Marvel's losing its edge and DC's getting its back

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Villains like Metallo or Bizarro make no damn sense for an origin film. As for Parasite, I'm hoping he gets picked up (in some form) as a JLA threat. His potential as a villain could skyrocket if he absorbs Batman's intellect, Superman's strength, Flash's speed, etc. on the big screen.

You can whine all you want that it's lazy writing, but General Zod is top-tier villain who has a long rich history with Superman. For an origin movie, it's a damn good idea to start with Zod due to his physicality and cunning attributes. The parallels between Kal-El and Dru-Zod also make for a excellent story.

Why do we need so much focus on the origin though? Why not just cover the origin for 10 to 20 minutes and then move Superman Metropolis where he can fight Metallo or something? Superman's origin has already been told a million times, why tell it again? Everyone knows it.

Going with Zod just seems uncreative and it makes them seem like they are playing it safe rather then taking a risk and trying something new. When they rebooted Batman in 2005, they went with new villains that had not been seen on screen before.

Frankly guys like Metallo and Parasite work best as starting villains, villains Superman faces when he is just starting out. You can't have a movie featuring a thug with super powers, after Superman has defeated an alien invader, that lower the stakes rather then raises them. Plus having a never ending parade of alien invaders could become repetitive pretty quickly. So starting out with Zod, then moving on to Brainiac and ending with Darkseid, would not be a good way to go.

This goes into more detail on why Zod is not the best villain to start with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLlIs5cEj4

[HighFivingMF]

So, guy with a radioactive heart that is fatal to Superman on top of taking away his powers and an angry beast that gets stronger with every attack and victim is lower stakes than someone with the same powers as Superman?

I think multiple aliens with similar powers to Superman, weakening Superman when close to him, and growing stronger than Superman are all pretty big threats and just need a good script.

[The Strategos]

I think Marvel will always be best for me, though as I get CEs in the UK I am about a year or two behind everyone else!

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Why do we need so much focus on the origin though? Why not just cover the origin for 10 to 20 minutes and then move Superman Metropolis where he can fight Metallo or something? Superman's origin has already been told a million times, why tell it again? Everyone knows it.

I didn't realize that Superman's origin was told a million times after Superman '79.

Because Metallo is a cyborg with a kryptonian power source. Nothing more. At best, he can serve as a supporting villain but he's not the type of villain you build a movie around.

Going with Zod just seems uncreative and it makes them seem like they are playing it safe rather then taking a risk and trying something new. When they rebooted Batman in 2005, they went with new villains that had not been seen on screen before.

Disagree completely. Zod is one DC's most powerful villains to have ever been created. On top of that, Dru-Zod is much more interesting than Metallo. The General has a connection to Kal-El (his home planet, race and parents -- which is perfect for an origin film).

Frankly guys like Metallo and Parasite work best as starting villains, villains Superman faces when he is just starting out. You can't have a movie featuring a thug with super powers, after Superman has defeated an alien invader, that lower the stakes rather then raises them. Plus having a never ending parade of alien invaders could become repetitive pretty quickly. So starting out with Zod, then moving on to Brainiac and ending with Darkseid, would not be a good way to go.

How does Superman beating Zod lower Lex Luthor's, Brainiac's, Doomsday's and Darkseid's stocks? That statement is fallacious. That's the equivalent of stating that Batman 'killing' Ra's al Ghul lowered The Joker's stock.

...Then I guess The Avengers' sequels are gonna feel generic then.

This goes into more detail on why Zod is not the best villain to start with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLlIs5cEj4

Conjecture. That's all it is pal.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by HighFivingMF

So, guy with a radioactive heart that is fatal to Superman on top of taking away his powers and an angry beast that gets stronger with every attack and victim is lower stakes than someone with the same powers as Superman?

I think multiple aliens with similar powers to Superman, weakening Superman when close to him, and growing stronger than Superman are all pretty big threats and just need a good script.

Considering the alien invader villains want conquer the entire the planet, I would say a thug with powers who just wants to kill Superman for revenge for foiling him or just wants money are a step down from that.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I didn't realize that Superman's origin was told a million times after Superman '79. .

Its been told enough times in the comics, cartoons and live action TV shows. Seriously why is the origin so important that it should be the entire focus of the film?

