In a sense, Marvel's strategy isn't too bad. You have the big guns (Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk - Marvel hoped) have their series of films with smaller movies inbetween (Daredevil, Punisher, etc.), then after all of those have run their course, you come out with Cap, and Iron Man, etc. You basically have a 20-some-year cashcow, instead of, y'know, 10. That's just good business. And, honestly, as a fan, I'd much rather have my favorite characters' movies spread out over a while than have them frontloaded into a 10 year span, and be bored with the next 10-20 years of superhero films.
I also like what DC is currently doing with their Vertigo films; again smaller, small-scale stuff inbetween a yearly-released "big" movie (BB, SR, etc.). Obviously, however, they delayed inacting that (good, IMO) strategy until about 2004. Which is pretty unacceptable.
Obviously, the idea to make movies like Howard the Duck, Steel, Man-Thing, Catwoman (although, in WB's defense, CINO was only made to fill the slot in the release schedule vacated by Peterson's abandoned Batman vs Superman movie), were all tremendous mistakes, and should never have been done. Although, admittedly, if they were made correctly, and well, I doubt any of us would be complaining.
And on a side note, don't give me this B89 wasn't a "proper" Batman movie. It may not be as good as Batman Begins, you may not like it, but inarguably, IMO, it was, along with DKR and Year One, the thing that really let everyone know that Batman was a dark character, Batman was more than just the Adam West TV series. On top of that, it was the highest grossing superhero movie ever made for over a decade, and it had, and continues to have, quite positive critical and fan reaction. So to say that WB failed with that movie is a great mistake, I think. They may have failed with the series, but not with that film.
