Joss Whedon Is Closed Minded And Completely Wrong

[SMARTASS8]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. I used to be a huge Marvel Zombie(until JoeyQ and most of his writers shat all over that Universe) but I still love their characters. Having said that, they are no more realistic than DC's. They were built on Stan Lee's pseudo-scientific origins(which themselves are out-of-date and/or inaccurate beyond belief) and their secret identities were given real world problems(these days DC's characters have these in spades as well). Neither of those ideas are that novel anymore. No matter how many poorly constructed analogues to the real world that JoeyQ forces on "his" Universe(Civil War, Ellis' Thunderbolts, Secret Invasion), this is a World that contains a talking duck, a giant in a metallic pink & purple dress who eats planets, and a huge bald alien in a toga who does nothing but stand motionless, spying on people.

I am so sick of hearing how "edgy" and "real" Marvel is. Just because so many of their writers are fond of having their characters stand around talking for most of the issue, every heroes' secret identity has been outed(although Spidey's is back in the closet), and their artists either love to draw the characters without costumes or at least with "cool" upgrades(Spidey and Hercules are the only characters I can think of who still have the same costumes they had 10 years ago), these are still stories about superheroes. It seems like the same people who said Superman sucks because he's too powerful loved Sentry because he had the "power of one million exploding suns". I feel this is just an excuse to not like a company's characters.

[Shellhead]

Whedon isn't saying that DC sucks, and he's quite right to say that the foundations of the DC Universe were laid in a different era than those of the Marvel Universe. Remember, Whedon worked on the Wonder Woman movie for a while, before it got stuck in pre-production hell. At worst, his remarks seem to indicate that Marvel's flawed heroes are easier for modern moviegoers to relate to than DC's flawless icons.

I really enjoyed the Iron Man movie and the first Spider-man movie, and the first two X-Men movies were okay. But the only DC superhero movies that I've enjoyed were some of the Batman movies. So I think that Whedon has a valid point. Now, maybe a director could take that icon status and run with it... give us a very upbeat, silver age take on the Flash, for example. It could work, but it would be pretty experimental compared to the mainstream fare in theaters today, even the superhero movies.

[carabas]

He's not wrong. Bare in mind he is not talking about the present, but about the characters he read growing up, decades ago.

They're pretty much two peas in a pod now, but back then, what Marvel was doing was pretty revolutionairy. Pity they didn't keep it up and settled for a shared universe with a holy status quo more important than the characters. Marve learnt all the wrong lessons from DC while DC learnt some very good ones from Marvel.

[carabas]

I really enjoyed the Iron Man movie and the first Spider-man movie, and the first two X-Men movies were okay. But the only DC superhero movies that I've enjoyed were some of the Batman movies. So I think that Whedon has a valid point.To be fair, the Batman movies have been pretty much the only DC movies at least somewhat similar to the modern comics.

[Ilash]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. I used to be a huge Marvel Zombie(until JoeyQ and most of his writers shat all over that Universe) but I still love their characters. Having said that, they are no more realistic than DC's. They were built on Stan Lee's pseudo-scientific origins(which themselves are out-of-date and/or inaccurate beyond belief) and their secret identities were given real world problems(these days DC's characters have these in spades as well). Neither of those ideas are that novel anymore. No matter how many poorly constructed analogues to the real world that JoeyQ forces on "his" Universe(Civil War, Ellis' Thunderbolts, Secret Invasion), this is a World that contains a talking duck, a giant in a metallic pink & purple dress who eats planets, and a huge bald alien in a toga who does nothing but stand motionless, spying on people.

I am so sick of hearing how "edgy" and "real" Marvel is. Just because so many of their writers are fond of having their characters stand around talking for most of the issue, every heroes' secret identity has been outed(although Spidey's is back in the closet), and their artists either love to draw the characters without costumes or at least with "cool" upgrades(Spidey and Hercules are the only characters I can think of who still have the same costumes they had 10 years ago), these are still stories about superheroes. It seems like the same people who said Superman sucks because he's too powerful loved Sentry because he had the "power of one million exploding suns". I feel this is just an excuse to not like a company's characters.

Man, talk about mountains and molehills.

[Un0]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. .

Watch Dr. Horrible. Like, immediately.

[JoshuaCee]

I think the original poster needs to lay off the sugar and reread Whedon's comments. In no way, shape or form was Whedon saying that Marvel is better than DC. He was commenting on how Marvel's properties seem to have a smoother transition from their comic book roots to the big screen. Boiled down, all he said was that the layman is going to relate to Spider-Man more than Superman. Which is true.

[Beast]

I agree with a lot of what he says....

In recent years, DC has even tried to emulate the Marvel aspect for it's newer characters.

Unfortunatly they don't seem to get it, and end up making the characters hyper-angsty and annoying. At least the cartoons are good from DC. Now if only they could start doing better at the movies. At least get some of those lesser known characters out there. I also wish that DC had as many strong (in character) females as Marvel does. But both need to work on getting some of those females to the big screen.

But with clearly utterly clueless WB in charge of DC properties, I'm not hopeful.

[mr.brighteyes]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. I used to be a huge Marvel Zombie(until JoeyQ and most of his writers shat all over that Universe) but I still love their characters. Having said that, they are no more realistic than DC's. They were built on Stan Lee's pseudo-scientific origins(which themselves are out-of-date and/or inaccurate beyond belief) and their secret identities were given real world problems(these days DC's characters have these in spades as well). Neither of those ideas are that novel anymore. No matter how many poorly constructed analogues to the real world that JoeyQ forces on "his" Universe(Civil War, Ellis' Thunderbolts, Secret Invasion), this is a World that contains a talking duck, a giant in a metallic pink & purple dress who eats planets, and a huge bald alien in a toga who does nothing but stand motionless, spying on people.

I am so sick of hearing how "edgy" and "real" Marvel is. Just because so many of their writers are fond of having their characters stand around talking for most of the issue, every heroes' secret identity has been outed(although Spidey's is back in the closet), and their artists either love to draw the characters without costumes or at least with "cool" upgrades(Spidey and Hercules are the only characters I can think of who still have the same costumes they had 10 years ago), these are still stories about superheroes. It seems like the same people who said Superman sucks because he's too powerful loved Sentry because he had the "power of one million exploding suns". I feel this is just an excuse to not like a company's characters.


Have you read Buffy or Astonishing or Fray or Runa....wait scratch that. Whedon is an amazing writer. the later seasons of buffy were fantastic.

[americocaine]

To me Whedon is just overhyped. Just like every new TV series from Heroes to Battlestar Galactica to Lost Just one big hype machine. Will these series by timeless and be re-run forever in syndication. I don't think so.

[carabas]

In recent years...Well over two decades ain't recent.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Also remember this is a guy who had his Wonder Woman film get knocked back - he's going to have a slight chip about that.

He's also not necessarily right - it's his opinion.
I'd argue that apart from Spiderman and X-Men films, Marvel haven't really made too many successful movies - the rest have been pretty shit.
His argument also falls apart because Batman is carved from the same block as GL, Superman and Wonder Woman - godlike - and yet has appeared in several different forms in cinema and tv and always been a success (Superman has had several successful incarnations and Wonder Woman had the tv show).
So I'd argue his argument falls apart on that.

He also ignores that Marvel has a different set up when it comes to film production to DC, who are forced to go through Warner Brothers, and can't ship properties around like Marvel can.
From what I've heard though DC and WB have come to an agreement about how to better maximize their franchises.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

To me Whedon is just overhyped. Just like every new TV series from Heroes to Battlestar Galactica to Lost Just one big hype machine. Will these series by timeless and be re-run forever in syndication. I don't think so.

???
That's just so odd and so tangentially related to anything being discussed here, I have to ask why you'd even bring it up.
Just go yell at the kids on your lawn already.

Also, with the advent of DVD, syndication isn't really the best measuring stick to judge something by.
(If it ever was - Perfect Strangers can live on forever in syndication....)

[SMARTASS8]

Watch Dr. Horrible. Like, immediately.

I saw the first 2 parts and, even though I love Neil Patrick Harris and Nathan Fillion, I never got around to watching the last part. Whedon seems to have 2 storytelling crutches he keeps using that makes me not like his work as much as I could: 1) Cutesy dialogue where I can almost hear him patting himself on the back at how funny he is (Bendis, Kevin Smith, Peter David, and Diablo Cody all do this imho) 2) Killing off major characters to "shock" the audience; it might have worked the first time he did it, but now it just seems like a countdown to the inevitable. I also typically hate musicals.

[SMARTASS8]

Have you read Buffy or Astonishing or Fray or Runa....wait scratch that. Whedon is an amazing writer. the later seasons of buffy were fantastic.

The first couple of issues of Buffy Season 8 that I read didn't feel like a Buffy story even though it was being written by her creator.

Astonishing started good but sucked after its hiatus.

I read Fray and don't remember much about it. It wasn't awful nor very memorable.

I just didn't like Buffy after they killed the Mayor off and made Spike her S & M partner.

I will say that Serenity was pretty good, but that's the only thing he's done recently that I like. I haven't been that impressed with Dollhouse, but "Faith" isn't the greatest actress to begin with.

[SMARTASS8]

I think the original poster needs to lay off the sugar and reread Whedon's comments. In no way, shape or form was Whedon saying that Marvel is better than DC. He was commenting on how Marvel's properties seem to have a smoother transition from their comic book roots to the big screen. Boiled down, all he said was that the layman is going to relate to Spider-Man more than Superman. Which is true.


Maybe I read too much into it, but he made similar comments when he was dropped from the Wonder Woman movie. I have no problem if someone hates the characters of the DCU(as I said above, I used to be a huge Marvel guy who only dabbled in DC), but I'm just sick of hearing how Marvel is "realistic", "relevant", and "relatable". The 2 Universes haven't been exceptionally different since the early 70's.

[TROUBLEZ]

I do think that the different era plays a part, but not so much as "creating gods" is concerned.

Me, personally, I always thought Marvel had the cooler looking characters. DC to me, only had Batman. The Flash looked dorky, Superman seemed old and boring (he didn't even have a mask), and I really wasn't aware of any other characters growing up. I missed out on Super-friends. Even my non-comic reading friends think Marvel is better. I asked them why and they say stuff like, "Who's DC got? Superman and Batman, that's it."

Maybe Marvel was more efficient with their marketing and merchandising than DC was, despite the edge DC had with their head start.

After the Fleischer cartoons when did DC start doing more animated shows again? I know of way more Marvel cartoons than DC (up till the late 90s/2000s).

I also think that on the surface, Marvel does appear more edgy. You see the X-Men, Wolverine, Punisher, and even Iron Man, then you see The Justice League, who pretty much have a classic and dated design to all of them.

[TROUBLEZ]

Maybe I read too much into it, but he made similar comments when he was dropped from the Wonder Woman movie.

Didn't he say that Wonder Woman would have to have a Xena type costume to be successful?
I understand she has a very old fashioned costume, but I think it's very much apart of her as is Superman's costume to him.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

[QUOTE=Beast;8482343I also wish that DC had as many strong (in character) females as Marvel does. But both need to work on getting some of those females to the big screen.
[/QUOTE]

I've always felt that DC has more strong female characters than Marvel does.

So... I think that may be subjective...

[carabas]

but I'm just sick of hearing how Marvel is "realistic", "relevant", and "relatable". The 2 Universes haven't been exceptionally different since the early 70's.Dude, I've said the exact same thing to dozens of MArvel zombies complaining about the supposedly perfect, godlike DC characters.

But Whedon is not talking about the present. He's talking about what he read when he grew up, during the early seventies.

[Superbeast]

Didn't he say that Wonder Woman would have to have a Xena type costume to be successful?
I understand she has a very old fashioned costume, but I think it's very much apart of her as is Superman's costume to him.