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Because Metallo is a cyborg with a kryptonian power source. Nothing more. At best, he can serve as a supporting villain but he's not the type of villain you build a movie around.

You can pair Lex up with Metallo. Use Metallo as a tool Lex wants to use to destroy Superman and ends up wanting to kill Lex, with Superman saving Lex in the end. That is a better first movie then using Zod, because its easier to raise the stakes after starting small.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Disagree completely. Zod is one DC's most powerful villains to have ever been created. On top of that, Dru-Zod is much more interesting than Metallo. The General has a connection to Kal-El (his home planet, race and parents -- which is perfect for an origin film).

Again why is the origin do important that it has the focus of the film? Thing is with Metallo you set up a more modern and interesting rivalry between Lex and Superman, rather then having Lex be an idiot obsessed with real estate and introduces a threat that play off well against Superman when he just starting out. If Superman started out fighting his one of his most powerful foes from the start, it is harder to raise the stakes in the next film.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

How does Superman beating Zod lower Lex Luthor's, Brainiac's, Doomsday's and Darkseid's stocks? That statement is fallacious. That's the equivalent of stating that Batman 'killing' Ra's al Ghul lowered The Joker's stock.

...Then I guess The Avengers' sequels are gonna feel generic then.

At least by using Ra's they didn't rehash past movies, they waited a bit before using Joker. With this movie they seem to be using Zod right away because they don't want to try something new.

I can't speak to Avengers 2 because it hasn't come out yet, but I don't see the point of skipping over Superman's street level villains entirely and go right to the alien the invaders and starting out with one of the two villains who already made it the Silver screen already. Its seems far easier to build tension and raise the stakes in future films, by starting small at first and have Superman fight a more down to Earth villain, before moving to the alien invader villains.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Conjecture. That's all it is pal.

Says you, clearly enough people think this is lazy screen writing to matter.

[Oberon sexton]

Metallo is kind of like Killer Croc for Superman, sometimes good for an occasional scuffle but more of a thug than an A list Supes villain.

[The Strategos]

Originally Posted by Obsidian

Looks like it. I mean there has been so many problems with Marvel movies. Some of the movies were failures (Blade: Trinity and Elektra) because they were mishandled and X3 seems to be mishandled by FOX. Yet, while all this, is happening, DC is making a comeback in movies. Batman and Superman movies are already in the works, with one coming this year and the other coming next. And more are sure to follow because Batman and Superman are iconic figures. Fantastic Four is Marvel's saving grace this year, if it fails, Marvel will suffer heavily. Plus, DC is getting real talent to take over its movies ( i.e. Christopher Nolan, Bryan Singer, etc).

Wow, it is funny to look back at things said years ago and see how wrong they turned out ! I mean, since then Superman bored us, Batman admittedly sent us rocketing to the awesome star but Green Lantern looks terrible. Compare to a string of middling to excellent Marvel films (Iron Man 1 & 2, Thor, Captain America, X-Men Origins Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, Avengers) and I think DC movies need a kick up the butt, especially and Nolan's last Batman is coming up !

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Its been told enough times in the comics, cartoons and live action TV shows. Seriously why is the origin so important that it should be the entire focus of the film?

Other than the comics, cartoons and live-action films have not revisited Superman's origins in over a decade. Furthermore, his origins have never been explored to a full extent.

So again, you're exaggerating.

You can pair Lex up with Metallo. Use Metallo as a tool Lex wants to use to destroy Superman and ends up wanting to kill Lex, with Superman saving Lex in the end. That is a better first movie then using Zod, because its easier to raise the stakes after starting small.

Talk about a small imagination and rehashing with Lex Luthor, and you're criticizing the selection of General Zod as a villain?



The irony...

Again why is the origin do important that it has the focus of the film? Thing is with Metallo you set up a more modern and interesting rivalry between Lex and Superman, rather then having Lex be an idiot obsessed with real estate and introduces a threat that play off well against Superman when he just starting out. If Superman started out fighting his one of his most powerful foes from the start, it is harder to raise the stakes in the next film.

And why is it so crucial for you to skip the origin when the likely case is the new generation hasn't seen it properly told?

This might be the last time Kal-El's origin will be seen on the big screen for decades, or if ever again. Similar to Batman, the character needed a clean slate and face lift after Superman Returns. If I were you, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that Goyer and The Nolans pitched the concept to WB, and hired the artistic Zack Snyder to helm it.

