|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jun 30, 2017 18:27:31 GMT
I guess it IS called DC EU, though I wonder why? They don't call the Marvel movies the M EU, they call it the M CU. Its a Cinematic universe not an Extended universe. Whatever... you know what I mean, lol i expect it's because either or both: 1) D CCU is clumsy on the tongue b. they want to differentiate their endeavor from Marvel's the name is still odd to me, though. extended because it extends beyond one film? bleh. ^^^this^^^
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 30, 2017 19:19:19 GMT
I guess it IS called DC EU, though I wonder why? They don't call the Marvel movies the M EU, they call it the M CU. Its a Cinematic universe not an Extended universe. Whatever... you know what I mean, lol i expect it's because either or both: 1) D CCU is clumsy on the tongue b. they want to differentiate their endeavor from Marvel's the name is still odd to me, though. extended because it extends beyond one film? bleh. The MCU is actually more extended than the DCEU because the MCU includes broadcast and streaming TV series' as well as movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 6, 2017 13:13:04 GMT
Also the MCU movies cost less to make, so the first MCU movies were still financially more successful than the DCEU's first movies.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 6, 2017 20:40:03 GMT
www.indiewire.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-record-breaking-superhero-1201837268/#comment-1213908
MOS 291 domestic 668 world, BVS 330 domestic 873 world, Suicide Squad 325 domestic 745 world not to mention Wonder Woman
How is that a losing streak?
Those numbers are actually right in the same neighborhood as all other comic book movies considered successful. If a Marvel movie made 291 domestic everyone would be saying "See? Success!" But when its DC they say "it had bad reviews".
And before anyone says, it I know that money doesn't equal quality, but even that is arguable too because I, and a lot of other people, liked the DCCU movies. So... Well there are a lot of people who say it's a fail because they just hate it. But I believe that it isn't a failure, it just started out as a disappointment. The first two films did well financially.. but most people expected better. You would think something like a new Superman movie that's supposed to start off an MCU style universe for DC would've been able to make more than something like Guardians of the Galaxy. Also, many people were expecting Batman v Superman to make a billion. Myself included. This was a big budget film starring Superman AND Batman! It really should've made a billion. It's kind of like how Age of Ultron was a disappointment. Yes, it was hugely successful, but people were talking numbers like "2 billion", and more realistic people were assuming it would at least make more than the first Avengers. But I don't see how people would consider the DCEU a failure anymore, especially after Suicide Squad. Suicide Squad basically did what GotG did. Sure, it wasn't a critical success, but it made more than Man of Steel and it was about a bunch of villains, and somehow got a good performance out of Jai Courtney. Now Wonder Woman is both a huge financial success, and is critically acclaimed. Even if the DCEU started out a bit disappointing, it's on an upward trend. I'm definitely excited for what's to come.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 6, 2017 21:18:38 GMT
Oh shit! Thats right! Supergirl (1984) was the first time that was done! That movie is totally a spin-off from the Richard Donner Superman movies that exist in the same universe. Same actor for Jimmy Olsen is in that, and Superman poster with Chris Reeves! lol Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel)
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 6, 2017 22:16:53 GMT
Oh shit! Thats right! Supergirl (1984) was the first time that was done! That movie is totally a spin-off from the Richard Donner Superman movies that exist in the same universe. Same actor for Jimmy Olsen is in that, and Superman poster with Chris Reeves! lol Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel) Not just that, but I don't feel like Supergirl really counts. She's still a Superman/Kryptonian character. It's similar to X-Men. Like, yeah they've had spinoff films like Wolverine and Deadpool, but they are still mutants. Now if Fantastic Four pops up in the X-Men universe, then I'd consider it a shared universe. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 6, 2017 22:36:35 GMT
Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel) Not just that, but I don't feel like Supergirl really counts. She's still a Superman/Kryptonian character. It's similar to X-Men. Like, yeah they've had spinoff films like Wolverine and Deadpool, but they are still mutants. Now if Fantastic Four pops up in the X-Men universe, then I'd consider it a shared universe. Does that make sense? My post isn't a belittlement of DC's accomplishments though. They have literally done everything else first. They did the comics first, they did the serials first, they did movies and live action TV first. DC made Batman: The Movie (1966), Superman (1978), Superman II (1980), Swamp Thing (1982), Superman III (1983), Supergirl (1984). All before the release of the horrible Howard the Duck (1986). DC was making Burton's Batman and Batman Returns while Marvel adaptions looked something like Punisher 89, Captain America 90, and Fantastic Four 94. Marvel didn't have a good adaption until Blade in 1998, a full 30 years after Batman 66, and 20 years after Superman 78. So in my opinion, Marvel probably wouldn't even exist without DC. And the MCU probably wouldn't exist without the first Superman movie. DC did everything else first, but not the whole shared movie universe. I know Universal did it first, but between DC and Marvel, it was definitely Marvel first.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 6, 2017 23:12:35 GMT
Not just that, but I don't feel like Supergirl really counts. She's still a Superman/Kryptonian character. It's similar to X-Men. Like, yeah they've had spinoff films like Wolverine and Deadpool, but they are still mutants. Now if Fantastic Four pops up in the X-Men universe, then I'd consider it a shared universe. Does that make sense? My post isn't a belittlement of DC's accomplishments though. They have literally done everything else first. They did the comics first, they did the serials first, Although as superheros go The Shadow and Zorro, were on screen and radio a long time before any DC character. And Flash Gordon made the transfer from comic (strips) to the big screen before any DC character It may be seen as pedantic, but DC didn't do those...the people who bought the rights to the characters did...DC (and Marvel) were not really involved in any production until... Their first involvement in the production of their properties were a success. Unlike DCs first attempt, Catwoman in 2004
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 7, 2017 1:18:08 GMT
My post isn't a belittlement of DC's accomplishments though. They have literally done everything else first. They did the comics first, they did the serials first, Although as superheros go The Shadow and Zorro, were on screen and radio a long time before any DC character. And Flash Gordon made the transfer from comic (strips) to the big screen before any DC character It may be seen as pedantic, but DC didn't do those...the people who bought the rights to the characters did...DC (and Marvel) were not really involved in any production until... Their first involvement in the production of their properties were a success. Unlike DCs first attempt, Catwoman in 2004 Yeah my post was more in regards to DC vs Marvel in general, not really outside things like The Shadow or Tintin. Obviously neither DC or Marvel were the first comics or superhero related literature. I also wasn't thinking of it as DC or Marvel being directly involved, I just meant adaptions of their material in general. And wasn't DC's first attempt the movie Steel in 1997? I thought so but I also noticed their Wikipedia starts with Batman Begins. Anyways, I love Marvel Studios, I think they are doing great. Iron Man is still my favorite superhero movie of all time. Wonder Woman was fantastic as well. I hope the DCEU can keep the momentum going.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jul 7, 2017 1:39:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 7, 2017 4:09:38 GMT
Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel) Not just that, but I don't feel like Supergirl really counts. She's still a Superman/Kryptonian character. It's similar to X-Men. Like, yeah they've had spinoff films like Wolverine and Deadpool, but they are still mutants. Now if Fantastic Four pops up in the X-Men universe, then I'd consider it a shared universe. Does that make sense? Supergirl does actually count as a "shared cinematic universe" with the Superman movies. It doesn't matter if it's a spin-off or not. If it takes place in the same "universe", then it still counts as a shared universe.
Look at The Flash TV series. Barry Allen, Cisco Ramon, and Caitlin Snow all appeared on an episode of Arrow before The Flash TV series even began so technically The Flash is a spin-off of Arrow. But everyone would agree that The Flash and Arrow (and Supergirl and Legends of Tomorrow) are a shared superhero universe on TV.
