Marvel "vs" DC

[Toph]

You know something I find unintentionally hilarious?
Disney created the comicbook genre boom with their success with the MCU.
Everyone wants to do superheroes or comicbook related things, now. But Disney is so stranglingly tight on their precious MCU, that they won't allow anything Marvel.
They killed Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD is rumored to be always on the knifes edge, and it seems like Netflix has to pull teeth to get their series.
Meanwhile Disney barely acknowledges these exist, and pretend they aren't canon when the "proper" movieverse comes around.
You know, instead of allowing television to fill in gaps that would NEVER get filled by movies.
Television is the most accessible platform. The TV shows could easily keep people invested in the MCU.

Meanwhile, comicbooks are still a hot commodity because of the MCU. Everyone still wants a comicbook TV show.
And up steps WB. "Sure! We're glad to take your money, Fox/NBC/CBS/TNT!"
Gotham (Fox)
Lucifer (Fox)
Constantine (NBC)
Powerless (NBC)
Supergirl (formerly CBS)
Preacher (AMC)
The rumored Titans (TNT)

Add to this the CW shows (CW is WB's own network)
Arrow
Flash
iZombie
Legends of Tomorrow
and now Supergirl
Plus the online animated Vixen.

I just can't help but feel if Disney would loosen up just a little bit of their power hungry ways, everyone would dump the DC projects and fight tooth and nail over the Marvel stuff.

Disney's loss is WB's gain. And mine!

[Fortmax2020]

I'm not sure how Disney are losing out here. They are dominating the cinemas with the MCU and making a fortune from doing so.

TV-wise there are a number of concurrently running shows being produced that are very different in tone to cinema outings. I certainly wouldn't want kids watching Jessica Jones or Daredevil for instance even if I thought they might enjoy it. Hence probably why Disney (a family sensitive/wise company) doesn't go out of its way to integrate these shows into its mainstream family friendly output of films.

DC meanwhile produce some ok but more broadly appealing TV shows.

[Toph]

I find it hard to stay interested in Marvel when the only consistant thing is Agents of SHIELD, when you often go a year between movies, and it takes multiple years for a one new one day 10-13 episode season dump of a netflix series.

Meanwhile, the only day there isn't a new episode of a DC show is Friday and Saturday.
Preacher's on sundays
Gotham, Lucifer, and Supergirl are on mondays
Flash and iZombie on tuesdays
Arrow wednesdays
And LoT thursdays.

Filling the absense left by Disney, DC is constantly putting out consistantly great product.
In that same space, from Marvel we *only* get Agents of SHIELD.

So yeah. It's much easier to stay consistently psyched about DC properties, as there's very little "cool down." Even during the summer, since that's when their movies tend to drop.

[Fortmax2020]

Fair enough for you then. I find the overall quality of the DC output lower than Marvel's so I don't mind getting less of it.

Marvel put out several movies a year and a number of TV shows alongside them as well so I don't think it is as bad as your portraying.

[legios]

Nov 1, 2016 8:57:19 GMT Toph said:

I find it hard to stay interested in Marvel when the only consistant thing is Agents of SHIELD, when you often go a year between movies, and it takes multiple years for a one new one day 10-13 episode season dump of a netflix series.

True, but you don't need to watch the Netflix shows in one day. For example - if you decided to watch Daredevil S1 at one episode a week then there is 13 weeks worth of new episodes right there. It is also worth noting that not everyone watches all of the DC shows - I have a number of friends who watch The Flash but who didn't click with Supergirl or Arrow, and didn't bother with Legends of Tomorrow at all. So simply having a television show doesn't necessarily create an investment in a "universe". For my part I don't watch Supergirl because I liked The Flash - I'd have given it a go if the latter had never existed. I watch it on its merits as a reasonably entertaining superhero TV show. In the same way I didn't watch Agent Carter because of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D - I'd stopped watching the latter by the time Agent Carter showed up on Fox - but because the lead actress is great and I liked the idea of a pulp spy vs superscience show with the gimmick of "female agent in the post-WWII era".