At least by using Ra's they didn't rehash past movies, they waited a bit before using Joker. With this movie they seem to be using Zod right away because they don't want to try something new.

Your strawman debate points are side-splitting.

Oh yes, Brainiac and Darkseid are a step down in the high-stakes department.

Says you, clearly enough people think this is lazy screen writing to matter.

Who? Whiny fanboys who complain about Superman abandoning the briefs and Batman not starting his journey at age 8?

Please, if filmmakers and studio executives paid attention to fans like you then Batman Begins and the Christopher Nolan trilogy would have never came to be.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Other than the comics, cartoons and live-action films have not revisited Superman's origins in over a decade. Furthermore, his origins have never been explored to a full extent.

So again, you're exaggerating.

All of that is enough retelling of the origin for me.

Are Superman's origins so important that it needs that much focus? I think people are more interested in Superman fighting crime in Metropolis then caring about his origin. Really the origin is just an excuse to get Superman from point A to point B, I don't see why it should be the focus of the movie.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Talk about a small imagination and rehashing with Lex Luthor, and you're criticizing the selection of General Zod as a villain?



The irony...

We have never seen the corporate jealousy driven Lex from the comics. Having Lex as a corporate tycoon who created super humans to oppose Superman, that is at least a different plot from Superman I. What will Zod do in this movie, use his super powers to conquer the world, like in Superman II? Its easier to write different stories with Lex and it would give the chance to introduce other villains who can't carry a movie by themselves. It makes more sense to have Superman start with smaller villains and move up, rather then starting with one the bigger guns right away.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

And why is it so crucial for you to skip the origin when the likely case is the new generation hasn't seen it properly told?

Because they can just watch the first movie or watch any of the live action TV shows that covered this? Really Superman's origin has been part of pop culture for decades, I think most know it because of how often it gets references.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

This might be the last time Kal-El's origin will be seen on the big screen for decades, or if ever again. Similar to Batman, the character needed a clean slate and face lift after Superman Returns. If I were you, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that Goyer and The Nolans pitched the concept to WB, and hired the artistic Zack Snyder to helm it.

You can make the same argument that I should have thankful that Bryan Singer was hired to make Superman returns in 2006 and look how that turned out. Frankly I had some high hopes for Superman Returns, so now I am going to be a bit more skeptical this time around.

Also after Sucker Punch, I am not too excited about Snyder either.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Your strawman debate points are side-splitting.

Oh yes, Brainiac and Darkseid are a step down in the high-stakes department.

Going from Metallo to Brainiac is a better building of tension then Zod to Brainiac. This is just basic cinematic story telling, start with s smaller threat, when the hero is just starting out and move to a bigger threat when the hero gets more experienced.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Who? Whiny fanboys who complain about Superman abandoning the briefs and Batman not starting his journey at age 8?

Please, if filmmakers and studio executives paid attention to fans like you then Batman Begins and the Christopher Nolan trilogy would have never came to be.

Now who is using strawman arguments? You are trying set me up a strawman and give me all sorts of opinions that did not express.

It seems like you are acting like a Synder fanboy and the same blind faith arguments could be applied to Singer in the lead up to Superman Returns. Where did I express any distaste to Nolan's handling of batman in this thread? I didn't, the straw man you set up did.

Nolan actually tried something different, going with villains who hadn't been seen on screen before. That is a bigger risk then what is being done with Superman at the moment. Just because you don't like the argument using Zod can be seen as playing it safe, doesn't make it any less valid.

Its the same reason I wouldn't want Khan to be the villain in the next Star Trek movie, they already did Khan well in Wrath of Khan, I would rather see something new, then rehashing Khan again.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

All of that is enough retelling of the origin for me.

Are Superman's origins so important that it needs that much focus? I think people are more interested in Superman fighting crime in Metropolis then caring about his origin. Really the origin is just an excuse to get Superman from point A to point B, I don't see why it should be the focus of the movie.

The point is the general audience doesn't care about Superman's origin being shown again because they're not obsessive comic fans. 50-60% of the demographic (that'll be attending the debut) has never seen Kal-El's beginnings or General Zod in action. Therefore, fanboys such as yourself were NOT placed above with great importance when the executives, filmmakers and writers were deciding what was best for the franchise.