If you've never seen a fan at a con dressed as WW, I'd understand, but anyone who has seen any approximation if it in real life knows the thing looks goddamn ridiculous. Even just watching Carter in it in the old series only works because you get distracted by how tasty she looks in it.

[Jaded Devil]

Whedon's not wrong. DC's characters are primarily thought of as icons (just look at any typical DiDio interview/"20 Questions" segment) while Marvel's characters are primarily thought of as characters. With the exception of Batman (and some lower-profile characters like the Doom Patrol), Marvel really had the market cornered as far as characters the reader could identify with went. Any new work on Superman or GL or whomever to make them relate-able is basically DC aping Marvel's style of character work.

[Alan2099]

I think the big difference is when they started, Marvel created their characters as flawed people with powers and DC created their characters as larger than life superheroes. Regardless of how much that may have been changed over the years, the impression still stands and there are plenty of writers that go out of their way to back it.

You're more likely to see a story about how such-and-such DC hero is so great and powerful and mighty and more likely to see a marvel story about how so-and-so's life sucks than vise versa.

[jester1436]

To me Whedon is just overhyped. Just like every new TV series from Heroes to Battlestar Galactica to Lost Just one big hype machine. Will these series by timeless and be re-run forever in syndication. I don't think so.

http://i39.tinypic.com/am8ks8.gif

[Mr Omnis]

I think the big difference is when they started, Marvel created their characters as flawed people with powers and DC created their characters as larger than life superheroes. Regardless of how much that may have been changed over the years, the impression still stands and there are plenty of writers that go out of their way to back it.

You're more likely to see a story about how such-and-such DC hero is so great and powerful and mighty and more likely to see a marvel story about how so-and-so's life sucks than vise versa.

The Golden Age and Silver Age of DC is a pretty good example of this. The JSA heroes are good because that's what you do, the same with the JLA people when it began. They do good things, and they reap the rewards of these good things (outside of Superman, who likes to kill Jimmy Olsen, Lois, and everyone else for no reason on covers).

Stan Lee's creations in Marvel were all flawed enough to give some way for the reader to relate to the character. Spider-Man worked through his own problems as a teenage nerdy kid trapped in a world where they speak some language that is almost, but not quite, English and so on.

DC has tried to make the characters in the same vein as Lee's creations in the past few years, but you can't suddenly demand flaws of a character like Superman, who has been established as nothing short of a physical manifestation of God now. It doesn't always work. I agree with Whedon saying that Batman has more to relate to, since he's just a man, but like it was said here, Batman is also a god in his own right.

He isn't JUST a man any more than Tony Stark is JUST a man anymore. They're both obnoxiously rich genius crime fighters. Batman is, really, a Genius Ninja Detective and you can't particularly relate to that.

But I don't read DC to relate to the characters, just I don't read Marvel to relate to the characters. I can't relate to anything in Nextwave: Agents of H.A.T.E. and I love that story.

[JoshuaCee]

Maybe I read too much into it, but he made similar comments when he was dropped from the Wonder Woman movie. I have no problem if someone hates the characters of the DCU(as I said above, I used to be a huge Marvel guy who only dabbled in DC), but I'm just sick of hearing how Marvel is "realistic", "relevant", and "relatable". The 2 Universes haven't been exceptionally different since the early 70's.

That last part there is subjective, obviously. Personally, I disagree. In my opinion, Marvel and DC both have very different vibes to their overall output, and I like it that way. If you disagree, that's cool. You're entitled to your own opinion, as am I, as is Joss Whedon.

If people's opinions about fictional characters are truely making you sick, maybe it's time to disconnect the computer from the wall and go outside.

[Mat001]

After the Fleischer cartoons when did DC start doing more animated shows again? I know of way more Marvel cartoons than DC (up till the late 90s/2000s).

DC started up again in the 60's with the Filmation cartoons with Superman, Superboy, Batman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, the Atom, Hawkman and Teen Titans. In the 70's we had "Super Friends" which went through different names and ran until 1985. There was also a Batman cartoon produced around the time of "Challenge Of The Super Friends". In 1988, Superman had a cartoon that ran one season on CBS with designs by Gil Kane. In the 90's, we had the DCAU as we know it begin. Marvel had cartoons in the late 60's with Spider-Man, the Hulk and the Fantastic Four. With a few others here and there. In the early 80's we had Spider-Man and the Hulk. Then in the 90's we had X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Hulk, Iron Man and Silver Surfer. Only the first two lasted the longest. All others lasted one or two seasons.

[amazoniansrule]

Maybe I read too much into it, but he made similar comments when he was dropped from the Wonder Woman movie. I have no problem if someone hates the characters of the DCU(as I said above, I used to be a huge Marvel guy who only dabbled in DC), but I'm just sick of hearing how Marvel is "realistic", "relevant", and "relatable". The 2 Universes haven't been exceptionally different since the early 70's.

It is his OPINION,why do you take so much with it. It's like those idiots from the rama who feel the need to knock anyone who has a different point of view. He did not say the DC characters were stupid or dumb. Just that they are hard to relate too. his interpretation of marvel being more relateable and realistic is different than yours.

One of the more recent issues of the JLA Superman and Wonder Woman are debating whom can reach light speed first. I mean,are you freggin serious??? all members on the JLA are no less than 6ft tall,perfectly chiseled. then you got two of the more famous icons at marvel. Wolverine and Spiderman. One is a 5'3 hairball who heals fast,gets into fights,drinks alot,and pop's metal claws. the other one is a 5'9 guy who can barely pay the rent,has a best friend whose father has destroyed his life over and over and last but not least,he is always overpowered.

The powers are not more realistic but let's be honest here. DC blows the curve and then some. Superman has human qualities because he cries every once in a while? the guy was a dam baby when the planet was destroyed,he never knew his parents. He grew up in some back water hick town.

Marvel characters are more relateable because they are closer to us than the DCU characters are.

[SMARTASS8]

Marvel characters are more relateable because they are closer to us than the DCU characters are.

If today's Marvel characters are closer to you and those around you, I hope to hell you don't live anywhere near me.:wink: It's one thing when the characters have personal problems, but I think Spidey is now the only "hero" who doesn't have blood on his hands. It seems like most characters are written as moody and unlikable antiheroes who will turn on their friends and find killing to be the only way to deal with an enemy. I guess Wolverine and Punisher were so popular, practically everyone decided to treat them as role models.

[Spiffy]

I don't know if Whedon is "Closed Minded And Completely Wrong", about DC or anything else in particular, but if you've been watching Dollhouse, you can certainly debate that he might be kind of sexist. (note I said "debate", I suppose opinions will STILL vary)

[SMARTASS8]

I don't know if Whedon is "Closed Minded And Completely Wrong", about DC or anything else in particular, but if you've been watching Dollhouse, you can certainly debate that he might be kind of sexist. (note I said "debate", I suppose opinions will STILL vary)

I'm done with this show as of tonight. It's a shame because I really like Echo's handler and "Fred" (whatever the scarred lab chick is called). Dusku is just not talented enough for a role that calls for multiple "characters" week in and week out. She's pretty, but not enough to endure some bad acting, some of Whedon's weakest writing, and a flawed premise. Why would someone pay so much money for someone posing as an expert and not just an actual expert?

[Calvin Government]

I'm done with this show as of tonight. It's a shame because I really like Echo's handler and "Fred" (whatever the scarred lab chick is called). Dusku is just not talented enough for a role that calls for multiple "characters" week in and week out. She's pretty, but not enough to endure some bad acting, some of Whedon's weakest writing, and a flawed premise. Why would someone pay so much money for someone posing as an expert and not just an actual expert?

1st: They are an actual expert. They are, in fact, an amalgam of every expert the Dollhouse could get their hands on.

2nd: Whedon, after problems with the pilot and a few other issues with Fox, had to take a brief hiatus. As such, he did not write episodes 2-5. His first post-pilot episode is #6, so it really isn't his weakest writing.

_

On Whedon's opinions on DC, and please keep in mind that this is all my opinion, and I am not trying to offend anyone...

While Whedon's pull quote there does display a bit of ignorance towards DC, it is an understandable ignorance. It is, in fact, an ignorance that most readers seem to share, and even some creators and editors working for DC. I have seen a number of people in this thread make the (flawed) assumption that Marvel's characters are somehow more 'realistic', and that they're more relatable because they are in general less powerful.

This is, of course, patently ridiculous from the standpoint of both a reader and a writer. Spider-Man is not more relatable than Superman because Spider-Man can only lift 2 tons with one hand in comparison to Superman's 20 - Spider-Man is more relatable because more comics fans see themselves as down-on-their-luck dorks than relaxed moral authority figures.

That said, if the writer can't figure out how to make Superman a fun, relatable character, the writer will inevitably cock it up - see, Superman Returns. This is not a failure of Superman as a character, but of the creator as a creator.

Whedon's assumption is one that many fans make - that, because Marvel's characters are more often 'rooted in pain', to use his words, they are more realistic, more human. This, of course, is false. Marvel's is a more pessimistic world, obviously, and DC's a more optimistic, but the real world is, in truth, a balance between those two things. Most of us do experience loss, heartbreak, rejection and betrayal over the course of our lives, of course, but most of us also experience love, friendship, acceptance and loyalty as well.

While pessimism is an easier sell in the modern age, that does not mean that it is any more real. After all, the SAW movies are all 'rooted in pain' and tragedy, and have made quite a bit of money, and yet I doubt anyone would claim them to be paragons of realism? Of course not. People enjoy them largely because there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude impulse inside of us all that demands the melodramatic.

BUT! If a writer does not understand how to translate the optimism of many of DC's best characters into an interesting narrative, we will end up with a rather confused mish-mash of deification and mudslinging. And it is clear that a lot of writers do not understand entirely how to make the 'mythic' and the 'mundane' meet properly as it should in the DC Universe, which means that we often end up with stories that have rather schizophrenic visions of DC and its characters.

To claim that the DC heroes are removed from humanity is at least a little foolish, no offense, of course, to Mr. Whedon. They are merely the best in us, be it Batman's relentless faith that humanity can improve or Superman's knowledge that we can grow into something spectacular or Wonder Woman's desire to drive us to better ourselves.

Marvel's comics are easier to translate, and he is right about that, but that is because it is always easier to turn cynicism to drama than it is optimism, not because of any sort of sense of realism inherent to the material.

[JamesJesse]

Can someone explain to me how THOR, SILVER SURFER, NAMOR and the perfect CAPTAIN AMERICA more relatable than GREEN ARROW, GREEN LANTERN, NIGHTWING and say BLUE BEETLE?

For that matter, how is the innate relatability of a Jedi Knight more potent than that of a Green Lantern?

My point being, generalizations like this are outdated. Both Marvel and DC have their share of the same kind of comic book archetypes. They both have the realistic heroes and the overly fantastic heroes.

It all depends on how, as Calvin Government pointed out, capable the creators behind each story are.

Maybe Marvel Movies are easier to translate but to dismiss DC movies so easily, reveals a lack of understanding or even knowledge of the depth of DC beyond Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Green Lantern for one has been green lit and if handled properly has the potential to be the next Sci-Fi action movie franchise that Star Wars and Star Trek were.

Suicide Squad has the potential to be an awesome war/superhero cross-genre movie.

And how come no on has tried looking at Hawkman? A barbarian with wings? Think of the brutal aerial fight scenes!

===

Here's what I'm more willing to believe: It's easier to make Marvel movies because of the creative control they have over their own characters. DC has to deal with WB's meddling and need to reinvent the wheel OR to copy what works for others. Granted, WB has more money but Marvel has more freedom. Anyone who's ever had his or her work presented before a focus group and panel of numbers-focused executives looking at the results KNOWS what I'm talking about.