Same with the Supergirl movie. As long as it takes place in the same "universe" as the Superman movies and as long as it isn't a sequel to the Superman movies (and we know it isn't a sequel because Supergirl was released after Superman III, but the next Superman movie after Supergirl was Superman IV and not Superman V), then it's considered a separate franchise from the Superman movies and thus officially counts as a "shared cinematic universe" with the Superman movies.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 7, 2017 4:29:43 GMT
in my opinion, Marvel probably wouldn't even exist without DC. And the MCU probably wouldn't exist without the first Superman movie. Marvel Comics might have existed without DC, but Marvel Comics would probably just be publishing horror stories and not superhero comics without DC. Prior to Superman's debut in Action Comics #1 in 1938, comic books mainly published re-prints of comic strips from daily newspapers around the country. When Superman debut in 1938, Action Comics became hugely popular and that's when other comic book publishers started creating other superheroes. So without DC, there wouldn't be any comic book superheroes and Marvel Comics might not exist but if Marvel Comics did exist, they wouldn't be publishing superhero comics. And it's true that MCU wouldn't exist without Superman: The Movie, which basically started the era of big-budget superhero movies (I think Superman: The Movie may have been the most expensive movie ever produced when it was released in 1978). DC did everything else first, but not the whole shared movie universe. I know Universal did it first, but between DC and Marvel, it was definitely Marvel first. Marvel definitely did the 1st shared superhero universe in the comics when they published their Fire vs Water issue (the Human Torch vs the Sub-Mariner) in 1940. But DC did the 1st shared superhero universe in every other media form. In radio, DC did the 1st shared superhero universe when they had Superman, Batman, and Robin on the same radio program in the 1940s. In TV, I believe DC participated in the 1st shared superhero universe when they had crossovers between the Batman TV series and the Green Hornet TV series in the 1960s. There was also a shared superhero universe with the Shazam!/Isis Power Hour in the 1970s. In the movies, DC did the 1st shared superhero universe with the Superman and Supergirl movies in 1984. Marvel had their 1st shared superhero universe with Daredevil (2003) and Elektra (2005). Both of those shared universes weren't as extensive or elaborate as the DCEU and MCU today, but the fact remains that both of those were shared universes that existed before DCEU and MCU were created.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jul 7, 2017 6:07:40 GMT
in my opinion, Marvel probably wouldn't even exist without DC. And the MCU probably wouldn't exist without the first Superman movie. Marvel Comics might have existed without DC, but Marvel Comics would probably just be publishing horror stories and not superhero comics without DC. Prior to Superman's debut in Action Comics #1 in 1938, comic books mainly published re-prints of comic strips from daily newspapers around the country. When Superman debut in 1938, Action Comics became hugely popular and that's when other comic book publishers started creating other superheroes. So without DC, there wouldn't be any comic book superheroes and Marvel Comics might not exist but if Marvel Comics did exist, they wouldn't be publishing superhero comics. And it's true that MCU wouldn't exist without Superman: The Movie, which basically started the era of big-budget superhero movies (I think Superman: The Movie may have been the most expensive movie ever produced when it was released in 1978). DC did everything else first, but not the whole shared movie universe. I know Universal did it first, but between DC and Marvel, it was definitely Marvel first. Marvel definitely did the 1st shared superhero universe in the comics when they published their Fire vs Water issue (the Human Torch vs the Sub-Mariner) in 1940. But DC did the 1st shared superhero universe in every other media form. In radio, DC did the 1st shared superhero universe when they had Superman, Batman, and Robin on the same radio program in the 1940s. In TV, I believe DC participated in the 1st shared superhero universe when they had crossovers between the Batman TV series and the Green Hornet TV series in the 1960s. There was also a shared superhero universe with the Shazam!/Isis Power Hour in the 1970s. In the movies, DC did the 1st shared superhero universe with the Superman and Supergirl movies in 1984. Marvel had their 1st shared superhero universe with Daredevil (2003) and Elektra (2005). Both of those shared universes weren't as extensive or elaborate as the DCEU and MCU today, but the fact remains that both of those were shared universes that existed before DCEU and MCU were created. I guess I just don't consider any of those a shared universe except for the radio program with Superman, Batman, and Robin, and the Batman/Green Hornet crossover. Because those take two stars of their own comics and crosses them over. I see Supergirl as directly related to Superman and those comics, same with Daredevil and Elektra. So I don't really consider them that way. Like I don't consider the Wolverine movies or Deadpool as an indication of a shared universe. They are all part of X-Men stories. If the Fantastic Four showed up, then I'd consider it a real crossover and shared universe. Like if Christopher Reeves had a cameo in Burton's Batman, then I'd consider that a shared universe. I hope any of that makes sense? Lol. It's just my opinion though. As always, to each their own.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 8, 2017 16:28:46 GMT
Oh shit! Thats right! Supergirl (1984) was the first time that was done! That movie is totally a spin-off from the Richard Donner Superman movies that exist in the same universe. Same actor for Jimmy Olsen is in that, and Superman poster with Chris Reeves! lol Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel) That wasn't the point though. The point was that everyone seems to forget that it had already been done, before MCU.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 8, 2017 17:50:21 GMT
Sort of. Contrary to what DC-Fan says, DC wasn't the first because DC wasn't involved in the making of the films. In fact the production companies/stidios were different (though some of the same producers were involved as they owned the film rights - not Marvel) That wasn't the point though. The point was that everyone seems to forget that it had already been done, before MCU. Yeah, but MCU did it to a new level no one did before. A game changer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2017 18:17:27 GMT
www.indiewire.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-record-breaking-superhero-1201837268/#comment-1213908
MOS 291 domestic 668 world, BVS 330 domestic 873 world, Suicide Squad 325 domestic 745 world not to mention Wonder Woman
How is that a losing streak?