Get a grip.

We have never seen the corporate jealousy driven Lex from the comics. Having Lex as a corporate tycoon who created super humans to oppose Superman, that is at least a different plot from Superman I. What will Zod do in this movie, use his super powers to conquer the world, like in Superman II? Its easier to write different stories with Lex and it would give the chance to introduce other villains who can't carry a movie by themselves. It makes more sense to have Superman start with smaller villains and move up, rather then starting with one the bigger guns right away.

And yet it's still Lex Luthor (who fans are sick to death of in the live-action format). No matter how you spin it, fans (such as yourself) will be crying/whining about the selection -- proclaiming the director and writers are uncreative, uninspiring and lazy for choosing to bring in Lex.

You're no different than them.

Because they can just watch the first movie or watch any of the live action TV shows that covered this? Really Superman's origin has been part of pop culture for decades, I think most know it because of how often it gets references.

Thank Shiva that WB/DCE does not think like you do.

Question: Why would the youthful non-fans pick up a 30 year film to enjoy the origin of Superman when you've got a flashy new origin on the way?

Answer: They wouldn't.

Also after Sucker Punch, I am not too excited about Snyder either.

And yet Snyder did not write the screen play or come up with the concept. David Goyer and The Nolans did that.

Going from Metallo to Brainiac is a better building of tension then Zod to Brainiac. This is just basic cinematic story telling, start with s smaller threat, when the hero is just starting out and move to a bigger threat when the hero gets more experienced.

No, it's not. You're simply bellyaching that a new villain wasn't chosen. Once again, Chris Nolan utilized The League of Shadows and Ra's al Ghul, Sam Raimi employed The Green Goblin and Matthew Vaughn brought in Shaw and The Hellfire Club... and yet it all worked out.

That mystic cinematic storytelling angle you're desperately trying to clinch onto is baseless (bullcrap).

Now who is using strawman arguments? You are trying set me up a strawman and give me all sorts of opinions that did not express.

You did not express them but you certainly implied them. You know damn well you're sincerely a fanboy not delighted with what you received.

At this endeavor, it is emphatically a strawman argument.

It seems like you are acting like a Synder fanboy and the same blind faith arguments could be applied to Singer in the lead up to Superman Returns. Where did I express any distaste to Nolan's handling of batman in this thread? I didn't, the straw man you set up did.

Snyder Fanboy? That's a first.

I have faith in the project because Snyder is a competent director who has a great eye for action sequences/set-pieces, fight choreography and his visuals are among the best in Hollywood. It doesn't hurt that Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer were heavily involved in the script to go along with a star-studded cast either.

It's not blind faith, but it's unwavering confidence.

I urge you to re-read my statement again. I did not allege you of criticizing Nolan's Batman franchise. I mentioned the fact that had executives listened to fans with corresponding assessments (like yours) then Batman Begins would have not seen the light of day.

Superman needs a facelift/reboot just as much as Batman required one a decade ago. It was and is essential to move away from a failed vision.

Nolan actually tried something different, going with villains who hadn't been seen on screen before. That is a bigger risk then what is being done with Superman at the moment. Just because you don't like the argument using Zod can be seen as playing it safe, doesn't make it any less valid.

Nolan used three iconic and prominent villains in The Joker, Two-Face and Catwoman. Are you asserting that Nolan played it safe too? Who's to say Snyder won't do the same abd pick Parasite in the sequel? Ahh right, you don't.

No, your whimpering over Zod being the choice does make your debate less valid when the foundation is apocryphal, fallacious and nonsensical.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

The point is the general audience doesn't care about Superman's origin being shown again because they're not obsessive comic fans. 50-60% of the demographic (that'll be attending the debut) has never seen Kal-El's beginnings or General Zod in action. Therefore, fanboys such as yourself were NOT placed above with great importance when the executives, filmmakers and writers were deciding what was best for the franchise.

Get a grip.

I have a grip, you seem to be getting upset and unpleasant about this, I'm just expressing my opinions.

Again people already know Superman's origin from popular culture, they really don't need to focus on it.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

And yet it's still Lex Luthor (who fans are sick to death of in the live-action format). No matter how you spin it, fans (such as yourself) will be crying/whining about the selection -- proclaiming the director and writers are uncreative, uninspiring and lazy for choosing to bring in Lex.