[bannermanonemillion]

Now, now, I myself can easily relate to a man who was given the only good steroids on Earth, got drafted, was frozen for decades and then found by a god, a giant man, and a billionaire genius in a supersuit. Then when this soldier got assassinated, he was replaced by another soldier who was a brainwashed assassin for decades with a cybernetic arm.

My next door neighbor was a thundergod who wandered about a mythical wonderland full of gods, giants and trolls. Nice guy, fan of "24."

I went to school with a girl who had green skin and could bench press a truck while working on her law degree.

The bald guy in a wheelchair who could read my thoughts? Don't get me started on what it was like working at the office with him.

And we all know how radiation never kills you just makes you stronger.

Oh, and the stories I could tell about all the folks who died then came back to life then died again could fill, like, a phone book.

Because yes, superheroes of ANY universe are INSTANTLY relatable. Shesh, folks.

[pariah-1972]

I think there are exceptions to every rule Dc's Watchmen are very screwed (all of them) and Batman has become more relatable past the 60's.

Superman could be more relatable but noone wants to try and change him much except for being married which helps make him seem more human it is nice when is sort of used as the standard super hero model who leads by example.
But the one thing i've always thought they should do to make him more relatable aka give him issues is his obsession with saving people i mean he doesn't need to eat or sleep so whats his excuse for not saving people 24/7 ? if someone dies while hes taking a nap would he feel guilty for not being there?
how far can his god complex go before he goes completely crazy?
There's also his tri-ality (as opposed to duality) he has three different identities if you think about it.
He has Clark and then Superman and then Kal-el is around there somewhere but which is the real true identity?
And if you think about it Lois is technically married to Clark but from the beginning she was in love with Superman so how does that play out?
if she if seen getting too chummy with Superman tongues would inevitably wag cause the media would think shes cheating on Clark with Superman that usually causes a lot of problems for celebrities and Superman is a celebrity .
Also what would happen if someone got hurt or killed accidentally when hes on the job like when he ends up fighting a giant robot or alien in downtown metropolis there realistically could be casualties of some sort.

There are all things Dc could do with Superman but they wont for whatever reason.

[Ontir]

What did Whedon say that got your knickers in a twist? I really don't get it.

The DC characters really were more mythological, for the most part, where the Lee/Kirby/Ditko era Marvel characters were based upon the question, "What if real people suddenly got super-powers?" DC has pantheons, while Marvel has support groups.

[carabas]

Ironically the first superteam that has been conceived as a sort of support group rather than a team of do-gooders was the original Doom Patrol.

[Raptor]

He's not wrong. Bare in mind he is not talking about the present, but about the characters he read growing up, decades ago.

They're pretty much two peas in a pod now, but back then, what Marvel was doing was pretty revolutionairy. Pity they didn't keep it up and settled for a shared universe with a holy status quo more important than the characters. Marve learnt all the wrong lessons from DC while DC learnt some very good ones from Marvel.


I was preparing one hell of a post, but this pretty much sums it up. I agree fully.

I'd like to add tht I'm not a huge Whedon fan. The man has written good and bad just like everyone else. I don't talk shit about writers often since I am one and would love to write comics someday. I can see people not liking my stuff also.

Basically, it's his opinion. He can't exactly be wrong in regards to an opinion.

I'd also like to point out taht by refusing to see how someone could think the way he does, the OP is coming off as closed minded, more so than I can see Whedon at present.

[Damiean Dark]

Whedon is dead right despite DCs awful record of lack of emphasis on secondary characters, creating new ones and awful retconning and event stories at both companies hearts MU wins because Marvel created diverse human characters whos characterisations where secondary to thier powers while DC created gods Batman is DC most commercial character soley because of his humanity watchmen is a classic because it is a bunch of flawed humans .

[pariah-1972]

Whedon is dead right despite DCs awful record of lack of emphasis on secondary characters, creating new ones and awful retconning and event stories at both companies hearts MU wins because Marvel created diverse human characters whos characterisations where secondary to thier powers while DC created gods Batman is DC most commercial character soley because of his humanity watchmen is a classic because it is a bunch of flawed humans .So couldn't Superman have some flaws ? i mean there was a time when Batman had no flaws.

[Mat001]

So couldn't Superman have some flaws ? i mean there was a time when Batman had no flaws.

Superman could have flaws, but no one will really write him that way and those who would, will be dismissed as bad writers.

[pariah-1972]

Superman could have flaws, but no one will really write him that way and those who would, will be dismissed as bad writers.I seriously doubt that if Mark Waid or Geoff Johns did it most people would accept it.

[HVulpes]

Superman could have flaws, but no one will really write him that way and those who would, will be dismissed as bad writers.

Actually he has a few flaws...

Power wise it is magic, kryptonite and a few other things based on the script.

The strongest personal fault is one he shares with Spider-man, Guilt. He has survivors guilt given his origins, guilt of people he couldn't save, people who turned evil and he couldn't convince to make the right choices, and guilt of lost friends.

He also Jesus' flaw of a bad temper. Both are hard to make angry, but hit the right button often enough (Moneychangers in God's house, harming the innocent) and a supernova goes off.

It's just these personal flaws tend not to come up in DC's writing as much as Marvel. They are shy at showing a raging Superman, while a raging Wolverine comes with a drop of a hat. Whether it's the writers not feeling right to 'flaw' a hero or worried about fan reaction, who knows?

This is not just superman, but other heroes. Green Arrow/Green Lantern had some good scenes with a hot head liberal working with a conservative space cop. Remember the scene with the black man asking how many black people Hal helped can be very relatible with black people thinking of comic heroes.

The fact is not Marvel is more relatible, but they bring up material up more to the audience.

[jv2k]

Whedon's wrong. His opinion isn't valid at all in the year 2009.

Even if you want to pretend that the original JLA are still the same way they were in the 60s, DC still has tons of lesser characters that are human.

Is Jonah Hex not human or any of the other western heroes?
Is Wally West, a character who we literally read grow up from a snotty teenager into a grown adult with a wife and kids, not human?
Kyle Rayner? Spider-man with a power ring.
Nightwing?
Barbra Gordan?
Robin?
Booster Gold?
Guy Gardner?

Honestly do I have to spend my time listing all the human like heroes in the DCU.

If anything I'd say Marvel tries too hard at making their characters human by adding way more problems to the characters lives than they should, and it really ends up making the hero less relatable when they are in their 30s and they still can't get their lives together.

[Tracer Bullet]

Also remember this is a guy who had his Wonder Woman film get knocked back - he's going to have a slight chip about that.
Or maybe he's not. That's a studio issue and doesn't necessarily reflect his feelings on the comics.


I'd argue that apart from Spiderman and X-Men films, Marvel haven't really made too many successful movies - the rest have been pretty shit.
His argument also falls apart because Batman is carved from the same block as GL, Superman and Wonder Woman - godlike - and yet has appeared in several different forms in cinema and tv and always been a success
Batman is godlike?? He's an iconic character, but he is in no way godlike. Keep in mind that his comments are about the era these characters came from.

(Superman has had several successful incarnations and Wonder Woman had the tv show).
So I'd argue his argument falls apart on that.
That was then, the discussion is about now. And on the big screen.

He also ignores that Marvel has a different set up when it comes to film production to DC, who are forced to go through Warner Brothers, and can't ship properties around like Marvel can.
From what I've heard though DC and WB have come to an agreement about how to better maximize their franchises.
Fair, but this is the question he was asked:

As a comic book writer and fan, why do you think—with one very big exception—DC Comics is having such a hard time getting its characters on the screen while Marvel is churning them out?

[carabas]

As a comic book writer and fan, why do you think—with one very big exception—DC Comics is having such a hard time getting its characters on the screen while Marvel is churning them out?
It is a dreadfully simple answer: Marvel owns the rights to all their characters, and will let anyone with a half-decent script at them. And Time Warner owns the rights to all of DC's characters, and will let nobody get near anything that's not Batman or Superman, with or without a half-decent script. They can only make so many films per year, and don't like to license them out to other studios, so what gets made is Batman and Suprman films.

Kinda generalised, and exceptions to the rule on both sides, but that's it in a nut shell.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Or maybe he's not. That's a studio issue and doesn't necessarily reflect his feelings on the comics.
I'm sure Joss Whedon has reached a zen like state where wasting a year on a property doesn't effect him at all.

I put that forwards because Whedon would know, more than anyone, that the business
side often kills good projects, or gets bad one's made.
I find it odd that he doesn't respond that way, so was putting forth a reason for that fact that he's not giving real/full answers to the question.

Batman is godlike?? He's an iconic character, but he is in no way godlike. Keep in mind that his comments are about the era these characters came from.

Look at the context of which it is being said - I know that's tricky to do on the internet, but it's worth trying.
He's not Spider Man - It's not about his daily problems.
He is less personality, and more force of nature.


That was then, the discussion is about now. And on the big screen.

Yes that was then, but it shows it can be done, knocking away at his argument that it has to do with character, and not to do with business.
If they could do it then, they can do it now.


Fair, but this is the question he was asked:

Yes, that's the question he was asked, but if you force it into that frame work, it's a pointless question.

The reason DC has a hard time as opposed to Marvel is that until recently, they had issues getting projects pushed through WB.
That's it - nothing else comes into it.
I get maybe you wish it were different, or are outraged I'd say that Joss Whedon is wrong, but he is - he knows why their projects fall apart or don't get started - it's the business side.
Now, you want to argue that Superman Returns was a narrative failure due to not enough/too much character, then go ahead - but it's not a reason the films aren't getting made.

[Libaax]

Batman is the most human of the big,famous superheroes.

Thats one of the reasons he is my fav.

Sure he is Bat-god in ability just like several big non-superhero powered heroes.

But his way of life is,his obession,his mistakes,everything that isnt about the actual abilities he suppose to have mastered are so human thats why he is so Iconic.

Of course he can be written Godlike but a good Bat writer knows how to make him a frail human in personality and a great vigilante at once.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm sure Joss Whedon has reached a zen like state where wasting a year on a property doesn't effect him at all.
You're suggesting that this is an attack done out of bitterness and not his god-honest personal opinion regardless of whatever studio politics he had to deal with. You don't have to agree with what he said, but there's no need to accuse him of speaking out of bitterness. Not that it would make his opinion any less valid.

I put that forwards because Whedon would know, more than anyone, that the business
side often kills good projects, or gets bad one's made.
I find it odd that he doesn't respond that way, so was putting forth a reason for that fact that he's not giving real/full answers to the question.
Well maybe the WB is reluctant to allow other characters to be used because they don't have confidence in their ability to be marketed. Not something I agree, but a lot of these studio heads are ignorant when it comes to the properties they own.

Look at the context of which it is being said - I know that's tricky to do on the internet, but it's worth trying.
He's not Spider Man - It's not about his daily problems.
He is less personality, and more force of nature.
He specifically cites characters who's civilian identities were secondary to their character. Batman did not have as much depth as he does in present incarnations, but his motive and his whole reason for being is very understandable on a human level. And of course, he's powerless. I wouldn't say he was as relatable as the Peter Parker of that era, but he wasn't godlike either.



Yes that was then, but it shows it can be done, knocking away at his argument that it has to do with character, and not to do with business.
If they could do it then, they can do it now.
They can do modern interpretations now. I don't think we'll ever see Superman reversing the Earth's axis to travel back in time in any big budget DC film in the future. The reasons these characters have found success in recent adaptations is because they don't draw on those old "godlike" characterizations. We live in an era where people like their superheroes more grounded. It's not impossible to do with DC characters, but the amount of Superman projects that got trapped in development hell seem to indicate a wariness on the studios part.


Yes, that's the question he was asked, but if you force it into that frame work, it's a pointless question.