Those numbers are actually right in the same neighborhood as all other comic book movies considered successful. If a Marvel movie made 291 domestic everyone would be saying "See? Success!" But when its DC they say "it had bad reviews".
And before anyone says, it I know that money doesn't equal quality, but even that is arguable too because I, and a lot of other people, liked the DCCU movies. So... Because they're obviously talking about quality. Not how much they made...How do you not get that?
|
|
|
Post by woozlewuzzle on Jul 8, 2017 19:11:58 GMT
www.indiewire.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-record-breaking-superhero-1201837268/#comment-1213908
MOS 291 domestic 668 world, BVS 330 domestic 873 world, Suicide Squad 325 domestic 745 world not to mention Wonder Woman
How is that a losing streak?
Those numbers are actually right in the same neighborhood as all other comic book movies considered successful. If a Marvel movie made 291 domestic everyone would be saying "See? Success!" But when its DC they say "it had bad reviews".
And before anyone says, it I know that money doesn't equal quality, but even that is arguable too because I, and a lot of other people, liked the DCCU movies. So... Because marveltards have to trash the opposition while pretending garbage like Dr. Strange and Deadpool are great movies. Theyre gonna bash every DC movie that comes out without ever seeing them. Just a bunch of kids and neckbeards.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 8, 2017 19:33:36 GMT
www.indiewire.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-record-breaking-superhero-1201837268/#comment-1213908
MOS 291 domestic 668 world, BVS 330 domestic 873 world, Suicide Squad 325 domestic 745 world not to mention Wonder Woman
How is that a losing streak?
Those numbers are actually right in the same neighborhood as all other comic book movies considered successful. If a Marvel movie made 291 domestic everyone would be saying "See? Success!" But when its DC they say "it had bad reviews".
And before anyone says, it I know that money doesn't equal quality, but even that is arguable too because I, and a lot of other people, liked the DCCU movies. So... Because marveltards have to trash the opposition while pretending garbage like Dr. Strange and Deadpool are great movies. Theyre gonna bash every DC movie that comes out without ever seeing them. Just a bunch of kids and neckbeards. Yep. A couple months before Wonder Woman was released, MCU fans were already starting their bashing of Wonder Woman by posting BS rumors that the movie was "a complete mess".
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jul 8, 2017 19:51:42 GMT
Because marveltards have to trash the opposition while pretending garbage like Dr. Strange and Deadpool are great movies. Theyre gonna bash every DC movie that comes out without ever seeing them. Just a bunch of kids and neckbeards. Yep. A couple months before Wonder Woman was released, MCU fans were already starting their bashing of Wonder Woman by posting BS rumors that the movie was "a complete mess". Reasonable assumption, considering the context.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 10, 2017 17:34:25 GMT
www.indiewire.com/2017/06/wonder-woman-patty-jenkins-record-breaking-superhero-1201837268/#comment-1213908
MOS 291 domestic 668 world, BVS 330 domestic 873 world, Suicide Squad 325 domestic 745 world not to mention Wonder Woman
How is that a losing streak?
Those numbers are actually right in the same neighborhood as all other comic book movies considered successful. If a Marvel movie made 291 domestic everyone would be saying "See? Success!" But when its DC they say "it had bad reviews".
And before anyone says, it I know that money doesn't equal quality, but even that is arguable too because I, and a lot of other people, liked the DCCU movies. So... Because they're obviously talking about quality. Not how much they made... How do you not get that? I've already addressed the issue of quality. Quantifying quality is debatable at best because everyone has different tastes and opinions. For example: I very much enjoyed ALL the DCEU movies do date. And I know a whole lot of people who agree with me. I do admit that Civil War was the better movie between that and BvS, but that doesn't mean that BvS was bad.
What we CAN quantify is how well the movie did box office wise, which tells us that more or less just as many people are seeing the DCEU movies in theatres as are seeing the MCU movies in theatres.
How do YOU not get THAT?
|
|