hulk instead of someone from Asguard? Well, Hulk is a lot stronger, but Bruce Banner might need Thor's help because Hulk is uncontrollable. You buy the fact that the Avengers need each other for stuff on a human scale. In addition, the Avengers are allowed to be pettier. Captain America can hate Tony Stark and we sympathize with that! When the Justice League has skirmishes, it's kind of half-hearted. The characters are too idealized to the point where we don't believe there would ever be much personality conflict. They also seem to be on different power levels. Superman is Superman and he can do anything; Flash and Green Lantern seem to be kind of run of the mill heroes: a few things they excel at, but are generally relatable supers; then Batman is super relatable because he's a glorified ninja without any real powers. Most of the Marvel guys seem to be about on par with Flash and Green Lantern: they have a few things they each do really well, but not everything. (Even their "underpowered" members: Hawkeye and Black Widow have very unique, individual roles they excel at: they're the special teams of the superhero world.) If you take Iron Man or Captain America as the Superman equivalent (heavy hitters, somewhat leaders, very iconic, etc.) the disparity between them is huge. Tony Stark is nothing without his suit which can run out of juice, you can break parts of it, etc. Captain America can't fly and the only distance attack he has is the shield throwing. He also seems like he has more the strength of 5-10 guys as opposed to 50-100.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it's a lot harder to wrangle the JLA and make it work compared to Avengers. JLA just comes with a lot more potential problems. I have a feeling that it works better in terms of universal context (e.g. not having to work in Asgard), but that sort of thing is also easier to handwave while the audience is absorbed in the movie.

@cattlebattle said:

STFU Whedon....your not that great..

O_O Actually aside from avengers when a man who knows how to write characters who have depth and development then yes he is that great. Joss writes relatable characters had 2 successful 1 semi successful show shows 1 cult classic show that spawned a movie after being cancelled and has various praise in comics, helped to or scripted quite a few movies O_O

His body of work is pretty solid for one guy when it comes to scripting things. Also joss is self deprecating and never says he's great but offers advice when he knows you have a difficult task ahead in terms of live action adaptations

@cellot said:

The other problem is that these character have goals beyond the goal of your average human. We can relate to "stop brother" or "fight for country" or "save lover." It's a lot harder to relate to "stop giant asteroid" or "save world." Also with a lot of the DC heroes, there's more of a power gap (my personal theory on why Batman is so popular). With someone like Thor: he hits super hard and can take a licking, he has a weapon, he can fly, he can summon lightning. That's more or less it, and except for the summoning lightning those are more or less things you can envision yourself doing with the right training/tech and he's one of the more powered Avengers. Compare it to superman: they can both hit hard, fly, and take a licking, but superman also has the laser vision, not only can he hit hard he can make coal into a diamond, he has super speed, super senses, and there may be more about him. His powers are beyond our comprehension. We may be able to imagine what it's like to be Thor, but not Superman. This is even more so the case with Hulk: he has the super strength and endurance, but he feels more powerful when he loses his temper and can't control himself when he's angry: that's incredibly human! I may be wrong, but it seems like the Marvel guys are less "punch a guy into space" than some of the DC ones.

I really don't understand this line of thinking. Why can't "Save brother", "Fight for your country" or "Save lover" be applied to DC heroes? People seem to be under the impression that the motivations for the Avengers were all intrinsic to the characters themselves. They're not. They're all provided by the movie. The same can easilly be done for Justice League. You want relatable, human characters? Write them doing human things. Don't instantly back them into a corner with stopping asteroid and saving the world. Honestly, I find the whole relatability of Marvel compared to DC hilariosly overblown. DC characters have plenty of humanity in them to be exploited for the movie.

And from a guy who thinks a Justice League movie should never ever happen.

@AtPhantom said:

@cellot said:

The other problem is that these character have goals beyond the goal of your average human. We can relate to "stop brother" or "fight for country" or "save lover." It's a lot harder to relate to "stop giant asteroid" or "save world." Also with a lot of the DC heroes, there's more of a power gap (my personal theory on why Batman is so popular). With someone like Thor: he hits super hard and can take a licking, he has a weapon, he can fly, he can summon lightning. That's more or less it, and except for the summoning lightning those are more or less things you can envision yourself doing with the right training/tech and he's one of the more powered Avengers. Compare it to superman: they can both hit hard, fly, and take a licking, but superman also has the laser vision, not only can he hit hard he can make coal into a diamond, he has super speed, super senses, and there may be more about him. His powers are beyond our comprehension. We may be able to imagine what it's like to be Thor, but not Superman. This is even more so the case with Hulk: he has the super strength and endurance, but he feels more powerful when he loses his temper and can't control himself when he's angry: that's incredibly human! I may be wrong, but it seems like the Marvel guys are less "punch a guy into space" than some of the DC ones.