The reason DC has a hard time as opposed to Marvel is that until recently, they had issues getting projects pushed through WB.
That's it - nothing else comes into it.
I get maybe you wish it were different, or are outraged I'd say that Joss Whedon is wrong, but he is - he knows why their projects fall apart or don't get started - it's the business side.
Now, you want to argue that Superman Returns was a narrative failure due to not enough/too much character, then go ahead - but it's not a reason the films aren't getting made.

see above.

I'm not outraged about anything. I don't worship the man. But if ad hominem makes you feel better about your position, then keep on truking.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

You're suggesting that this is an attack done out of bitterness and not his god-honest personal opinion regardless of whatever studio politics he had to deal with. You don't have to agree with what he said, but there's no need to accuse him of speaking out of bitterness. Not that it would make his opinion any less valid.

No, I was putting it out there - and as he's criticizing DC characters as the reason their films don't get made - which isn't true, it's the WB internal politics, which DC have cited many times, and WB recently made appointments of people specifically tasked with making it easier for DC characters to get films - I figured he must have a reason for not going with the real answer... I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.


Well maybe the WB is reluctant to allow other characters to be used because they don't have confidence in their ability to be marketed. Not something I agree, but a lot of these studio heads are ignorant when it comes to the properties they own.
Marvel started getting films made when Avi Arad started producing the films, and getting involved personally, instead of just selling to whomever wanted the option.
Nothing to do with the characters.
DC, until now, had been forced to get things produced solely through WB, with WB execs in charge - people who know nothing about the comics.
This has been changed, and hence, there will be more DC films.


He specifically cites characters who's civilian identities were secondary to their character. Batman did not have as much depth as he does in present incarnations, but his motive and his whole reason for being is very understandable on a human level. And of course, he's powerless. I wouldn't say he was as relatable as the Peter Parker of that era, but he wasn't godlike either.
He cites DC's main line up.


They can do modern interpretations now. I don't think we'll ever see Superman reversing the Earth's axis to travel back in time in any big budget DC film in the future. The reasons these characters have found success in recent adaptations is because they don't draw on those old "godlike" characterizations. We live in an era where people like their superheroes more grounded. It's not impossible to do with DC characters, but the amount of Superman projects that got trapped in development hell seem to indicate a wariness on the studios part.

You say the same as Whedon there - people want their characters grounded... where's the proof?
It seems to be a popular meme, but all it seems to stem back to is that Bourne Identity did well and Triple X didn't.
Superman Returns didn't do well because... well, what were they thinking?
I wouldn't see it as proof that people have a taste for a different kind of hero, it's more we like films where stuff happens.

The Superman project being in development hell had nothing to do with the character, and everything to do with the producers - one in particular.
Kevin Smith has an anecdote about when he worked on it.


I'm not outraged about anything. I don't worship the man. But if ad hominem makes you feel better about your position, then keep on truking.

Well, you're arguing using only his argument as proof, and as anyone who reads the news relating to comic properties can see, his answer has nothing to do with reality.
I assumed you must be out to defend his name, because I can't see why else you would defend his reasoning.
I know it's the sort of thing people like to here 'Films get held up based on character issues', but it's not true.

[HVulpes]

Actually Warner Brothers isn't bad as making superhero media in general, just in movies and video games. Look at the various Television developments with DCAU, The Batman, The Brave and the Bold, Smallville and you have success.

It's just that in the 2000's the darker hero movie has stronger pull then the more positive films like Christopher Reeves Superman Films. Marvel heroes and Batman are much easier in those cynical and edgier films then Superman or Mainstream Captain Amercia (Ultimate Cap would fit right in though).

So it might be less DC/Warner fault then the current mental climate.

[Damiean Dark]

I dont know about the WB DC trouble of getting films done but DC seems always reluctant on some level. Superman the movie was HUGE when it came out and the Wonder Woman tv show was very popular around the same time why wasnt there a massive push to create GL, Flash, WW and co movies then?

Batman89 was H.U.G.E in 1989 the dark knight with all its publicity a year ago was nothing compared to the commercial juggernaut B89 was. DC had every oppertunity to try to coin in on this craze by bringing other DC heroes to the screen in its wake where were they?.

[carabas]

I dont know about the WB DC trouble of getting films done but DC seems always reluctant on some level. Superman the movie was HUGE when it came out and the Wonder Woman tv show was very popular around the same time why wasnt there a massive push to create GL, Flash, WW and co movies then?DC isn't reluctant at all. DC has pretty much zero control over what happens with their characters in other media. You think it was DC's idea to make a Catwoman film with not a singl DC character in it?

[dupersuper]

I'm a Supes fan; thus a DC fan by luck of the draw. Superman has been my favourite super hero since I was a little kid. I also agree that DC and Marvel are pretty much the same overall; most of the top writers have written for both at some point. I'm also not a fan of Buffy or Angel at all. That being said, I found nothing to get upset about in Whedons comments, and respectfully suggest the original poster switch to decaf.

[pariah-1972]

Dc's biggest problem is that they are owned by a giant media conglomerate who's only interest is in making Super-man and Batman movies and from what i've heard they are quite clueless about even those two characters.

Also unfortunate is that some of Dc's characters a lot of people(even comic book fans) don't take very seriously ( Aquaman and Wonder Woman for example)

[SMARTASS8]

That being said, I found nothing to get upset about in Whedons comments, and respectfully suggest the original poster switch to decaf.


Dang! I was cranky in my original post, but all these comments about me needing to calm down. I remember reading a comment by a poster on 'Rama that they hoped Chuck Austen, a writer they didn't like, died in a fire. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I was that out-of-control in my initial post. Other than spending few minutes complaining about a writer, I don't think I was any more irate than most other fans that have disagreed with some talent.

[TeamED209]

Dc's biggest problem is that they are owned by a giant media conglomerate who's only interest is in making Super-man and Batman movies and from what i've heard they are quite clueless about even those two characters.

Also unfortunate is that some of Dc's characters a lot of people(even comic book fans) don't take very seriously ( Aquaman and Wonder Woman for example)

I agree that the reason there isn't more dc films is because of WB and Marvels idea of having their own production house is definatly the way to go...

But your second comment i'd have to disagree with because it's not just dc who has characters that aren't taken seriously (Ms marvel and hank pym for example)

"Peter Parker’s character was a tortured adolescent. DC’s characters, like Wonder Woman and Superman and Green Lantern, were all very much removed from humanity. "

Although this argument has some legs for characters like wonder woman and superman i don't see how the characters like the flash and green lantern are removed from humanity...(and it's not like marvel doesn't have their god characters...thor, cap america imo are very similar to superman/wonder woman in alot of ways..)

I think these characters were made in different times and marvel did originally succeed at structuring their heroes better to make them more easy to relate to but in the last couple of decades i think this has leveled out to a degree...

on a side note i'd say a movie about a god i can't relate to can be just as enjoyable as a human i can relate to....

[pariah-1972]

I agree that the reason there isn't more dc films is because of WB and Marvels idea of having their own production house is definatly the way to go...

But your second comment i'd have to disagree with because it's not just dc who has characters that aren't taken seriously (Ms marvel and hank pym for example)

"Peter Parker’s character was a tortured adolescent. DC’s characters, like Wonder Woman and Superman and Green Lantern, were all very much removed from humanity. "

Although this argument has some legs for characters like wonder woman and superman i don't see how the characters like the flash and green lantern are removed from humanity...(and it's not like marvel doesn't have their god characters...thor, cap america imo are very similar to superman/wonder woman in alot of ways..)

I think these characters were made in different times and marvel did originally succeed at structuring their heroes better to make them more easy to relate to but in the last couple of decades i think this has leveled out to a degree...

on a side note i'd say a movie about a god i can't relate to can be just as enjoyable as a human i can relate to....I know there's some people who dislike Pym for all the things he's done but all his mistakes and insecurities make him very relate-able (well at least to me)I've never heard anyone say anything bad about Ms Marvel but she has been portrayed so badly since Civil War if not before hand.

But i def don't see any bias or ignorance towards them as i do with Aquaman or Wonder Woman.

[SMARTASS8]

I know there's some people who dislike Pym for all the things he's done but all his mistakes and insecurities make him very relate-able

You can thank the Pym thing to Marvel's current writers. Not only was Pym not in his right mind when he slapped Wasp(he slapped her, he didn't beat her and attempt to kill her like Ultimate Pym), the issue had been resolved years ago. Bendis has a dislike for the character(until his and JoeyQ's bromance ends or his sales go down, he always gets his way), so Pym's past gets brought up again and he's looked at like some monster who was caught with naked children. I'm not saying slapping a woman is ever cool, but talk about making mountains out of molehills.

[TeamED209]

I know there's some people who dislike Pym for all the things he's done but all his mistakes and insecurities make him very relate-able (well at least to me)I've never heard anyone say anything bad about Ms Marvel but she has been portrayed so badly since Civil War if not before hand.

But i def don't see any bias or ignorance towards them as i do with Aquaman or Wonder Woman.

Not sure what you mean by bias and ignorance?I'd argue that the average person is more ignorant of ms marvel and hank pym over aquaman and wonder woman, not sure what you mean by bias as in bias for or against?

[MoterCityMongrel]

astonishing was a great comic book im a huge xmen fan but i do agree with this guy. marvels charecters are just as unreal as dcs. personaly i like dc comics better. i used to like them both the same until secret invasion came out. must every comic book tie into another. marvel comics is like a tree the use a main event such as secret invasion or world war hulk as a trunk and every other comic just branches off that. its lame as heck. i refuse to pick up dark rein or any of tie ins. for marvel all im geting now is amazing spider man, uncanny xmen, wolverine, and hulk. and the latest isue of hulk was lame as heck i think it was isue ten.

[HellFrost]

astonishing was a great comic book im a huge xmen fan but i do agree with this guy. marvels charecters are just as unreal as dcs. personaly i like dc comics better. i used to like them both the same until secret invasion came out. must every comic book tie into another. marvel comics is like a tree the use a main event such as secret invasion or world war hulk as a trunk and every other comic just branches off that. its lame as heck. i refuse to pick up dark rein or any of tie ins. for marvel all im geting now is amazing spider man, uncanny xmen, wolverine, and hulk. and the latest isue of hulk was lame as heck i think it was isue ten.

Umm... What? Isn't that supposed to be a perk to having an entire universe to play with? Why wouldn't Marvel want to exploit that? And doesn't DC do the same exact thing?

I'm a fan of both. Even with Wonder Woman and Flash being 2 of my all time favorite super-heroes, I still think that there is some amount of truth in Whedon's statement. Wonder Woman was created from clay and was brought up in a world where women reigned supreme and she hadn't met another man for years. Superman is practically a god in his own right who fell from the sky. And both those DC heroes are compeletly honored and adored, even the ones who don't have a crazy unreal back story , whereas the Marvel U. has characters running for their lives and most of the world hating them. Sure, Marvel has some characters with similarly cliche'd backstories, but even then, they show very few flaws when compared to the DC pantheon. The reason I bring that up is because, while many of us occasionally have our moments of glory, we all have had to face racism and bigotry in one way or another. Marvel speaks to that part of all of us, and quite frankly... that's a pretty damn big part.

I'd also like to point out that people talk about the flaws that could be exploited from someone like Superman to make him seem more flawed, but writers don't exploit them and that makes him seem all the more... perfect (for lack of a better term).

All I'm trying to say is that DC's characters do tend to seem detatched from the rest of humanity because most of them aren't human or from a normal human society. Even GL spends a lot of time in space with aliens and other heroes.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Umm... What? Isn't that supposed to be a perk to having an entire universe to play with? Why wouldn't Marvel want to exploit that? And doesn't DC do the same exact thing?


Because for all the short term sales gained, you lose readers in the long term as most crossovers and events are actually pretty poor as stories?