Except I'm not some straw fanboy who is sick of Lex period, you seem to be confusing me with someone else.

I personally don't want Lex to be the sole villain and I don't want him to be obsessed with real estate schemes. But having the corporate Lex play a background role while creating a more physical enemy for superman to fight is fine with me. Lex is going to show up sooner or later anyway, as long he is not the sole villain and is more like the corporate Lex, I don't have a problem with that. Its easier to write different scripts with Lex then with

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

You're no different than them.

No, you are just creating a straw man

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Thank Shiva that WB/DCE does not think like you do.

Question: Why would the youthful non-fans pick up a 30 year film to enjoy the origin of Superman when you've got a flashy new origin on the way?

Answer: They wouldn't.

The movie likely gets shown on TV fair amount and frankly I see pop culture references to it all the time, it seems pretty well known even though it came 30 years ago. Star wars came out over 30 years ago, people know about that movie, same deal with Jaws and to a lesser extent, the Superman movie.

Again why is the origin so important that it needs to be the focus of the film. Frankly I don't see why Superman's origin be covered in 10 to 20 minutes and then moving the action to Metropolis right away. Superman's origin just is not that important and is frankly well known enough not to need a massive retelling.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

And yet Snyder did not write the screen play or come up with the concept. David Goyer and The Nolans did that.

Except a director has a lot influence on a movie, not to mention the corporate suits who run WB. After screwing up Superman Returns and Green Lantern its a bit naive to assume this production will be great just because Nolan is a producer.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

No, it's not. You're simply bellyaching that a new villain wasn't chosen. Once again, Chris Nolan utilized The League of Shadows and Ra's al Ghul, Sam Raimi employed The Green Goblin and Matthew Vaughn brought in Shaw and The Hellfire Club... and yet it all worked out.

That mystic cinematic storytelling angle you're desperately trying to clinch onto is baseless (bullcrap).

Yeah and all those guys used villains who were not on the Silver screen before. Look what happened when Singer used Lex as sole villain and had him obsessed with real estate again, that didn't work out well.

Maybe Zod would work out or maybe this will just feel like a rehash of the second Superman movie, we don't know for sure. But I see no reason to give WB the benefit of the doubt, after the last couple of screw ups. I would be less likely to think is will end up a rehash of Superman II if they used.

Also its not "bullcrap" as you so elegantly say it, there are some rules for effective story telling in cinema. For example, if they made a Flash movie, I wouldn't want Zoom to be the first villain, because its harder to raise the stakes in the next film. Starting out with less powerful villains like Captain Cold and a few other rogues makes more sense, because it builds up the threat later. It makes sense to start with a lesser powerful villain at first and move onto more powerful villains later.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

You did not express them but you certainly implied them. You know damn well you're sincerely a fanboy not delighted with what you received.

At this endeavor, it is emphatically a strawman argument.

I implied no such thing, you are just trying to turn me into a straw fanboy because you don't want to debate a real person. Its kinda silly to accuse me of using straw man arguments, then using them yourself.

Frankly you seem like you are acting like a fanboy, having such "unwavering confidence" in this project in this project, that you throw bile at people who dare to criticize it. Seems like a fanboy to me.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Snyder Fanboy? That's a first.

I have faith in the project because Snyder is a competent director who has a great eye for action sequences/set-pieces, fight choreography and his visuals are among the best in Hollywood. It doesn't hurt that Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer were heavily involved in the script to go along with a star-studded cast either.

You could have similar arguments regarding Bryan Singer in the lead up to Superman Returns. That didn't turn out well.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It's not blind faith, but it's unwavering confidence.

I urge you to re-read my statement again. I did not allege you of criticizing Nolan's Batman franchise. I mentioned the fact that had executives listened to fans with corresponding assessments (like yours) then Batman Begins would have not seen the light of day.

Superman needs a facelift/reboot just as much as Batman required one a decade ago. It was and is essential to move away from a failed vision.

And maybe if Singer listened to the fans who didn't want a rehash of Superman I, Superman Returns would have been a better movie. That argument cuts both ways.

