| |
|
The big difference between Marvel and DC, ergo between this generation of comic book movies and the 70s/80s Batman/Superman era, is that the Marvel characters, particularly the X-Men, are built to be part of an ongoing story. Both the X-Men and Spider-Man are soap operatic, revolving around slow burning extended storylines. This type of storytelling lends itself more to an ongoing format, like comics, or even the animated series of the early 90s.
Spider-Man is a bit easier to adapt to movie form because it's about one person, and we can see everything through his eyes. I thought Spider-Man 2 did a great job of making you feel for Peter Parker as a person instead of as Spider-Man. I was rooting for him to take off the costume in the middle of the movie, and the ending was really fulfilling, not because he defeated Doc Ock, but because he finally opened up to Mary Jane. So, all of the conflicts that Parker has are condensed into a nice two hour package.
However, X-Men is much more difficult to do as a movie because you have to balance so many characters. I think, character wise, the first one was more successful, because of the strong focus on Wolverine and Rogue. Even though almost everyone else was little more than a caricature, we had two strong anchors. While two is probably better on the whole, it doesn't have the same emotional center, because there's just so many people on screen.
If you look at Grant's run, he's able to spotlight certain people in different storylines, depending on the needs of the specific story. The movie isn't really able to do this, and considering the number of characters, the title is better suited to a TV series. I don't know what it's like for people who aren't familiar with the comics, but I feel like a lot of the character relationships weren't developed, as much as just talked about. Like, the Wolverine/Jean/Scott triangle just seemed to exist, it didn't really come about organically.
Marvel comics, for all of their problems, really does feel like a coherent story. The Scott Summers from now was around back in the Dark Phoenix saga days, and despite the fact that it's insanely convoluted, there seems to be actual character development in the X titles.
This just isn't true of most DC properties, and that's why they make better movies. Batman and Superman are more archetypes than characters, and that's why their films work better. It doesn't feel like they're trying to cram forty years of story into one film, it feels like someone is just telling a story about Batman, in the same way that Dark Knight Returns is a story about Batman, it's the same character, but seen through many lenses, of which the film is just one.
That's why I think the best comic book film of all time is Batman Returns. None of the new wave can match up in terms of epic feel, and thematic coherence. Seeing the different personality elements of the archetype, Batman, reflected in The Penguin, Catwoman and Max Schreck is amazing, and the Batman/Catwoman/Selina/Bruce relationship is the closest a film has come to Watchmen in terms of showing the superhero costume as little more than people dressing up to avoid their true feelings.
You're talking about auteur comic book films, this isn't just taking any Batman comic book story and filming it, which is what the Marvel movies feel like, this is Tim Burton doing Batman. It doesn't feel constrained by fan expectations, it's the filmmaker doing what he wants with the character, and that makes it feel much more emotionally real. Nothing in Spider-Man or X-Men (1 or 2) captures the emotional feeling that the penguin's death, or Bruce and Selina's dance has.
Plus, watching it now, in the CG era, seeing real stuff blow up is so refreshing. Batman is real, not a CG double, and even though you may not get those really cool angles, the world seems like a real place, and I prefer that.
So, even though I prefer the Marvel comics, I think DC will always have better movies, just due to the nature of their characters. |
|
|