Fun for the writer to play with, not so fun for a reader to read.

[Scarab]

But that is how DC started out though. They started out as gods, because thats what the fans wanted. Who were the fans back then? Kids. They don't want some greatly written material, they wanna see the good gut gainst impossible odds, but he eventualy beats the bad guy and saves the day. It's nothing to critisize, and even if you could you can't know, not with the stories we have coming out, that very much delve into emotional problems.
All i am saying is u wouldn't hear a kid from the 1940's saying, "dang. I realy wish they would give Superman some more emotional story lines, i am sick of him beating up the bad guys."

[Crowforge]

superman cries a lot.

[Tracer Bullet]

No, I was putting it out there - and as he's criticizing DC characters as the reason their films don't get made - which isn't true, it's the WB internal politics, which DC have cited many times, and WB recently made appointments of people specifically tasked with making it easier for DC characters to get films - I figured he must have a reason for not going with the real answer... I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
But it's already out there. It's no secret in superhero fandom. He was given a shot at Wonder Woman, they didn't like it, and that's it. I don't see how there'd be a need to lash out at the characters for that. Where is the benefit in implying bitterness?:confused:


You say the same as Whedon there - people want their characters grounded... where's the proof?
It seems to be a popular meme, but all it seems to stem back to is that Bourne Identity did well and Triple X didn't.
Superman Returns didn't do well because... well, what were they thinking?
I wouldn't see it as proof that people have a taste for a different kind of hero, it's more we like films where stuff happens.
The Bourne Identity isn't a superhero film so I don't really see how that applies.:confused:
Superman Returns failed because it was boring, and harkened back to an era that audiences are no longer interested in. People have become accustomed to superhero films where the world's the characters occupy are much more similar to the one we live in.

The Superman project being in development hell had nothing to do with the character, and everything to do with the producers - one in particular.
Kevin Smith has an anecdote about when he worked on it.
There were several Superman projects attempted, and each tried to "update" the character in some way so of course it had something to do with it.


Well, you're arguing using only his argument as proof, and as anyone who reads the news relating to comic properties can see, his answer has nothing to do with reality.
I assumed you must be out to defend his name, because I can't see why else you would defend his reasoning.
I know it's the sort of thing people like to here 'Films get held up based on character issues', but it's not true.
Whedon has never struck me as the kind of guy who'd attack the product he worked with along with various others he never got the chance to, instead of the people who put the kibosh on his chance to adapt a character....two years later.
I'm arguing that his statement is valid, although I agree that studio politics have played a larger role. And the reason for that, I think, is that the studio just doesn't know to approach these characters for many of the reasons Whedon stated.

[carabas]

You know what, let's have look again at that quote...

Because, with that one big exception, DC’s heroes are from a different era. They’re from the era when they were creating gods. And the thing that made Marvel extraordinary was that they created people. Their characters didn’t living in mythical cities, they lived in New York. They absolutely were a part of the world. Peter Parker’s character was a tortured adolescent. DC’s characters, like Wonder Woman and Superman and Green Lantern, were all very much removed from humanity. Batman was the only character they had who was so rooted in pain, that had that same gift that the Marvel characters had, which was that gift of humanity that we can relate to.

How is this in any way an attack? He is talking about the golden and silver age roots of Marvel and DC, and he is pretty much spot on. Where is the venom here that posters are claiming he is spouting? How is this a backhanded swipe for losing wonder Woman? Do note that he is also talking in the past tense, meaning that he is talking about how things were, not how they are. And that this snippet is ripped out of context anyway.

You know, about that Wonder Woman film, it's not as if he hasn't had unpleasant experiences working on Marvel films as well. His work on the first X-Men film pretty much got thrown out.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Where is the benefit in implying bitterness?:confused:

Because he didn't give the true answer to the question on why DC isn't getting films made on its properties, and why he talks up the Marvel characters as easier to work with (as well as the fact he does some work for Marvel).
Providing a reason he may have said that, as he ould know that it wasn't the truth.

The Bourne Identity isn't a superhero film so I don't really see how that applies.:confused:

Because one success affects all films.
A few years back some of the bigger action films weren't doing as well as expected.
All the big effects, over the top-ness wasn't pulling people in.
Bourne Identity and more especially the second one (can't remember title), which were fairly 'realistic' in terms of how they felt did quite well.
Action movies that started getting done like this did better than the previous over the top ones, ergo, audiences prefer reality.
(It's why the Bond franchise reset after one of it's more successful releases, to try and keep ahead of the audience).


Superman Returns failed because it was boring, and harkened back to an era that audiences are no longer interested in.
No, it failed because it was boring.
Superman fights an island - that's why it failed.
The era and style had little to do with it.

People have become accustomed to superhero films where the world's the characters occupy are much more similar to the one we live in.
Where's the proof of that?
Star Wars sold big time, and that was hamy, over the top and full of arch types.


There were several Superman projects attempted, and each tried to "update" the character in some way so of course it had something to do with it.

Track down the Kevin Smith story about the producer on Superman during that time.
It'll let you know why it took so long.


Whedon has never struck me as the kind of guy who'd attack the product he worked with along with various others he never got the chance to, instead of the people who put the kibosh on his chance to adapt a character....two years later.
I'm arguing that his statement is valid, although I agree that studio politics have played a larger role. And the reason for that, I think, is that the studio just doesn't know to approach these characters for many of the reasons Whedon stated.

That's fantastic, really it is, but as I've gone over before - and I know you seem to struggle with it - is DC has been having to option it out through WB, and having no more control of the property after that
Now, WB and DC have created a couple of new positions so that DC can manage the properties through the film making to do what's best by them.
It was only once Marvel started doing this themselves that they got films made.
This is because most producers and executives really don't care about the property and want the quick buck, and thus often end up changing things they think will do it best, until they've created a property no one wants to touch.
MArvel figured a way around this, DC is now following suit.
Whedon can argue character all he wants, and you can back him up all you want, but it's the business side that matters.

[pitbull in a skirt]

Didn't he say that Wonder Woman would have to have a Xena type costume to be successful?
I understand she has a very old fashioned costume, but I think it's very much apart of her as is Superman's costume to him.

But see, Superman's costume is adjustable, if worn right (I don't think anyone wore it as good and not looked ridiculous was Reeve). A bathing suit with the American flag on it, not so much :redface:

To me Whedon is just overhyped. Just like every new TV series from Heroes to Battlestar Galactica to Lost Just one big hype machine. Will these series by timeless and be re-run forever in syndication. I don't think so.

I think you failed when you mentioned Battlestar Galactica :redface:

[berk]

He's not wrong. Bare in mind he is not talking about the present, but about the characters he read growing up, decades ago.

They're pretty much two peas in a pod now, but back then, what Marvel was doing was pretty revolutionairy. Pity they didn't keep it up and settled for a shared universe with a holy status quo more important than the characters. Marve learnt all the wrong lessons from DC while DC learnt some very good ones from Marvel.I agree, except I'm not sure how many good ideas DC's learned from Marvel. Seems to me they've taken over the more superficial attributes, like slightly more humanised characters and so on, but haven't really tried to emulate the spirit of freedom and innovation that was behind the best of the early Marvel stuff from people like Kirby, Ditko, and Lee in the 60s and the sort of 2nd wave of innovators lie Gerber and Englehart in the early 70s. Unless of course you're thinking of what I would call exceptions like Alan Moore's early DC work, or the Vertigo stuff from people like Morrison.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I agree, except I'm not sure how many good ideas DC's learned from Marvel. Seems to me they've taken over the more superficial attributes, like slightly more humanised characters and so on, but haven't really tried to emulate the spirit of freedom and innovation that was behind the best of the early Marvel stuff from people like Kirby, Ditko, and Lee in the 60s and the sort of 2nd wave of innovators lie Gerber and Englehart in the early 70s. Unless of course you're thinking of what I would call exceptions like Alan Moore's early DC work, or the Vertigo stuff from people like Morrison.

Apart from the exception of launching a whole imprint off of the back of their experimenting with the comic form?
Apart from the other imprints they tried in the wake of that? (Paradox, Helix, Minx etc).
Or before that with Watchmen?

Kirby got a pretty free hand to go nuts on the Fourth World books, and there's been other great bits of experimentation such as Starman, by James Robinson, which is easily up there with the Engleheart nd Gerber works for trying something different.

If you want to cherry pick between the two you can fnd almost any argument you want - heck, Marvel totally turned it's back and stopped learning from itself with the Gerber Englehart ways when Shooter came on, and got corporate with them.

[berk]

Marvel totally turned it's back and stopped learning from itself with the Gerber Englehart ways when Shooter came on, and got corporate with them.No argument from me on this point. Marvel has done almost nothing of interest since Gerber, Englehart and a few others were given the heave-ho. But I don't see DC as doing much better apart from isolated exceptions like Moore.

I'd agree that if there is an argument to be made that DC is significantly different from Marvel, it pretty much has to rest on the Vertigo stuff. The DCU and the MU operate in very similar, and strictly commercial, terms as far as I can tell, and have done for some decades. But Morrison and a few others still do innovative work in the Vertigo line, about the only interesting work either of the Big Two put out right now.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

No argument from me on this point. Marvel has done almost nothing of interest since Gerber, Englehart and a few others were given the heave-ho. But I don't see DC as doing much better apart from isolated exceptions like Moore.


Well apart from Starman, which I mentioned before, there was that period in the late 90's where DC put out some out-there (for superheroes) titles - Scare Tactics, Chase, Young Heroes In Love, Chronos, Challengers Of The Unknown, Major Bummer etc.

And in the late 80's DC also had books such as JLI and Suicide Squad and such.

You can argue that these are a lot closer to the mainstream, but so was the Engleheart and Gerber stuff at the starts of their runs, they just got more time to play.

I often feel that DC does make attempts to break the mold, it's just that the audience isn't always there to do it with them.

[tralierix]

So it might be less DC/Warner fault then the current mental climate.

It would be interesting to see how another company or studio would handle these types of characters btw anyone check out Joss Whedon‘s Sugarshock? Its under the "Dark Horse Presents" title

[pariah-1972]

It would be interesting to see how another company or studio would handle these types of characters btw anyone check out Joss Whedon‘s Sugarshock? Its under the "Dark Horse Presents" titleYeah i read it on Myspace it was a blast.

[Leocomix]

Whedon is completely right. The only time DC heroes become interesting is when the writer roots them in tragedy like Johns did with GL and is now doing with Flash. DC heroes have been marvelised for twenty years.

[Free-Man]

Also remember this is a guy who had his Wonder Woman film get knocked back - he's going to have a slight chip about that.

He's also not necessarily right - it's his opinion.
I'd argue that apart from Spiderman and X-Men films, Marvel haven't really made too many successful movies.....


Not even remotely true. Iron Man was a massive critical and box office success. Hulk II underperformed at the box office, but got mostly good reviews. The Blade movies did well at the box office, as did Ghost Rider, and even that piece of crap Daredevil managed to make money.

[FlyingFox]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. I used to be a huge Marvel Zombie(until JoeyQ and most of his writers shat all over that Universe) but I still love their characters. Having said that, they are no more realistic than DC's. They were built on Stan Lee's pseudo-scientific origins(which themselves are out-of-date and/or inaccurate beyond belief) and their secret identities were given real world problems(these days DC's characters have these in spades as well). Neither of those ideas are that novel anymore. No matter how many poorly constructed analogues to the real world that JoeyQ forces on "his" Universe(Civil War, Ellis' Thunderbolts, Secret Invasion), this is a World that contains a talking duck, a giant in a metallic pink & purple dress who eats planets, and a huge bald alien in a toga who does nothing but stand motionless, spying on people.