But then I don't really find myself interested in "Marvel" or "DC" - my interest is in particular projects. For example - my interest in Daredevil was not because it was "a marvel thing" it was because it was a streets-level costumed vigilante show, likewise my low level of enthusiasm for "Captain America: Civil War" was not caused by it being a "Marvel movie" but by it being effectively an "Avengers Movie" and they have all disappointed me so far. Likewise my interest in "Doctor Strange" is based on a certain love of the character, not anything to do with who owns the character.

(And do I care whether Agents of SHIELD or Agent Carter is treated as "real" by an Avengers film whose plot has nothing to do with them... Not really, no more than it bothers me that WB's films have the Zack Snyder cod-neitzchian version of Superman in them whilst Supergirl has a different actor as the traditional comics version. It just means I get to enjoy or not one thing for what it is, and another for what it is.)

Karl

[Toph]

I don't watch them all either, but y'all are missing my actual point by getting bogged down on stat details (which I am too, to a degree).

My point is, Disney started this genre boom with their success with the MCU. And you better believe all the networks would drop the DC projects like a bad habit if Disney opened themselves up to allowing others to develop comics Disney has no interest in turning into movies.
That's the "Disney's loss is WB's gain" part. It's because Disney's so power hungry, and unwilling to share any profit at all, that allows WB the opportunity to dominate the TV market. Everywhere you look there's a DC property, while it's now just AoS for Marvel.

(Random example) What would it cost Disney to allow Fox to develop a Ms. Marvel TV series, outside of having to share a bit of the profits, and maybe missing an off chance of the character cameoing in a movie ten years down the line? They would gain more in brand recognition, both for that character and for Marvel itself.
On top of that, Fox may have preferred to do "Marvel's Ms. Marvel, part of the Extended MCU(tm)" over DC Vertigo's Lucifer. Disney would have denied their primary competitor a chance to get another one of it's properties out there, and done none of the work.
That's one of the benefits in licensing out some of the smaller, riskier properties. Disney doesn't have to do the work, and they don't shoulder the burden of failure. But they still share the success and the profit.

And as obvious from the DC properties that are being handled by secondary studios (gotham, lucifer, preacher, formerly supergirl), that the secondary studios WANT them to succeed and WANT them to be quality products.
There's no reason to believe a secondary studio marvel project would be treated any less well.
Disney being so tight-reigned on Marvel properties (Jessica Jones Season 2 won't even happen until '19. Captain Marvel doesn't even have a release date, and Disney's full of problematic scheduling like this), just seems absurdly silly and counter productive. And "wanting to ensure quality" at this point isn't even a valid argument anymore, unlike the early days.
WB is having it's cake and eating it too. Balancing both a healthy television regime, and kicking off a promising DCCU.

[primenova]

I like Marvel but couldn't name all the charcaters on AOS - while I can name everyone on Gotham

[Bogatan]

I don't think its all that bad , but I do think Disny/Marvel/ABC have dropped the ball in terms of network Marvel shows. Considering the "everythings connected" line of a few years ago AOS feels really really isolated. Shield has now become a strange remenant of the everythings connected philosophy. It was meant to expand the mcu and at least should have been the core of an ABC verse like Arrow became for WB, but the negative response from the first year killed that idea and the spin off ideas since then have been pretty half hearted.

Ghost Rider is looking pretty good on the show right now, but feels wrong for ABC.

The general view seems to be this is AOS syndication year so will likely be axed leaving ABC with no proper marvel content.

So yeah that does seem like some kind of failure.

The Netflix shows now exist in their own interconnected little bubble thats already 4 series and 52 episodes long with Ironfist, Punisher and Defenders bringing that up to 80 odd episodes next year. Being street level it doesnt need tighter connection to the movies.

