8 Year old question about comic book movies and shows.

I get that this is your point. And I completely disagree. DC and Marvel characters relate to the actual human condition exactly the same... pretty much not at all. That makes them equally as easy, or difficult, to write for. I just don't buy that somehow Marvel characters, as a whole, are more accessible than DC characters in this day-and-age.

Trying to hand-wave away my premise that DC and Marvel treat these things differently doesn't really make my argument go away. Just because you don't wish to "see" the fundamental difference doesn't mean it's not there.

How do you write a story about a character who could do almost literally anything he wanted, has a hyper-strict moral code that never changes (unless you toss some weird-colored kryptonite at him) and almost literally can't be hurt by anything except the kryptonite? How do you realistically threaten or challenge that guy from a story point of view? As I said before it's not completely impossible.

But by the same token a huge number of cool story ideas that will NEVER apply to that "super" man could easily apply to a "non-powered" expert-assassin archer guy. You could explore countless plotlines anywhere from moral failings to fear of gunshot wounds. The archer guy is so much more "relateable" to the human audience that a writer writing for him has a practically bottomless well of plots ideas to draw upon compared to the super-god guy who can't be hurt and will never have a moral failing. The archer-guy can grow and evolve because what can or can't affect him is not fixed in stone. Characters which by definition can't change are fundamentally harder to write stories for, period.

If it makes it any easier for you I'd be willing to say that every comic book character has a characterization that is either more or less applicable to the real human audience reading their stories regardless if they are DC or Marvel characters. As I implied before Batman already breaks the "rules" as far as that goes. I'm simply making the generalization that you tend to find more characters on one side of that spectrum at DC and characters of the other side of the spectrum at Marvel.

A generalization is just what it implies. One more time I'm not saying that all Marvel stories are good or that all DC stories are bad. I'm simply saying it's ABSOLOUTELY understandable why WB can't get its act together when you are willing to understand the challenges they face compared to the Marvel movie folks. Put bluntly most of DC's characters do not lend themselves to good movies as history and current events plainly prove. Case in point do you really think it's an "accident" there hasn't been a Wonder Woman movie/TV show in 35 years?

Yes, but when was the last time you -wrote- a comic book? Obviously fans of characters like Superman like him for all sort or reasons. I'm not arguing against any of that.

I'm simply stating that from a WRITER'S point of view writing for characters who are as rigidly defined as Superman or Wonder Woman (with all the omnipotence baggage that come along with them) is generically harder to deal with than characters who have many more "relateable" human flaws.

As another case in point you'll probably recall there was a recent attempt (last year) to create a new Wonder Woman TV show. Basically the reason it failed to launch was that the writers of that show didn't really have a good clue what her character was about and couldn't really come up with a "workable" version that the fans didn't instantly rip apart. If the Wonder Woman character was EASY to write for we probably would have had half-a-dozen TV shows based on her by now.

So, you're saying that DC characters are harder to write for for writers who have trouble grasping characters that lack boring human motivations some or all of the time?

I have no idea if the specific writers who tried to get that Wonder Woman TV show going last year were uniquely crappy writers or not.

But even if they were how does that excuse any -other- writer who's tried to sell a Wonder Woman pilot to a network for the last 35 years? Apparently Wonder Woman has not been an easy character for ANYONE to write a show/movie for in all these years, not just those particular goofs from last year's attempt.

To be fair, when's the last time Marvel put out a movie/TV show with a female superhero lead?

Electra, right? And it did about as well as the (very human for DC) Catwoman movie, right?

Wonder Woman's problem isn't that she's a DC character. It's that she's a female character, and they still don't know how to write them to carry TV/Movies yet.

As I've been saying ALL ALONG Marvel has problems creating good stories/shows as well. Just because I think some characters are harder for writers to tackle than others doesn't mean DC can't have some successes and Marvel can't have some failures.

I simply think it's no real surprise that Marvel has managed to get a good string of movies going yet DC hasn't. DC is working with a stable of characters that simply makes it HARDER (not impossible, mind you, just harder) to do. *shrugs*

That's a bit of a stretch. Plenty of female dominated programming and films out there.

I wouldn't say that they were "crappy" simply because such a character was outside their scope. For all I know, they could excel in areas they're comfortable in.

I'd imagine that the problem with selling a Wonder Woman pilot to a network lies more in the expectations and lack of comprehension of network executives than anything else (or studio/studio executives as the case may be).

I agree that "lack of understanding" can be a negative in any situation like this. I simply contend that an incredibly well-written pilot/treatment could override that negative. Except for that near-miss last year NO ONE has managed to be skillful enough to make Wonder Woman work -despite- the negatives.