Then perhaps they should gone for a complete fresh start and use villains who have not appeared on the Silver Screen yet, like Nolan did.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Nolan used three iconic and prominent villains in The Joker, Two-Face and Catwoman. Are you asserting that Nolan played it safe too? Who's to say Snyder won't do the same abd pick Parasite in the sequel? Ahh right, you don't.

He also used new villains in the first movie and quick quiz how Batman villains have been adapted to the big screen compared to Superman villains? Again a large part of Batman's rogues gallery has appeared on screen, with Superman its only been two villains over the course of six movies, I don't think its unfair to suggest that they should have seen some other villains from the comics by now.

Besides why would use Parasite after Zod. Zod is a conqueror and threat to the entire planet, Parasite is just some petty thug, his ambitions are far more mundane. Using Parasite after Zod would lower the stakes. That's what happened with Star Trek Insurrection, compare the threat faced in First Contact to one faced in Insurrection and you will see why Insurrection is a let down.

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

No, your whimpering over Zod being the choice does make your debate less valid when the foundation is apocryphal, fallacious and nonsensical.

I don't think its very civil to use terms like whimpering in regards to someone who just trying to engage in constructive criticism. I'm pretty sure one of the forum rules in this board is to show respect to other posters. No offense, but you seem a bit too worked up about this.

[DoomsdayApex]

Precisely, I'm expressing my opinion as well but you seem to be conveying your opinion as 'fact'. Selecting an A-list villain is not lazy or uncreative storytelling, especially when you've yet to see the film. Now, you may not agree with the director's and writers' choice but save the plot criticisms for when the movie is actually released -- not with the announcement or unveilment of a character. That type of criticism is alittle out there for me.

[DoomsdayApex]

I think it's best not to continue. We're not going to agree or make progress here when arriving to our opinions.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I think it's best not to continue. We're not going to agree or make progress here when arriving to our opinions.

Fair enough, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[Hammer!]

New to this forum, reading this entire thread has been pure gold. Marvel sure made the original posters in this forum look silly going back to 2005. Marvel has simply pounded DC since then.

[Red Mask]

I hope the Post-Avengers short will be good. That was brilliant of Marvel to further expand their films' lore like that.

[T"Challa]

Originally Posted by Red Mask

I hope the Post-Avengers short will be good. That was brilliant of Marvel to further expand their films' lore like that.

yeah..i'm hoping they expand on that to include some other heroes. for example, there are rumors that Falcon will be in Cap 2. you can introduce his character with a 5-8 min short or so to expose him before the movie comes out. that would be a convenient way of getting exposure

[Anubis]

Probably go with the SHIELD agent origin from the Ultimate Universe. Makes sense. Mind controlled Pimp just seems in bad taste.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Hammer!

New to this forum, reading this entire thread has been pure gold. Marvel sure made the original posters in this forum look silly going back to 2005. Marvel has simply pounded DC since then.

The first few pages of this thread are hilarious. "Marvel will never make an Avengers movie."

[Léo Ho Tep]

I, for one, am glad that we have both great DC and Marvel comics, and movies. I always thought this war was meaningless.

[Captain Marvel]

But this may change with Batman Begins and Superman Returns and may spark Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, and Aquaman all leading up to a JLA movie, something Marvel can never do with their Avengers

Tee hee.

[chiefchirpa]

^
I think it's fine for someone to predict that. It's a prediction.. sometimes it turns out to be right. Sometimes it's proven wrong.

What's not okay when somebody calling moron/other expletives against someone who predicted the future differently... and actually being right.

[Lord Valumart]

Originally Posted by Léo Ho Tep

I, for one, am glad that we have both great DC and Marvel comics, and movies. I always thought this war was meaningless.

I dunno, I've seen like 4 good DC movies at a push. Compare that to the ammount Marvel have put out that are proper top quality, well...

It's funny how DC always tends to make far better cartoons than Marvel. Dunno why but DC always has a cartoon worth watching. Marvel on the other hand, not so much...

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Lord Valumart

It's funny how DC always tends to make far better cartoons than Marvel. Dunno why but DC always has a cartoon worth watching. Marvel on the other hand, not so much...

Yeah, it's sad. I thought Marvel was on the right track with The Spectacular Spider-Man, Wolverine and the X-Men, and Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, but then they made a freaking idiot their Head of Television.

[marcvader]

Speaking of cartoons I'd love to see a noirish Daredevil animated series.