I am so sick of hearing how "edgy" and "real" Marvel is. Just because so many of their writers are fond of having their characters stand around talking for most of the issue, every heroes' secret identity has been outed(although Spidey's is back in the closet), and their artists either love to draw the characters without costumes or at least with "cool" upgrades(Spidey and Hercules are the only characters I can think of who still have the same costumes they had 10 years ago), these are still stories about superheroes. It seems like the same people who said Superman sucks because he's too powerful loved Sentry because he had the "power of one million exploding suns". I feel this is just an excuse to not like a company's characters.

Cry Moar. Sounds to me like Whedon is right and your just bitching because he isn't writing for DC. Also pretty much no one like the Sentry (I'm one of the few who sees potential). So who are these imaginary people who love him? By the way, you know what I'm tired of? Everyone always saying "DC characters are so god like". Marvel has plenty of god like characters too.

[Mat001]

Cry Moar. Sounds to me like Whedon is right and your just bitching because he isn't writing for DC. Also pretty much no one like the Sentry (I'm one of the few who sees potential). So who are these imaginary people who love him? By the way, you know what I'm tired of? Everyone always saying "DC characters are so god like". Marvel has plenty of god like characters too.

Actually, Whedon has said on more than one occassion before this statement, that he grew up a Marvel fan. The X-men were partially an influence on Buffy as a series. That's why when he did his run, he used a couple of scenes lifted from Buffy for his work. Most notably how Peter reacts to seeing Kitty again which comes season three's "Beauty & The Beasts", where Angel sees Buffy again since coming back from the hell dimension he was in.

[Hulk_Is]

When folks in general attend "superhero" movies, they expect fantasy, but it doesn't hurt when these fantasy characters exhibit tendencies that most humans display in real-life (or would like to). Spiderman is not respected by the general public, has no money, and sometimes wears glasses, and is of regular build, while swinging high above rooftops and beating on people who seem to deserve it. Audiences can relate to certain aspects of this, even if not directly applicable to them.

As are Iron Man, Hulk, the X-Men to name a few. What dude do you know that at some point in his life did not want to be armed in armor? Tony Stark has loads of cash and an apparent insatiable appetite for supermodels. Mostly a fantasy for most, but still so very human. The Hulk is obvious: "If only I could Hulk-out just once..." . Everbody has had that thought (unless you find DC's hero-posturing ideal). The X-Men are great for folks fighting the fight of not being socially acceptable. Add in some chemistry and some hot actors-esses and the people will come.

[Nevets F]

Whedon was correct.

[Forth World]

Whedon is completely right.
DC heroes have been marvelised for twenty years.


Right on both counts. What Whedon said is an accurate historical statement. And DC characters have been Marvelized, both well and badly.

The only time DC heroes become interesting is when the writer roots them in tragedy like Johns did with GL and is now doing with Flash.

If tragedy alone made great characters, Green Arrow and Stephanie Brown would be the #1 heroes in the industry.

[Brian888]

If Morrison's "All Star Superman" has taught me anything, it has taught me that you don't need to Marvel-ize Superman in order to write an incredibly fun, thoughtful, wonderful story.

[DetectiveDupin]

If Morrison's "All Star Superman" has taught me anything, it has taught me that you don't need to Marvel-ize Superman in order to write an incredibly fun, thoughtful, wonderful story.

Not all of DC's writers are on par with Grant Morrison, though.

[Watery Eyes]

:biggrin: Well, I love Lex Luthor and find him completely relatable. That‘s the one big thing DC comics has over Marvel, the greatest underdog villain of all time. Lex vs Spidey? He wouldn’t even be worth his time. Not sure if the point is to be cheering for villains, but anytime he goes on one of his rants about Sups, I am right there saying, right on!

[Seven_Ride]

Relatability CAN be important. But like "realism", Its importance is greatly overstated and overemphasized. Batman's life is in many respects as fantastic and unrealistic as Superman's. And of the two, Superman has always had more in common with his readership than Batman. From his personality to his family, friends and relationships. Yet which is more popular now?

And neither is truly like us. But they are still 2 of the most popular fictional characters the world over, despite their lives being pure escapist fun.

Within comics, it seems fans want soap opera, as Marvel realized in the 70s. But outside comics, the more general audience wants a good drama to sink their teeth into. To root for these characters. Whether it's Superman, Batman, Spider-man or Iron Man doesn't really matter.

[invisiboy]

Watch Dr. Horrible. Like, immediately.

I watched it, and the script isn't impressive. The performaces make it worth watching, not the writing.

Joss Whedon got lucky with the Buffy show. Everything else he's done, including Firefly, is cobbled-together drek.

In my humble opinion, of course.

[Freakzeek]

Can someone explain to me how THOR, SILVER SURFER, NAMOR and the perfect CAPTAIN AMERICA more relatable than GREEN ARROW, GREEN LANTERN, NIGHTWING and say BLUE BEETLE?

For that matter, how is the innate relatability of a Jedi Knight more potent than that of a Green Lantern?

My point being, generalizations like this are outdated. Both Marvel and DC have their share of the same kind of comic book archetypes. They both have the realistic heroes and the overly fantastic heroes.

It all depends on how, as Calvin Government pointed out, capable the creators behind each story are.

Maybe Marvel Movies are easier to translate but to dismiss DC movies so easily, reveals a lack of understanding or even knowledge of the depth of DC beyond Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Green Lantern for one has been green lit and if handled properly has the potential to be the next Sci-Fi action movie franchise that Star Wars and Star Trek were.

Suicide Squad has the potential to be an awesome war/superhero cross-genre movie.

And how come no on has tried looking at Hawkman? A barbarian with wings? Think of the brutal aerial fight scenes!

===

Here's what I'm more willing to believe: It's easier to make Marvel movies because of the creative control they have over their own characters. DC has to deal with WB's meddling and need to reinvent the wheel OR to copy what works for others. Granted, WB has more money but Marvel has more freedom. Anyone who's ever had his or her work presented before a focus group and panel of numbers-focused executives looking at the results KNOWS what I'm talking about.

Thor was an Arrogant dick who had to become a human to learn Humility.

Silver Surfer made a deal with the devil(galatcus) for power etc. and lost his homeworld because of it (he gave up something irreplaceable for something else)

Namor is the biggest douche on the planet, hot-tempered yet at odd with everything, a common outsider

And "perfect" Captain america isn't so perfect, you must have not read any of brubaker's work, He's a man who has morals & vaules that don't fit the modern world, displaced out of time, everything he ever loved has died

all of these character's are pretty easy to relate to.

[ShadowDemon]

Several people have brought up Battlestar Galactica, and I think it's a good analogy to illustrate what I'm about to say:

DC is like Old School Galactica. Even when dealing with material that is grim/gritty, it has a certain "larger than life" quality to it's presentation. It's "cinematic" in tone.

Marvel is like New School Galactica. When it gets grim/gritty, it jumps in with both feet. What you see is what you get and what you bring to it. It's "documentary" in tone.

[carabas]

In what way is old school Galactica cinematic? And in what way is modern Galactica not?

[Xero]

Firstly, it's an old interview.

Secondly, Joss Whedon was absolutely correct.

Thirdly, he isn't attacking your favorite obsession, he is just stating a well known fact.

[The Batman]

Silver Surfer made a deal with the devil(galatcus) for power etc. and lost his homeworld because of it (he gave up something irreplaceable for something else)



When did they redo the Surfer's origin?

Why'd they get rid of the bit where Norrin Radd sacrifices himself to Galactus in order to save Shalla-Bal and Zenn-La?

[cougarbjones]

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/whedon-on-x3-dc-and-returning-to-the-mu/

When I read Joss Whedon's comments about DC's characters in the above link, I wanted to burn my Buffy The Vampire Slayer comics. Luckily, I don't own any since I feel Whedon hasn't written anything good since that show's first 3 seasons. I used to be a huge Marvel Zombie(until JoeyQ and most of his writers shat all over that Universe) but I still love their characters. Having said that, they are no more realistic than DC's. They were built on Stan Lee's pseudo-scientific origins(which themselves are out-of-date and/or inaccurate beyond belief) and their secret identities were given real world problems(these days DC's characters have these in spades as well). Neither of those ideas are that novel anymore. No matter how many poorly constructed analogues to the real world that JoeyQ forces on "his" Universe(Civil War, Ellis' Thunderbolts, Secret Invasion), this is a World that contains a talking duck, a giant in a metallic pink & purple dress who eats planets, and a huge bald alien in a toga who does nothing but stand motionless, spying on people.

I am so sick of hearing how "edgy" and "real" Marvel is. Just because so many of their writers are fond of having their characters stand around talking for most of the issue, every heroes' secret identity has been outed(although Spidey's is back in the closet), and their artists either love to draw the characters without costumes or at least with "cool" upgrades(Spidey and Hercules are the only characters I can think of who still have the same costumes they had 10 years ago), these are still stories about superheroes. It seems like the same people who said Superman sucks because he's too powerful loved Sentry because he had the "power of one million exploding suns". I feel this is just an excuse to not like a company's characters.

I didnt take it the way you did. I think that DC was near death until the Batman Reborn series started and The Blackest Night Series. For the longest time I didn't read one single DC comic because they were so confusing. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan but how far can you really go with Superman now? I loved Aquaman but they don't know what to do with him either. I am glad that Batman Reborn and Blackest Night are doing well and I am rooting for DC to come back strong. And we all know that Bruce Wayne will be coming back and that is something exciting to look forward to see how they do that.
But admit it, they are not even CLOSE to Marvel Comics. I feel your frustration with Whedon and I'm not a big fan of him either but what I got out of that I think he is right. DC is making a nice comeback and I am supporting them. I am buying all the new titles and enjoying them. I love Gotham City Sirens and Detective Comics-Batwoman (Awsome artwork!!) I also think they picked the right time to start the new series because they did it exactly when everyone was talking about Marvel "dragging out Dark Riegn". I love the Dark Reign series and some really amazing stuff came out because of it but I think it's at least a month overdue to end. Superman needs to be teamed with someone to be good anymore. I like the Superman/Batman comic. That works for me, but it's not as simple as it used to be. People expect much more out of comics these days and if you can't deliver, no one will buy it. Superman can't stand on his own anymmore. Marvel has been so well done that they are in place to go wherever they want. Almost any character can show up in each others book and fit in. Superman comics don't suck now because he is too powerful, they suck because the readers are more sopisticated now and won't buy into reading the same bull over and over. Personally, I think that Marvels Civil War series was the major reason that comics have made such a big comeback. They grew up because the readers grew up and want something more substantial. While Marvel opening new avenues for itself and creating more options DC stood still and almost died. They almost screwed up Batman!! It's hard to do that!! But I think all is well now and you will see a big difference in DC from here on.
I don't agree with your comment about the Marvel characters standing around and talking most of the issues. I don't see that at all. I don't like to read comic books that are too wordy and I've never thought Marvel was ever guilty of that. I think JLA was guilty for that!! Grant Morrison was so "wordy" I stopped reading it. I through "From Hell" in the fireplace! I think the perfect balance of dialogue and art make for the perfect recipe. And they hyped the "Alan Moores stories for DC universe" like it was something special. Honestly, I think Alan Moore should apologize for every story in there except 2. I get alot of heat because of my critizim of Alan Moore but I just don't get why everyone loves him so much. I loved "Watchmen". That was a special book and it deserves to be considered one of the best novels of all time. Not just graphic novels I mean ALL novels. It was amazing. But everything else I have read of his I did not like at all. Just one mans opinion. Anyway, I respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I think you took it the wrong way but maybe I am wrong and should go back and read it again. Good Luck. Have a great day.
JC

[carabas]

I don't agree with your comment about the Marvel characters standing around and talking most of the issues. I don't see that at all. I don't like to read comic books that are too wordy and I've never thought Marvel was ever guilty of that. I think JLA was guilty for that!! Grant Morrison was so "wordy" I stopped reading it.Bendis (most Marvel top 10 books) pretty much invented 'superheroes just standing there and yapping away like there is no tomorrow'. And obviously you have not read any eighties X-Men where Claremont pioneered the technique, and had people burst out into full paragraphs of purple prose in the middle of combat.