I really don't understand this line of thinking. Why can't "Save brother", "Fight for your country" or "Save lover" be applied to DC heroes? People seem to be under the impression that the motivations for the Avengers were all intrinsic to the characters themselves. They're not. They're all provided by the movie. The same can easilly be done for Justice League. You want relatable, human characters? Write them doing human things. Don't instantly back them into a corner with stopping asteroid and saving the world. Honestly, I find the whole relatability of Marvel compared to DC hilariosly overblown. DC characters have plenty of humanity in them to be exploited for the movie.

And from a guy who thinks a Justice League movie should never ever happen.

Thank you! I'm sick of people simply falling back on Marvel is more relatable without having bothered to read a single DC comic. Your point is also really good. Captain Atom is a guy who fights for his country, for instance.

And if they had simply brought the Marvel characters to the screen directly the way they were in the comics, there would be a bunch of complaints about how stiff and unrelatable they are. If a movie like Justice League is made, they are going to change things up, like they did in Avengers.

@Manwhohaseverything said:

@cellot: Can't agree with your Thor assesment. He's as versatile a character as there is, and who would win if Supes and Thor slugged it out is highly debatable. (All I know is whoever won would not be doing it "curbstomp" style.) And..he's a God, he's Immortal. If the Legion of Super-heroes is to be believed, Superman is not. Come the 31st century, he's not out there with Ultra Boy and Mon-el stopping the Dominators and all that. After 30+ years of reading comics from both companies, I just don't see a huge difference between the two. I even have heard it said Thor was created as Marvel's answer to Superman. Granted, I don't know if that's true or not.

Granted Thor needs to eat the apples of Idunn to stay immortal, and I still think Supes would beat him, but definitely not in a curbstomp.

@AtPhantom: You're right, they could have more human motives for JLA, but it's more difficult to wrangle. You can't just have the villain kidnap Lois, and Alfred, and whoever all else is there and have it work as well. In addition, a lot of the characters have become larger than life. However, that still only addresses one of the myriad of issues. While we can believe that it would work better for Batman to call on Superman, it's difficult to envision a situation where Superman would need to call on Bats or the rest of the team other than giant asteriod/eater of worlds.

@Manwhohaseverything: While Thor may be close to superman's level there's a major difference there too: Thor is a Norse god which is a much more human standard for behavior than Superman. Thor can be an immature meathead. In addition, there seems to be a disparity of scale. Thor is definitely super, but I get his strength as more of 10-20 men strong, as oppose to Superman who's closer to 100. Maybe that's just my ignorance of the source material, and I'm willing to admit that, but the 10-20 men strength is a lot more comprehendible. Even if Thor is a match for Superman in terms of power, he is not of the upstanding moral character Superman is. (That's not to say that Thor is immoral, but more he has a temper, he's prone to getting in fights, he's often outwitted by Loki at least, and he's proud.) Those flaws do make him a lot more human.

@batmanary: It's great that Captain Atom might have a relatable motivation, but they've got to wrangle Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman minimum. The Marvel character may be just as over-powered in the comics (at least some of them), but their identities aren't tied to that in the same way Superman's is. You don't have to be a huge Superman fan to expect him to be over-powered as heck: that's the basic definition of who Superman is along with upstanding moral character. That may be why Smallville was so successful: it was a great excuse to strip Clark Kent of some of his powers and moral character (teens make mistakes, have different priorities, etc.) and make him more relatable.

@cellot said:

@AtPhantom: You're right, they could have more human motives for JLA, but it's more difficult to wrangle. You can't just have the villain kidnap Lois, and Alfred, and whoever all else is there and have it work as well. In addition, a lot of the characters have become larger than life. However, that still only addresses one of the myriad of issues. While we can believe that it would work better for Batman to call on Superman, it's difficult to envision a situation where Superman would need to call on Bats or the rest of the team other than giant asteriod/eater of worlds.

