LogFAQs > #946230395

WhiskeyDisk posted...

The Justice League on some level or another has what, 30-40 years on the Avengers in some form or another in the comics archives?

Only about 23 years (unless you want to be really pedantic, in which case JL only beats Avengers by about 3 years), and it's less useful than you think.

Justice Society was created in 1940. Justice League (which at its heart was just a renamed, revamped reboot of the JSA) was created in 1960, when DC was rebooting their line and kicking off the Silver Age (basically, when we got the new versions of Flash and Green Lantern). Marvel brought Avengers out in 1963. So if you want to be literal, JL only beats Avengers by 3 years. But if you count the JSA as the proto-JL, then that adds another 20 years.

But that period between 1940 and 1960 wasn't really churning out a ton of awesome Justice Society stories or anything. The strong burst of popularity during the Golden Age was mostly confined to the war period, and most comic publishers were convinced that superhero comics were pretty much passe by the 1950s (the main push in the 50s was Western and Romance comics, with Horror comics popular as well until the Comics Code was invented to murder them). The Golden Age JSA never had their own comic, and mostly only appeared in anthology books, and they were mostly over and done by 1950. If you look into it, you probably find there's only about 50 or so JSA stories prior to the Avengers launch.

Plus, a lot of those earlier stories from that era? Were kind of terrible. Sites like Superdickery exist for a reason - very little of the output from those years would work very well with modern sensibilities in mind (and most of the good ideas from that period just got reused later anyway, during one of DC's half-dozen or so continuity reboots).

Ironically, if you're looking for good story ideas from Marvel, you can generally look from 1960 to today to mine for ideas (though I'd argue the best stories are all from the late 70s/80s/mid-00s). But if you're looking for good ideas from DC, you probably aren't going to find much worth looking at prior to Crisis, in the early 80s.

But I don't think lack of ideas has ever been DC's problem.

Speaking of which...



WhiskeyDisk posted...

They can't find a cast and a director that actually gets what they're trying to make as a film?

I'm still absolutely convinced Warner Bros is the problem, and that the reason why so many DC films wind up being shit is because, at heart, they're utterly embarrassed to be making comic movies.

There's a case to be made that Warner Bros will only commit strongly to a film if it can be "artsy" or "more meaningful" than a "comic movie". It's why they love Nolan so much, and why David Goyer is their go-to script writer, in spite of the fact that he's the one who's said in interviews that She-Hulk only exists so Hulk can have someone to fuck (in spite of the fact that they never have and their entire backstory is that they're cousins) and no one likes Martian Manhunter unless they're a virgin. There's a strong undercurrent in the corporate mentality that comic books are shameful, and that the only acceptable way to make a comic movie is to turn it into an artistic piece that has a message or makes a statement, even if that message or statement has absolutely nothing to do with the character you're making your movie about.

For all that they want to mimic Marvel without actually mimicking Marvel, I feel like the one idea they NEED to steal from Marvel is to find a producer who is both good at his job AND a fan of comics, who they can put in charge of the whole division. Someone who can plot overarching storylines (if you MUST have a shared universe), and who can stand up to auteur directors who want to put their own artistic aesthetic over the good of the shared narrative. The animation division was praised for years because the people in it (like Bruce Timm) were clearly huge comic nerds, who cared about the projects they were working on. Warner Bros has never had that.

Snyder's the one they put in charge - but he's also the one who seems to profoundly misunderstand the entire point of Superman. One of the most simplistic comic characters ever to understand. He's also the one who kind of didn't seem to get the ethos of Watchmen. He also made Sucker Punch - the movie where Snyder basically masturbates over his female cast for 2 hours and then tells you in interviews that the point of the movie was that you're bad for sexually objectifying women. Because he's not a good enough filmmaker to craft a film that can speak for itself without coming across as extremely hypocritical. And this is the guy they decided was the best possible person to helm your attempt at a cinematic universe?

Look, sure, I liked 300 as much as the next guy, but it's just about the only thing he's ever done that wasn't a dumpster fire. Why are you putting him in charge of what is potentially the most lucrative property you've ever owned as a corporation? Which Time-Warner exec did he have blackmail evidence over?

For me, it's very telling that the best DC movie ever made was made outside of Warner Bros (the original Superman film wasn't a WB production). And the strength of the successful Batman films was never really on WB's shoulders as much as it was supported by two strong directors (Burton and Nolan) who could push back against studio apathy (and let's be honest, Burton himself fits the "doesn't really give a shit about comics, is mostly making an art piece in his own style" mold of director, because he's openly admitted he doesn't really like comics that much - hence Kevin Smith's jab at him over his proposed Superman film).

I have zero faith DC will ever produce a worthwhile shared universe until they find someone to helm it who actually deserves to be sitting in that chair, and who is supported by the studio as a whole rather than spending their entire time fighting against anti-comic book disdain At best, you might get the occasional gem when a strong director with a vision pushes their own film through the quagmire, but most of the time you're going to get movies that are mediocre to outright terrible.

Basically, this is the same argument I've had for years over why mainstream shared universe comic book stories themselves were so much better in the 70s/80s - a strong editor and editor-in-chief can keep the writers and artists on task and integrate their work effectively. But a lack of editorial presence allows creative teams to go insane and either take a massive shit in the whole sandbox (Grant Morrison) or just churn out substandard word (Chuck Austen). Editorial has been kind of handicapped since the late 80s, and it's hurt shared universes. Which is why, today, most of the best stories are either mostly out of continuity or are by solo writers writing in their own owned universe where they don't have to worry about other chefs shitting in their pot.

Basically, Kevin Feige is Marvel's "Editor-in-Chief". DC/WB desperately needs one. Specifically one that actually likes the product and knows what they're doing.
---

"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family