Again if was easy to write for Wonder Woman it would have happened already. We've already had shows like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer which both lasted for many years so we know that shows with lead characters "similar" to Wonder Woman can happen. Wonder Woman herself must be the problem.

As a TV series, I think superheroes in general are the problem. The only way it seems they get a pass is if the superheroing is extremely watered down or sidelined.

Where's our live action Spider-man series? Or Daredevil? Is Incredible Hulk the most recent TV series Marvel has managed to produce from their major characters? Wasn't that Gen X TV movie rumored to be a pilot for a possible series?

Sure it may be hard for -any- superhero TV show. But at least we've already had multiple Spider-man and Hulk movies. Even a Daredevil movie got made... go figure.

Until someone manages a Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, etc. movie as counter-examples I'm going to rest comfortably on my premise that (once again, in general) DC characters are harder to write for. If they were easier then someone, somewhere would have managed to get those movies made by now. *shrugs*

I'd say there was some truth in that. DC is saddled by characters who date from the 30's and 40's, and as such are paragons. Batman is pretty much the only character who doesn't feel seriously dated.

Of course DC has newer characters, but they simply aint got the recognition - you might as well invent a completely new superhero and make a movie about them.

True. But when they start with a female superhero from the comics, it always bombs.

If they make someone new (Buffy, for example), they have much better luck. I don't understand why they have this problem, but they do.

catching up fast
Also for pretty much my whole childhood there´s always been a Spider-Man cartoon show.

btw, THIS is also a Marvel ip.

You mean the boring human motivations that have been explored by writers like that loser Shakespeare? Perhaps that hack Dickens? Maybe the commie pinko Steinbeck. What about that red neck Williams? How about that thug Hemingway? Yeah. Boring human motivations. No one could make good stories out of that.

Yes, those sorts of boring human motivations. Not that I ever said a good story *couldn't* be made of them, nor did I malign writers who were constrained to such areas.

So "IF" I understand you no one could write about those things in comics and make a good story about it?

I'm sorry, but I think you're doing all of the hand-waving. Superman has a publishing history that's now 75 years old. You don't think that at least a few of those writers in 75 years have written stories that could be adaptable and accessible to movie audiences? They didn't base Avengers on one storyline, they've picked and chosen the best.

It's also a fallacy that somehow audiences will only be interested in characters that are relatable. Being to relate to someone with superpowers (even super-archery!) is not a prerequesite for an audience enjoying the characters. There's a wish-fulfilment aspect of superheroes ("what would I do if I could..."), but in the end a good superhero movie has to be a good movie. Are the motivations of the characters understandable, is the plot interesting, and so on. The made a fairly interesting Blade movie, for pity's sake.

The reason Warner can't get their act together has a lot more to do with Warner Bros. than the long-published, widely-recognized, and in some cases beloved properties that they happen to own.

Yeah Marvel characters are so relatable with their nondescript "money problems" and "relationship problems". They are "relatable" because they were designed to be relatable to the lowest common denominator. DC characters weren't designed that way because they're older, but they've gained plenty of relatability from their writing over the subsequent decades. Their relatability is there, it's just not OUT there for everyone to see at first glance, it's deeper than that. That doesn't mean Marvel characters aren't relatable in a deep way as well, but I get so tired of hearing this contrived argument that DC characters aren't relatable. I've found it easier to relate to Superman than I have Spider-Man lately, especially when he goes psycho and makes deals with the devil just to safeguard the life of a woman who's been 80 years old and knocking on death's door for the last 50 years anyways. Just because Superman has invulnerable skin doesn't mean he has invulnerable emotions. He is not morally incorruptible as has been evidenced by countless numbers of elseworld versions of himself that have all become tyrants, evil, etc. for one reason or another. If people actually read any Superman comics they would probably stop making claims like this. His morality and the "incorruptible force of good" image that he has is something he has cultivated publically and something he strives to maintain, but not something that comes easily.

You're still shootin' wide. Boring, or 'mundane' if you prefer, human motivations are generally not my cup of tea (there is at least one area of exception, but for the purposes of this discussion such is moot), but good stories centred on them are certainly possible in any medium with good writing. I wasn't really saying anything about them one way or the other. What I was saying, essentially, is that good writers don't necessarily need those to be a focus, nor do they need to inject those motivations where they don't necessarily belong.

The problem I often see with the handling of DC characters, is that writers overcompensate and become focused on these petty concerns and it either serves to make the stories dull, or provides such an overwhelming dull contrast to the superheroic bits that the fantastic becomes the absurd.

Hmm.. how about this? Every story you've ever read is about human motivations. Is it the more "soapy" elements you have a problem with? Is this right? Can you elaborate?