Who has made the better movies, Marvel or DC?

The Comic Board - Collecting, Buy, Sell, Trade & Comic News, Reviews & Discussion

Help Support The Comic Board:

The Overlord

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Who has made the better movies, Marvel or DC? Do you think Marvel and DC have anything to learn from each other in terms of making movies?
 
they've both had good and bad movies.

DC has had better DTV animated movies though, hands down. They've also done a better job getting out their less mainstream properties (RED, V for Vendetta).
 
I'll get the fire extinguishers.....

honestly i find non big-two movies to have a better track record than either of them. I've enjoyed Marvel movies more, mostly I imagine because I enjoy marvel characters more in general. But DC's done better with Batman alone than any other comics franchise out there
 
Talking exclusively about the modern era(post-Blade in 1998 ), Marvel by a longshot. DC has the two Batman films, V For Vendetta, and has arguably not made a good live-action movie otherwise(and yes I'm counting RED).

With the exception of Ghost Rider, the first Hulk, Wolverine Origins and the second Punisher, I think everything Marvel's done has been at least "good" and usually great. Thor vs Green Lantern is a good illustration of how Marvel just "gets it" compared to non-Nolan DC.

(edit - but this thread? Really?)
 
Last edited:
I think it's a toss up. While Marvel has certainly made A LOT more movies than DC, I would say that a lot of them are mediocre or poor. You can make a strong argument that either is right. If you were asking all time, it would be DC. If you were talking the "modern period", I would say Marvel. It's fairly close though.
 
they've both had good and bad movies.

DC has had better DTV animated movies though, hands down. They've also done a better job getting out their less mainstream properties (RED, V for Vendetta).

Er, no. Mervel made movies with less mainstream heroes, while DC just sticks with Batman and Superman.

But Marvel has made better movies than DC.

I mean, DC made Catwoman, even Wolverine:Origins is better than Cawoman. DC also Made Batman forever.

So yeah, i'd give this to Marvel.
 
I think that Marvel has made more good movies than DC with X-Men, X2, First Class, the first two Spider-Man movies and the Avengers movies. DC, however, made the best comic book movie with the Dark Knight as well as solid efforts from Batman Begins, Superman Returns, V for Vendetta, Watchmen, and Constantine (if we're not counting Superman 1 and 2). Overall I think they've both done a pretty good job at making their characters come to life. Of course I think Marvel has a much easier time as they've got more relatable and (comic book wise) more realistic characters to put out there while DC is dealing with some very outlandish concepts.
 
I agree with everything Bluebeast said except for Constantine being a solid effort.
 
Er, no. Mervel made movies with less mainstream heroes, while DC just sticks with Batman and Superman.

yeah, Marvel has used their less well known Superheroes more than DC has. But that's not what I meant. DC has skipped all of their B-List heroes (or whatever you want to call the Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern up until recently, etc), but instead, they've put out movies based on Vertigo, Wildstorm, and Paradox.

the average person may not have known much about Thor or Iron Man going into the movies, but they probably at least knew they were watching a Marvel film, but I doubt most people knew that a History of Violence, Constantine, RED, The Losers, Stardust, etc were DC movies at all.
 
I've enjoyed the Marvel movies I've seen more than the DC ones I've seen. But Batman Begins and Dark Knight almost make up for it, helped by the major crappiness of Spider-Man 3 (seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen) and X-Men 3.
 
Drunken Pickle said:
the "dark" montage

If you're talking about emo Peter, I totally agree.

Although I couldn't let one crappy movie affect how I feel overall about one of my favorite characters!
 
I don't know, the triple blow of Spider-Man 3, One More Day and USM being consistently terrible killed my interest in Spider-Man for a while.
 
My biggest problem with Marvel movies is that they feel compelled to tell origin stories when origin stories are the least interesting aspect of their heroes.