I didnt take it the way you did. I think that DC was near death until the Batman Reborn series started and The Blackest Night Series.Being the #2 comics publisher in America is hardly near death, is it?

[Jeremi]

Bendis (most Marvel top 10 books) pretty much invented 'superheroes just standing there and yapping away like there is no tomorrow'. And obviously you have not read any eighties X-Men where Claremont pioneered the technique, and had people burst out into full paragraphs of purple prose in the middle of combat.

There is yapping...and then there is Bendispeak.

[Hullababy]

Personally, I think that Marvels Civil War series was the major reason that comics have made such a big comeback. They grew up because the readers grew up and want something more substantial.

Wait you thought Civil War was something substantial ? You just lost me there. Civil War was so substantial that Marvel is now desperately trying to fix the damages it did to the characters and return to its previous status-quo.

[Free-Man]

Wait you thought Civil War was something substantial ? You just lost me there. Civil War was so substantial that Marvel is now desperately trying to fix the damages it did to the characters and return to its previous status-quo.

Not really. It's already been what, four years, and the books that spunoff of the Civil War and it's follow-ups like Mighty Avengers and Dark Avengers are selling well.

[carabas]

Personally, I think that Marvels Civil War series was the major reason that comics have made such a big comeback.Wait, hang on... What big comics comeback? Comics sell about as well now in America as they did before Civil War. By which I mean that even the top 10 books (Blackest Night, NEw Avengers...) sell in almost negligible quantities. Hundred thousand copies is nothing, really.

And the comic book film thing started way before Civil War, if that is what you're getting at. And it's not as if Civil War was not just The Ultimates dumbed down (who already were The Authority dumbed down) and put into the 616 universe.

[The Batman]

When did they redo the Surfer's origin?

Why'd they get rid of the bit where Norrin Radd sacrifices himself to Galactus in order to save Shalla-Bal and Zenn-La?

So, I've been poking around online and in my collection and I can't find anything that tells me when they revamped the Surfer's origin.

Does anyone know if it was a recent book? Does anybody know which one?

I'd like to read it.

[Hullababy]

Not really. It's already been what, four years, and the books that spunoff of the Civil War and it's follow-ups like Mighty Avengers and Dark Avengers are selling well.

But how did Civil War substantially change anything as the poster was claiming other than launching two titles ? All it did was assassinate the character of Iron Man and now they are making the character go through hell to try make him a well respected hero again. Captain America is coming back. Thor is back. And after Siege the Avengers will probably reform.

[Free-Man]

But how did Civil War substantially change anything as the poster was claiming other than launching two titles ? All it did was assassinate the character of Iron Man and now they are making the character go through hell to try make him a well respected hero again. Captain America is coming back. Thor is back. And after Siege the Avengers will probably reform.

I don't think it changed up anything. But I also don't think that Marvel is in any hurry to undo all of it either. So far, the post Civil War titles have been selling well, so I doubt they'll all be gotten rid of.

[The Batman]

Not really. It's already been what, four years, and the books that spunoff of the Civil War and it's follow-ups like Mighty Avengers and Dark Avengers are selling well.


Is that because of Civil War or because they've been consistently at the center of Marvel's ongoing series of events?

[Eric D.]

i agree with Whedon, when it comes to translating character to film. - -it's apparently easier for marvel universe, part and parcel - the proof is in marvel studio success.

[Free-Man]

Is that because of Civil War or because they've been consistently at the center of Marvel's ongoing series of events?

Good point, but what I was getting at is that Marvel probably isn't in any hurry to cancel those titles, despite the earlier claim that they "desperately want to undo" the Civil War.

[Hullababy]

Good point, but what I was getting at is that Marvel probably isn't in any hurry to cancel those titles, despite the earlier claim that they "desperately want to undo" the Civil War.

What I meant was undo the effects Civil War had on a lot of characters who are at the core of the MU. I was talking about changes caused to the Marvel Universe after Civil War, not about the titles launched.

[Ilostmyplace]

Not really. It's already been what, four years, and the books that spunoff of the Civil War and it's follow-ups like Mighty Avengers and Dark Avengers are selling well.

Not really, Dark Avengers was seen by many as a failure.

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

Not really, Dark Avengers was seen by many as a failure.

Isn't Dark Avengers a continuous top 10/top 15 book?

[Mulbard]

Also of note: it sounds like he'd be keen on making a Kitty Pryde movie starring Ellen Paige. Book it!

Probs won't go ahead but I am pleased to hear of this:biggrin:

[carabas]

So, I've been poking around online and in my collection and I can't find anything that tells me when they revamped the Surfer's origin.

Does anyone know if it was a recent book? Does anybody know which one?The Surfer has the same origin he always had. Freakzeek is misremembering or making stuf up.

[Totoro Man]

Have you read Buffy or Astonishing or Fray or Runa....wait scratch that. Whedon is an amazing writer. the later seasons of buffy were fantastic.

but... he didn't write those at all!

[Freakzeek]

The Surfer has the same origin he always had. Freakzeek is misremembering or making stuf up.

I misremembered, still Norrin Radd, a young astronomer of the planet Zenn-La, made a bargain with the cosmic entity Galactus, pledging to serve as his herald in order to save his homeworld from destruction. That's still a deal with a devil.According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favours. Those favours vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Saving Silver Surfer's Planet was the favor in this case & galactus is the devil in this case.

[direction9]

Not really, Dark Avengers was seen by many as a failure.

lol no it wasn't

[The Batman]

I misremembered, still Norrin Radd, a young astronomer of the planet Zenn-La, made a bargain with the cosmic entity Galactus, pledging to serve as his herald in order to save his homeworld from destruction. That's still a deal with a devil.According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favours. Those favours vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Saving Silver Surfer's Planet was the favor in this case & galactus is the devil in this case.


Fair enough, but making a deal to acquire power for yourself and making a deal to save a planet and its billions of inhabitants are two very different things. One's very selfish, the other very selfless.

[carabas]

I misremembered, still Norrin Radd, a young astronomer of the planet Zenn-La, made a bargain with the cosmic entity Galactus, pledging to serve as his herald in order to save his homeworld from destruction. That's still a deal with a devil.According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favours. Those favours vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Saving Silver Surfer's Planet was the favor in this case & galactus is the devil in this case.It's kinda like the opposite. Galactus was an early prototype of Kirby's cosmic gods. The basic concept was: "the FF fight god." And the heralds are analogues for archangles.

[SMARTASS8]

Cry Moar. Sounds to me like Whedon is right and your just bitching because he isn't writing for DC. Also pretty much no one like the Sentry (I'm one of the few who sees potential). So who are these imaginary people who love him? By the way, you know what I'm tired of? Everyone always saying "DC characters are so god like". Marvel has plenty of god like characters too.

Boy, you "pwned" me. How can I verbally combat someone "kewl" enough to use misspelled words like "moar". I guess you're right. I'm just soooo jealous that Marvel gets to have Whedon write brilliant books for them. If only DC could, my life would be complete.

[Free-Man]

Boy, you "pwned" me. How can I verbally combat someone "kewl" enough to use misspelled words like "moar". I guess you're right. I'm just soooo jealous that Marvel gets to have Whedon write brilliant books for them. If only DC could, my life would be complete.

He is correct in the sense that you kinda made a strawman argument when you tried to say that Marvel fans love the Sentry, which isn't true at all. Bendis loves him, but the fan hate toward him is pretty strong.

[Darrell D.]

I misremembered, still Norrin Radd, a young astronomer of the planet Zenn-La, made a bargain with the cosmic entity Galactus, pledging to serve as his herald in order to save his homeworld from destruction. That's still a deal with a devil.According to traditional Christian belief in witchcraft, the pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon (or demons); the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favours. Those favours vary by the tale, but tend to include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power. Saving Silver Surfer's Planet was the favor in this case & galactus is the devil in this case.

Which, not surprisingly, was not Kirby's thoughts as an origin for the character.
That was all Stan Lee, and Kirby hated it.

[SMARTASS8]

Firstly, it's an old interview.

Secondly, Joss Whedon was absolutely correct.

Thirdly, he isn't attacking your favorite obsession, he is just stating a well known fact.

Hey genius, when I stated this thread, it was a new interview.

For an obsession, I must not be very obsessed since I haven't visited the forums for about a month . Not only is my number of posts quite small when compared to most forum members, this is the only forum I post on.

It may have been a "fact" in the 60's or early 70's, but not so much anymore.

[SMARTASS8]

I didnt take it the way you did. I think that DC was near death until the Batman Reborn series started and The Blackest Night Series. For the longest time I didn't read one single DC comic because they were so confusing. Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan but how far can you really go with Superman now? I loved Aquaman but they don't know what to do with him either. I am glad that Batman Reborn and Blackest Night are doing well and I am rooting for DC to come back strong. And we all know that Bruce Wayne will be coming back and that is something exciting to look forward to see how they do that.

We disagree on this. That's cool, we all have our own opinions, but I have liked most of what DC has put out since before Batman Reborn or Blackest Night.

But admit it, they are not even CLOSE to Marvel Comics.

You're right. If they were anything like Marvel, I'd probably only be reading Dark Horse, IDW, and the occasional indy book.

I feel your frustration with Whedon and I'm not a big fan of him either but what I got out of that I think he is right. DC is making a nice comeback and I am supporting them. I am buying all the new titles and enjoying them. I love Gotham City Sirens and Detective Comics-Batwoman (Awsome artwork!!) I also think they picked the right time to start the new series because they did it exactly when everyone was talking about Marvel "dragging out Dark Riegn". I love the Dark Reign series and some really amazing stuff came out because of it but I think it's at least a month overdue to end. Superman needs to be teamed with someone to be good anymore. I like the Superman/Batman comic. That works for me, but it's not as simple as it used to be. People expect much more out of comics these days and if you can't deliver, no one will buy it. Superman can't stand on his own anymmore. Marvel has been so well done that they are in place to go wherever they want. Almost any character can show up in each others book and fit in. Superman comics don't suck now because he is too powerful, they suck because the readers are more sopisticated now and won't buy into reading the same bull over and over. Personally, I think that Marvels Civil War series was the major reason that comics have made such a big comeback. They grew up because the readers grew up and want something more substantial. While Marvel opening new avenues for itself and creating more options DC stood still and almost died. They almost screwed up Batman!! It's hard to do that!! But I think all is well now and you will see a big difference in DC from here on.
I don't agree with your comment about the Marvel characters standing around and talking most of the issues. I don't see that at all. I don't like to read comic books that are too wordy and I've never thought Marvel was ever guilty of that. I think JLA was guilty for that!! Grant Morrison was so "wordy" I stopped reading it. I through "From Hell" in the fireplace! I think the perfect balance of dialogue and art make for the perfect recipe. And they hyped the "Alan Moores stories for DC universe" like it was something special. Honestly, I think Alan Moore should apologize for every story in there except 2. I get alot of heat because of my critizim of Alan Moore but I just don't get why everyone loves him so much. I loved "Watchmen". That was a special book and it deserves to be considered one of the best novels of all time. Not just graphic novels I mean ALL novels. It was amazing. But everything else I have read of his I did not like at all. Just one mans opinion. Anyway, I respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I think you took it the wrong way but maybe I am wrong and should go back and read it again. Good Luck. Have a great day.
JC

Let's just agree to disagree. I will say that you are one of the more polite Marvel fans I've come across on the CBR forums and I respect your opinion even though we may disagree.:smile:

[Free-Man]

Not really, Dark Avengers was seen by many as a failure.

