With great respect, I somewhat beg to differ. Marvel films capture part of what Marvel comics do, but DC has and will always be very different. If you consider films like the Dark Knight trilogy, then I see what you mean (but I don't really like them as comic-book films any more), but pretty much every other DC film has captured the element of at least part of the respective source material; even Green Lantern was a brilliant translation of the silver age stories, and Watchmen couldn't really be more like the graphic novel (until the end, I guess).
Man of Steel, I personally think, deals with its influence and source material better than any other comic-book film in the past few years (with the possible exception of Dredd, which I retain is the best comic-book adaption we've seen so far) - the subtle influence from stories like All-Star Superman in MOS is nuanced and unpronounced, but exists only to aid a coherent and extensive emotional realism in an otherwise original narrative... which has yet to be seen in the larger-than-life displays of money and vanity that Disney churn out at an excessive rate.
What I take issue in is how Marvel films are becoming a genre, which the general public are misappropriating with comic-book films. I mean, they exist as a definite and strong subset of comic-book films, but they should never be considered a good substitute for the other 90% of the medium's potential. If people are so desperate to see comic-books 'come to life', why don't more people actually read comics? We need more original stories to balance out this, like adaptations of more Vertigo Comics and golden age properties.
I don't want it to appear as if I'm taking issue in what you're saying, but I just don't want to see the medium be limited by the public's accepting of stereo-types and colossal misappropriations, with I think Marvel studios aren't helping with.... and I certainly don't want comic-book films for the sake of it.