Marvel heroes are by and large, the same people they were before they got their powers. The Fantastic Four were a bickering quartet before and after they went into space, and Spider-Man was a woe-is-me everyteen before and after he became Amazing. To that end, telling their origin in excruciating does not serve a purpose. Just start in media res, and make the necessary exposition for their origin as minimal and unintrusive as possible.

DC heroes, I think, can and should tell origins mostly because their biggest characters -- Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman -- are about people who are so Extraordinarily Awesome and understanding why they are so matters.

Superman is a Space Messiah who hides his colorful extraterrestrial ethnicity under a mundane guise. Wonder Woman is a Stranger from Paradise who embarks on a great journey into the soiled world we live in. Batman is the Self-Made Man who transcends his crude humanity due to leading a Purpose-Driven Life.

The context from which their Awesomeness comes from actually informs the character very well. So the origins can do something for their film story.
 
yeah, Marvel has used their less well known Superheroes more than DC has. But that's not what I meant. DC has skipped all of their B-List heroes (or whatever you want to call the Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern up until recently, etc), but instead, they've put out movies based on Vertigo, Wildstorm, and Paradox.

the average person may not have known much about Thor or Iron Man going into the movies, but they probably at least knew they were watching a Marvel film, but I doubt most people knew that a History of Violence, Constantine, RED, The Losers, Stardust, etc were DC movies at all.

Agreed.

I also have to point out, with Marvel Studios making these movies, there's a better and more reliable chance the characters and concepts will be better translated to screen as opposed to DC's practice of utilizing out of house directors, writers, studios to make their films. There's always something lost in that translation, and I think Marvel keeping it as in-house as possible, helps keep the finalized movie closer to the source material.
 
My biggest problem with Marvel movies is that they feel compelled to tell origin stories when origin stories are the least interesting aspect of their heroes.

Marvel heroes are by and large, the same people they were before they got their powers. The Fantastic Four were a bickering quartet before and after they went into space, and Spider-Man was a woe-is-me everyteen before and after he became Amazing. To that end, telling their origin in excruciating does not serve a purpose. Just start in media res, and make the necessary exposition for their origin as minimal and unintrusive as possible.

DC heroes, I think, can and should tell origins mostly because their biggest characters -- Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman -- are about people who are so Extraordinarily Awesome and understanding why they are so matters.

Superman is a Space Messiah who hides his colorful extraterrestrial ethnicity under a mundane guise. Wonder Woman is a Stranger from Paradise who embarks on a great journey into the soiled world we live in. Batman is the Self-Made Man who transcends his crude humanity due to leading a Purpose-Driven Life.

The context from which their Awesomeness comes from actually informs the character very well. So the origins can do something for their film story.

I would disagree with that, considering Thor and Tony Stark had a whole character arc in their first movies, where they were unsympathetic, arrogant jerks who didn't care about the consequences about their actions to more heroic figures. Tony Stark went to not really caring where the weapons he made went, letting other people handle that, to obsessively hunting down his technology that was being used for evil purposes.

Plus I don't see how becoming Superman really changed Clark Kent as a character, he was a well meaning boy scout who became a well meaning boy scout in tights, there is nothing wrong with that, but him becoming a hero didn't really change his personality.
 
Last edited:
I kept Thor and Tony Stark in mind as exceptions but then I forgot to mention them because the herbed pork I was cooking in my oven went DING!

But yeah, they are exceptions because they men possessed of remarkable hubris who need a wake up call.

The Overlord said:
Plus I don't see how becoming Superman really changed Clark Kent as a character, he was a well meaning boy scout who became a well meaning boy scout in tights, there is nothing wrong with that, but him becoming a hero didn't really change his personality.
I didn't say that Kal-El experienced a transformation in becoming Superman/Clark, but I get why you may have thought I did since I did say the opposite about Marvel characters.

DC heroes aren't necessarily 'different' after they adopt their super identities, but their origins -- the planet/island they came from or where they got their gifts -- do inform the character's nuances in a way that Marvel origins generally DON'T.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top