No it wasn't. It's currently ten issues in and is still in the Top 10 sales chart. Where did you get this info about it being a failure?

[SMARTASS8]

He is correct in the sense that you kinda made a strawman argument when you tried to say that Marvel fans love the Sentry, which isn't true at all. Bendis loves him, but the fan hate toward him is pretty strong.

This really isn't an argument I'm building, more just me venting my disdain for Joss Whedon's, imo, out-of-date opinion of DC, JoeyQ's Marvel U, and the likes/dislikes of some of modern day Marvel's more fervent fans. When I still used to visit Marvel forums, there was a lot of love for The Sentry. If most Marvel fans don't love him anymore, just replace him with Wolverine, Punisher, or practically any other Marvel "hero" since I think Spidey is the only one who doesn't use killing as a way to defeat villains.

[Free-Man]

This really isn't an argument I'm building, more just me venting my disdain for Joss Whedon's, imo, out-of-date opinion of DC, JoeyQ's Marvel U, and the likes/dislikes of some of modern day Marvel's more fervent fans. When I still used to visit Marvel forums, there was a lot of love for The Sentry. If most Marvel fans don't love him anymore, just replace him with Wolverine, Punisher, or practically any other Marvel "hero" since I think Spidey is the only one who doesn't use killing as a way to defeat villains.

Thats a pretty big blanket statement. There are tons of heroes who don't kill villains, and many of the ones who do only in absolute last ditch efforts.

[SMARTASS8]

Thats a pretty big blanket statement. There are tons of heroes who don't kill villains, and many of the ones who do only in absolute last ditch efforts.

In the DCU maybe, but most Marvel "heroes" kill these days. A lot of them never would have done so before the year 2000. Maybe you can add Hulk to the "doesn't kill list" since Pak retconned the "fact" that the Hulk was said to have killed a lot of people, but obviously not every writer/editor received this memo.

[Free-Man]

In the DCU maybe, but most Marvel "heroes" kill these days. A lot of them never would have done so before the year 2000. Maybe you can add Hulk to the "doesn't kill list" since Pak retconned the "fact" that the Hulk was said to have killed a lot of people, but obviously not every writer/editor received this memo.

Again, not all that accurate. Wolverine and the X-Force kill, Punisher kills, Captain America kills, and so on, but you're making it seem like the majority of Marvel's heroes kill. And even if they did, that isn't neccesarily a bad thing.

[SMARTASS8]

Again, not all that accurate. Wolverine and the X-Force kill, Punisher kills, Captain America kills, and so on, but you're making it seem like the majority of Marvel's heroes kill. And even if they did, that isn't neccesarily a bad thing.

We're talking opinons here. In my opinon, since superhero comics are unrealistic stories about impossible characters, I'd prefer them not to kill. Sure, if we had superheroes in the real world, not only do I think they would probably kill, I also doubt they'd wear costumes. In my fantasy, I'd prefer the heroes to actually act like heroes.

[carabas]

You're right. If they were anything like Marvel, I'd probably only be reading Dark Horse, IDW, and the occasional indy book.Dark Horse and IDW are not indy?

[cougarbjones]

No it wasn't. It's currently ten issues in and is still in the Top 10 sales chart. Where did you get this info about it being a failure?

I agree with you about Detective Comic Batwoman!! It is one of the best books on the shelves now. Great writing and AMAZING artwork!!

[Whirlwind Dinamo]

i agree with Whedon, when it comes to translating character to film. - -it's apparently easier for marvel universe, part and parcel - the proof is in marvel studio success.

Maybe the Joss way is not always the best way

Joss Whedon's 'Dollhouse' Canceled By Fox
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/11/11/joss-whedons-dollhouse-canceled-by-fox/
"Dollhouse" fans, the news you've been dreading has officially arrived—Joss Whedon's latest television endeavor is dead.

The Hollywood Reporter has the breaking news that Fox has canceled "Dollhouse," the Eliza Dushku-starring series created by Whedon. The article notes that despite a DVR-induced ratings bump, "Dollhouse" just couldn't cut it by the network's standards.

[Castel]

Speaking of Joss Whedon, the season 8 of Buffy seriously gone downhill lately.

I don't know if the guy is still working on it but...I can handle the fact that this comics is dead ugly, not Josh's fault anyway, but the story now is just plain crazy and stupid.

Sad really, i kind of liked to read it.

[brenticles]

Maybe the Joss way is not always the best way.

That seems really silly thing to say. Of course one person's way is not always the best way.

I don't know why Whedon keeps making deals with Fox. They don’t seem to understand anything he does or have the patience to let it build. I think Dollhouse would still be running if it were on Syfy (and would have been better than 95% of their line-up) or another cable channel. It didn't need a massive budget.

As for his comments on DC/Marvel I don’t think he’s wrong. At the very least it’s a common perception among many in the public. It’s a challenge that DC has to overcome in presenting movies or comics to a wider audience. Personally I like that DC is more modern day mythology rather than Marvel’s angst-ridden SciFi

[Mat001]

Speaking of Joss Whedon, the season 8 of Buffy seriously gone downhill lately.

I don't know if the guy is still working on it but...I can handle the fact that this comics is dead ugly, not Josh's fault anyway, but the story now is just plain crazy and stupid.

Sad really, i kind of liked to read it.

Whedon's doing the next issue and then the final four. Between which, Brad Meltzer will do an arc. Then a few one-shots will come out, before season nine begins. He's also doing things that he never could on the show.

[tfresca]

Given the poor quality of most of the DC books right now I think the criticism is valid.

[Elayis]

We're talking opinons here. In my opinon, since superhero comics are unrealistic stories about impossible characters, I'd prefer them not to kill. Sure, if we had superheroes in the real world, not only do I think they would probably kill, I also doubt they'd wear costumes. In my fantasy, I'd prefer the heroes to actually act like heroes.

From that statement, I'd say you primarily fit into the DC persona, and what their characters are about (for the most part). DC's characters are primarily concerned with doing good and helping others, while Marvel characters, who also try (for the most part) to do good, are also just trying to make it by and put food on the table. Or they may do it because they like it, or because it's all they're good at. Or it brings them fame. Sometimes that means compromising. Sure that isn't heroic, but it's realistic.

This may be a bit of an overgeneralization, but I think (for the most part) it's true:

DC = Escapism
Marvel = Realism
Maybe the Joss way is not always the best way

Joss Whedon's 'Dollhouse' Canceled By Fox
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/11/11/joss-whedons-dollhouse-canceled-by-fox/
"Dollhouse" fans, the news you've been dreading has officially arrived—Joss Whedon's latest television endeavor is dead.

The Hollywood Reporter has the breaking news that Fox has canceled "Dollhouse," the Eliza Dushku-starring series created by Whedon. The article notes that despite a DVR-induced ratings bump, "Dollhouse" just couldn't cut it by the network's standards.

Damn it!! :mad: :evilangry: I just stopped watching it, too, because I've been sick lately and I've been catching up on school. This has just ruined my weekend. This show was so good lately! :frown:

I don't know why Whedon keeps making deals with Fox. They don’t seem to understand anything he does or have the patience to let it build. I think Dollhouse would still be running if it were on Syfy (and would have been better than 95% of their line-up) or another cable channel. It didn't need a massive budget.

The only reason why Whedon did Dollhouse with Fox is because Eliza Dushku as under contract. It was actually Dushku that approached Whedon, after she was contracted to do a show for FOX, which she would produce. It was after a couple meetings with Dushku that he came up with the concept for Dollhouse, since he had always seen a lot of range under the pretty girl image. Dushku also came up with or inspired many of the shows plots (the season one episode where they bow-hunt was written after she had gone bow-hunting the previous weekend).

I think if Whedon had a choice, he wouldn't have worked with FOX. But he wanted to work with Dushku, so he had to compromise, like most people do (and like most Marvel characters, not DC, though).

[SMARTASS8]

Given the poor quality of most of the DC books right now I think the criticism is valid.


That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Just like the one where I think Marvel Comics have plummeted in quality since JoeyQ became EIC and unofficially made Bendis their head writer. Although, with all the Zombies who like to hang out at the DC forums and trash talk, not everyone agrees with my opinion either.

[SMARTASS8]

From that statement, I'd say you primarily fit into the DC persona, and what their characters are about (for the most part). DC's characters are primarily concerned with doing good and helping others, while Marvel characters, who also try (for the most part) to do good, are also just trying to make it by and put food on the table. Or they may do it because they like it, or because it's all they're good at. Or it brings them fame. Sometimes that means compromising. Sure that isn't heroic, but it's realistic.

Considering I'm posting on the DC forums, that shouldn't be that surprising(although since it seems all of the agressive Zombies like to hang out here these days, maybe it is).

This may be a bit of an overgeneralization, but I think (for the most part) it's true:

DC = Escapism
Marvel = Realism


I know you're not the first person to say that, but I find that opinion wrong. They're both escapism. Just because Marvel these days likes to make all their "heroes" unlikable anti-heroes doesn't make their universe "realistic". Even when Stan Lee (co-)created what is today's Marvel Universe, he may have given his heroes more personal problems than what DC's characters dealt with(although this hasn't been true since the late 1970's no matter what Whedon or some Zombie elitists think), but they were no more realistic than DC's universe. Considering the Marvel Universe now has someone on the level of Charlie Manson running things(he's being written like he's the POTUS) just because he executed an alien in front of people, I'd say their realism might even be lower than DC's.

I think if Whedon had a choice, he wouldn't have worked with FOX. But he wanted to work with Dushku, so he had to compromise, like most people do (and like most Marvel characters, not DC, though).

Further proof that Whedon is an idiot. So many critics(and a lot of people who attemoted to watch Dollhouse) listed Dushku's acting as the weak link of that show and yet he "compromised" himself in order to hire her as the lead.(Yeah, Marvel characters are sooo deep. They compromise themselves everytime they're written by a crappy writer who acts like they've never read a Marvel comic before)

[carabas]

Further proof that Whedon is an idiot. So many critics(and a lot of people who attemoted to watch Dollhouse) listed Dushku's acting as the weak link of that show and yet he "compromised" himself in order to hire her as the lead.(Yeah, Marvel characters are sooo deep. They compromise themselves everytime they're written by a crappy writer who acts like they've never read a Marvel comic before)she's the producer, and she was under contract by Fox to do a show. It would be far more accurate to say she hired whedon as show runner/head writer.

[Hulk_Is]

.......................ignore my post..........

[Hulk_Is]

Considering I'm posting on the DC forums, that shouldn't be that surprising(although since it seems all of the agressive Zombies like to hang out here these days, maybe it is).



I know you're not the first person to say that, but I find that opinion wrong. They're both escapism. Just because Marvel these days likes to make all their "heroes" unlikable anti-heroes doesn't make their universe "realistic". Even when Stan Lee (co-)created what is today's Marvel Universe, he may have given his heroes more personal problems than what DC's characters dealt with(although this hasn't been true since the late 1970's no matter what Whedon or some Zombie elitists think), but they were no more realistic than DC's universe. Considering the Marvel Universe now has someone on the level of Charlie Manson running things(he's being written like he's the POTUS) just because he executed an alien in front of people, I'd say their realism might even be lower than DC's.



Further proof that Whedon is an idiot. So many critics(and a lot of people who attemoted to watch Dollhouse) listed Dushku's acting as the weak link of that show and yet he "compromised" himself in order to hire her as the lead.(Yeah, Marvel characters are sooo deep. They compromise themselves everytime they're written by a crappy writer who acts like they've never read a Marvel comic before)

Dude, you hate Marvel. lol

[Paul Newell]

the insults are starting so a good place to end it there.