You could say the same about Hulk or Thor. Had they been presented as their comicbook counterparts, they would have soloed the whole goddamn invasion fleet and hauld Loki's ass back to Asgard in the first half an hour. That's why you adapt characters. A perfect example of this was the Justice League cartoon. In it Superman is clearly the most powerful member of the League, but still not powerful enough to solo everything, and the rest of the team is clearly needed because Superman can't do it alone. Superman doesn't need to be able to do it alone. And hinestly, there have been dozens of stories where Superman cannot do it alone and has to call on others. Being larger than life doesn't mean you have to be prohibitively powerful.

@cellot said:

@AtPhantom: You're right, they could have more human motives for JLA, but it's more difficult to wrangle. You can't just have the villain kidnap Lois, and Alfred, and whoever all else is there and have it work as well. In addition, a lot of the characters have become larger than life. However, that still only addresses one of the myriad of issues. While we can believe that it would work better for Batman to call on Superman, it's difficult to envision a situation where Superman would need to call on Bats or the rest of the team other than giant asteriod/eater of worlds.

@Manwhohaseverything: While Thor may be close to superman's level there's a major difference there too: Thor is a Norse god which is a much more human standard for behavior than Superman. Thor can be an immature meathead. In addition, there seems to be a disparity of scale. Thor is definitely super, but I get his strength as more of 10-20 men strong, as oppose to Superman who's closer to 100. Maybe that's just my ignorance of the source material, and I'm willing to admit that, but the 10-20 men strength is a lot more comprehendible. Even if Thor is a match for Superman in terms of power, he is not of the upstanding moral character Superman is. (That's not to say that Thor is immoral, but more he has a temper, he's prone to getting in fights, he's often outwitted by Loki at least, and he's proud.) Those flaws do make him a lot more human.

@batmanary: It's great that Captain Atom might have a relatable motivation, but they've got to wrangle Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman minimum. The Marvel character may be just as over-powered in the comics (at least some of them), but their identities aren't tied to that in the same way Superman's is. You don't have to be a huge Superman fan to expect him to be over-powered as heck: that's the basic definition of who Superman is along with upstanding moral character. That may be why Smallville was so successful: it was a great excuse to strip Clark Kent of some of his powers and moral character (teens make mistakes, have different priorities, etc.) and make him more relatable.

They actually have wrangled Superman, at least in Action Comics....

@BlueLantern1995 said:

@moywar700 said:

This came out weeks ago and his quote has really been bugging me because I don't think what he said was right. John said , "Call me," jokes Whedon. "It's enormously difficult to take very disparate characters and make them work. DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from an old, bygone era where characters were bigger than we were. Marvel really cracked the code in terms of ‘Oh, they're just like us.’".He was giving advice on how to make a good Justice League movie. He said that DC characters were bigger than they were? I guess he hasn't read the Dark Phoenix Saga or Secret Wars.Marvel Characters are sometimes bigger than themselves and this wasn't really fair judgement.I think when he said "DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from an old, bygone era where characters were bigger than", he was talking about the silver age but that was decades ago though and the DC characters are more modern. Just my thoughts here.

What he was saying is that they were based off of something that was bigger than life and that it still has the effects today...and I can see what he is saying. Just look at their powers...they are way beyond most beings. I personally agree with this...You state Dark Phoenix Saga and Secret Wars as examples from Marvel but yet can you state a few more? DC has trillions of these in fact their are more of these than their are not(from recollection...could be wrong) Most of DC's greatest villains are other worldly...To name the 3 biggest: Darkseid, Brainiac, and Despero...but their are groups like the Reach, White Martians etc. In Fact most of the good stories could never happen because most of them are of invasions. DC is better in comics than Marvel but has never in the Live Action Movie realm...perhaps this is due to their strengths...Marvel has always been for the average joe. DC hasn't...name one big time superhero from DC that is a average joe...I dare ya.

Kyle Raynor was big time for a while. Wally West was big time for for an even longer while. Those are both pretty run of the mill dudes and they both got as "big time" a status as anyone at DC (below the trinity of course).

DC fans want it both ways. Superman is the most powerful creation in the history of comics; he also is an average joe? Doesn't work that way. For a Justice League movie to work DC fans have to take their heroes off a pedestal. Superman can't sundip, Batman can't prep for everything, Flash can't be faster than thought. You have to let go of the GODLY conceptions you have for your heroes and let them be flawed. I personally believe that the heroes are already flawed and that doesn't detract me from them at all. But, for some they would rather hold on to the preconceived aspirations for grandeur with a vice-like grip and have the character suffer for it.

Making a JLA movie is hard and I can't see it happening.