Still if AOS is ending I'd hope it means Coulson or others would start popping up on Netflix. By the time Defenders happens it feels like those guys should have drawn Shields attention.

[Bogatan]

Nov 1, 2016 12:54:33 GMT primenova said:

I like Marvel but couldn't name all the charcaters on AOS - while I can name everyone on Gotham

Thats not really a fair comparison though is it.

Theres only a handful of charcters on that show that aren't somewhat recognisable to well pretty much everyone.

[Toph]

I think you put what I was sorta trying to get at a lot better than me, Boga. Or at least hit on a central element I didn't make clear enough.

Nov 1, 2016 17:37:52 GMT Bogatan said:

Nov 1, 2016 12:54:33 GMT primenova said:

I like Marvel but couldn't name all the charcaters on AOS - while I can name everyone on Gotham

Thats not really a fair comparison though is it.

Theres only a handful of charcters on that show that aren't somewhat recognisable to well pretty much everyone.

Completely agree.
Bruce Wayne
Alfred the Butler (even if they don't know his name)
Selena Kyle/Catwoman
Penguin
Riddler
Jim Gordon
Most of the characters in Gotham have been pop culture icons for decades, while AoS has only had two or three B and C-list characters, while everyone else in the show have been complete originals.
Ghostrider is the most famous character they've ever had (who wasn't a cameo *cough*fury*cough*), and I'd say he's still a b-lister, despite two dedicated movies.
Much as I love AoS, I'm STILL learning names, even if I recognize the characters/actors. (I have face blindness, so I may not be a good measure)

[The Doctor]

I suppose I never understood the concept of 'Marvel vs DC' man and boy as there are more than two comics publishers. It's like looking at novels and thinking it boils down to 'Random House V Penguin'.



With regards to filmed Marvel I am content with two films a year. I haven't got round to watching the TV shows (live action or animated) yet but when I get round to it seems like there's plenty out there to watch.

With regards to DC, Warner Bros film and TV departments are known for not having the best relations with each other so I imagine their film and TV output for related IP will diverge for quite some time to come.

-Ralph

[Toph]

Nov 1, 2016 18:35:52 GMT The Doctor said:

I suppose I never understood the concept of 'Marvel vs DC' man and boy as there are more than two comics publishers. It's like looking at novels and thinking it boils down to 'Random House V Penguin'.
-Ralph

I never really have either, which is why I put the vs in quotations. My purpose here is to discuss the differences in how Disney and WB are handling the Television sides of Marvel and DC, as opposed to whether one property is better or worse than the others.

So many fans are hellbent on acting like it's a bloody war, while hiding the fact that they consume both.
There was a time when the rivalry between the two was just for fun. Then somewhere things got mean.
I get attacked for admitting I like DC stuff, now. Hell, I get attacked for liking Marvel stuff in a different way.
And to be honest, while it is two way, it's generally marvel fans who go after DC fans and stuff.

I may not like how marvel comics are being handled, but I still love (most) of the characters as much as I ever did.

[blueshift]

Nov 1, 2016 18:35:52 GMT The Doctor said:

I suppose I never understood the concept of 'Marvel vs DC' man

Well, it's different from being just a publishing house; both companies are very editorially driven and I think it's valid to see them as one sort of artistic 'unit' rather than say, a collection of independent works that share a publisher.

[primenova]

Just going off topic a bit & not really wanting to start a slagging off a company. But going back to the Marvel DC comic 20 years ago. When they did the Amalgam stuff they both signed a deal that in the 6 Amalgam comics they are not allowed to put in "in house" adverts. Marvel did first week & no Marvel ads. Dc do their 6 issues with Superman & order your DC comics ads in them. But we have heard how no to good the suits at Marvel are like treating the guys who make the comics.

[Toph]

Disney buying Marvel was the permanent death of Amalgam, and any romote possibility of amalgam related merchandise, and I will never be over that.