Not being a comic book fan, but I can say that I have loved all of the superheroes adaptions I have seen (that I care to remember seeing). Shows and movies like Batman: The Animated Series, Batman: Beyond, Justice League, Most Batman movies (you know the ones), the whole thing Marvel Disney did, and with an honorable mention to Static Shock. I can say that I always enjoyed these.
So here's my understanding of the DC and Marvel universes.
DC heroes are frankly more powerful, but less interesting as a rule. They are heroes first, and people second. As it was said in Batman: Begins, the mask is Bruce Wayne, not Batman. And Batman is one of the few characters with an actual deep motivation having seen his parents killed in front of him as a child. Most other DC heroes barely have anything that affects them. Superman is more of a boyscout to the point that everyone calls him that. I remember a great scene in Justice League where he tried to threaten a C list villain. The guy just looked at him and mocked him, knowing he wouldn't do a thing to him. This is despite the fact that Superman is easily one of the most powerful individuals in the DC universe with Strength, Speed, and invulnerability (among other powers) that at least rival some of the other greatest heroes (I think the Flash is a little faster than Supes). Green Lantern... Space police officer (seriously do any of the Green Lanterns have any real back story?) with an insanely powerful ring that can create light energy constructs as long as the bearer has a strong force of will. The stronger their will power, the stronger the ring will be.
Marvel as more interesting, but less powerful. Tony Stark, the weapons manufacturer turned philanthropist who creates a dons a mechanical super-suit to beat bad guys, but also is dying save for a potent reactor in his chest, and has a long standing drinking problem. Peter Parker, the young man granted super-human abilities, but he squandered them and his uncle died. Now, he realizes that with Great Power comes great responsibility, but does that mean he can't have a life? Bruce Banner, a scientist exposed to enough radiation to kill a man. Instead it turned him into a monster, anytime he gets angry. Banner is rather mild mannered seeking a cure for what ills him, but also helping people along the way. But the Hulk is a raging beast, who may or may not be on your side at any given moment, with powers that make him incredibly strong and nearly invulnerable. And the madder Hulk gets, the stronger he gets.
For the record, Iron Man/Tony Stark was meant to be a character that the audience would hate normally, but feel pathos for because of his situation. Bruce Banner was sort of intended as a Frankenstein/Jekyll and Hyde sort of character.
I'm not really sure how a Justice League movie would work out. I half fear that any threat would end up being resolved by Superman, like the Super Friends did half the time. There are very few villains that could fight evenly with Superman AND still see many of the other league members as legitimate threats. Batman is amazing, but still limited as a human. Wonder Woman is not quite as strong as the Man of Steel, and lacks his full plethora of powers including invulnerability. Green Lantern is a powerhouse, but could he really fight evenly with DarkSeid or Doomsday? Flash has speed, and can showcase some amazing abilities, but I'm not sure he can defeat some of the foes that Superman can, like Brainiac or a powered up Parasite?
And that's the problem they need to overcome. There are few credible threats that can keep the whole league at bay, other than a alliance of Supervillains, Cadmus, or DarkSeid. All of which really need more than one movie to set up. This reeks more of DC wanting to compete with Marvel's Avenger's 2 and not wanting to make a good film which is what would compete with Avengers and the recent Marvel movies. One reason they did so well is that the lead up actually wasn't half bad. Each movie was at least watchable. I foresee a bad movie that may make money, but will be hated by pretty much everyone.
You can argue that Marvel needed the lead up, but I think it benefited the finished project. Even if we know the heroes, the world needs build up and the concept of some bigger threat needs to be built up. And we already had a feel for the characters as well. So when Tony Stark showed up and started teasing Bruce Banner it worked. When Captain America talked to Nick Fury about the mission, it worked. When Thor called upon his brother's decency, even while Loki stated that they weren't brothers, it worked. If we had seen the previous movies we understood the characters a lot. If we didn't, we could always go see the previous movies and discover what we missed. Just jumping in feet first without anything, especially a movie that was retooled to make it work, doesn't inspire confidence. People may get Batman's element of distrust for Superman, but grudging respect for him. But will they understand Wonder Woman? Hell, it doesn't even seem the people making that TV Show understood her... This will hurt any character interaction between the group, especially since many of the characters will have little backstory or time to establish who they are beyond cliche tropes.
Oh, and the Marvel movies had some great casting! Everyone of them was nearly pitch perfect. And it really showed. So, getting the right people for the job is quite a task. Lord knows we don't want Jake Lloyd as Green Lantern or Aquaman. And for those with multiple characters that could fill the roll, like Flash and Green Lantern, who would it be? Hal Jordon? John Stewart? Guy Gardner? Kyle Rayner? Will they include characters and stories popularized in the not too long ago Justice League series? These are some questions that I wonder if they have actually tried to answer.
TLR: I'm a fan of the adaptions, and I fear DC is making a poor decision. The supposed weakness Marvel had has actually been something of a strength, and just throwing in 3-7 heroes, a bunch of whom the audience at large won't be familiar with, at all. Made worse by the lack of really relatable characters, most of whom will get shortchanged on screen time in a group picture and will hurt the worst aspect of such films, the group dynamic. This sort of feels like a cash grab rather than an actual effort to make a good movie that could actually make a ton more money. Hopefully, I am wrong, but I fear the worst.
SonicWaffle said:
Ever read the JLA: World War Three storyline? An ancient superweapon that causes unstoppable rage and bloodlust is approaching Earth, and pretty much every nation on the planet strikes up a war with everyone else. Aquaman basically wins by rocking up out of the sea with his army and announcing "My kingdom covers three quarters of the planet, I have millions of heavily-armed soldiers whose power levels are close to my own, we have technology you haven't even heard of yet. Picking a fight with the king of Atlantis is a really fucking stupid idea, OK?"
It's just an interesting aspect to the character. How many superheroes have the option of solving problems on a much grander scale than punching things?
That's pretty interesting. I've heard that Aquaman is a much better character in reality than people think he is. It's just that in Super Friends his only impressive power seemed to be talking to fish. Wow, that's great when you're dealing with threats in the air and on the land.
This kind of stuff probably didn't help that image...