Type into google: “Why do DC Movies Suck” and you will find many links to Joss Whedon. You may know him best as the Buffy the Vampire creator.

In a nutshell he says that with the exception of Batman, the DC heroes were ‘like creating flawless gods. And that they were very much removed from humanity.’

I do agree that many DC heroes are too flawless, but I wouldn’t call them gods. And while I agree they lack connection to humanity. I think the real issue is many of the DC heroes are not very interesting, at least in terms of being movie material that the general box office public could accept.

Outside of Batman and the Superman properties, DC really does not have that many great characters that could translate well to the box office in my opinion.

Wonder Woman is a possible third movie that could translate well. But the whole Amazon, magic, other mysterious island culture race of warrior women makes this sound more like a Harry Potter type film. Then say a Spider-Man film where a guy just happens to get powers, but otherwise lives in a relatable environment in the city with family and his friends.

But look at the other DC properties after that. Many of them just have gimmicks and not much behind them.

I just don’t think the Flash with his only power gimmick of just running fast is material that will draw in much of the paying public.

Is the story of Hawkman and Hawkgirl enough to drive the buying public? A pair of heroes who basically have wings and can fly.

The Atom, a hero who can shrink down to ant size. Is this box office gold?

Martian Manhunter, an alien from Mars whose style is sort of like a second rate Superman. Can a movie trilogy be based on him?

Aquaman, who like the Sub-Mariner just lives in the water. I don’t think the buying public cares enough for either character to be box office hits. And like Wonder Woman, their environment makes them to unrelatable to the general public.

By now I think you get my general thoughts on this topic. And to be clear, it’s not to bash DC heroes. I think many DC heroes are great, but only for the comic buying audience. I just don’t think many of their characters translate well into box office material that the general public will pay to see. And most movie studios want superhero movies they can franchise.

With Marvel heroes, sure they have many like the DC example. Such as: Ant-Man, Sub-Mariner, Hawkeye, Vision, etc. that are great for a comic audience, but not a movie audience. I just think Marvel has a lot more heroes that can translate well into films because of their humanity, the environment they live in, and can connect on a deeper level with a public audience.

Also most of the Marvel heroes live in real American cities, this helps at another level because the general public can accept this. Whereas most DC heroes live in their own fictional cities.

And for the record, I don’t see Marvel’s Thor movie doing well. Like Wonder Woman I think it’s a tough sell for the general public.

The planned DC Green Lantern movie I think just might be DC’s only other fourth character that could do well in the box office. But I’m not betting much on it, especially if they show and talk about all the other Green Lantern’s out there, and how he’s just one of many and therefore not unique.

I saw the Watchmen movie a while ago, and I was thinking: This is the series that is so highly praised by the comic book fan community. Now we have a movie that is virtually a translation from panel to movie screen. You would think since it’s such a great translation, that the comics community would be praising it and it would be a blockbuster.

And this movie was, to say the least, more faithful to it’s comic book origins then any Marvel, or any other DC movie.

Well it seems that Watchmen was hardly a Hollywood Blockbuster in terms of critic reviews and box office total.

I think with making a comic book film, many comic book fans think the film should be 100% accurate to the comic book source material. (And yet when an example like this movie shows up, the general buying public is not there in full support.)

I think the comic fan base in terms of total box office, is only a small community whereas making a film for the general public is more important.

Look at films like the last few Spider-Man, Iron Man and Dark Knight films. None of them were 100% faithful to their comic book origins and their comic book stories. And those films did take creative liberties that their comic book counterparts did not have.

But what those films had was capturing the essence of their comic book properties, and translating a film that the general public could follow and accept.

I think that is the key to making a great comic book film that does well. It should capture the essence of the comic book property, and a story that can be accessed by the public.

Following the comic book material accurately is not a necessity. Creative license can and should be taken where it is appropriate.

Personally, I get tired of comic board comments of people complaining Ad nauseum why a film is not 100% comic accurate. As if a film should just be made for the comic collecting audience exclusively. Watchmen is a good example of why they should not be. I mean they were even so accurate as to include graphic scenes of Dr. Manhattan and frontal nudity. Hey director, Zack Snyder a little creative license there would not have hurt.

Looking at the latest sales numbers in terms of issues sold, on the ICV2.com website it says no comic sold over 100,000 copies.

No Comic Over 100K in March

My main guesses as to why this is happening is because of the downturn in the economy, plus the raised cover price of many comics costing $3.99 an issue.

In today’s world, and tough economy many people are cutting back on needless expenses. I’ve seen many restaurants close nearby me for example.

I guess people are wondering why should they pay over $20.00 for a meal, when they can eat much cheaper. They can try fast food take out shops for example.

Some things in today’s world are expenses we must pay. Such as housing, the electric bill, insurance, etc.

Other things like eating out at a fancy restaurant are luxury items. And comic book collecting is a luxury item.

If you are making comic books for a living, then that is your job. Part of how you make your income.

But as a buyer of comic books, what you have in fact is a luxury item. It’s not really something that is Must Buy, such as the above mentioned paying for your housing costs.

And one must question honestly, is buying a twenty two page comic book, delivering the bang for your buck that it used to??

It’s the same page count as books made thirty or more years ago.

I remember the days when I’d buy over 15 comics in one shot. Back then it only cost a few dollars.

Now for 15 books I’d cost you on average $45.00. And I see people in the store charging their credit card for comic book purchases. Something I never used to see.

Also when costs go up, people get more picky and expect ideally better quality in terms of what they consider good art and writing. And as costs go up, it’s only natural for people to drop books from their buy list.

I wonder at what point will rising comic book costs further erode their buying public’s fan base? Or if it isn’t already happening?

For example 3 comics will cost about $8 or more.

Yet for $8 I can buy a comic book action figure. And get more value from that action figure then from 3 comics.

Their are more diverse things to spend money freely on nowadays, from DVD’s, CD’s, etc.

Guess that’s why I mostly wait and buy trade paperbacks and hardcovers and get them on discounts. Or go to conventions to look through the cheap bins. Such as finding $3 books out last year that only cost .50 cents now.

But to be fair I see Many magazines close to the $9.00 range an issue for less then 100 pages. So their prices went up as well. Is it any wonder that magazine market sales are going downhill? But at least readers in the stores can look through and read the hole issue in the bookstore.

I’m watching the TV series: Deadliest Warrior. It airs on channel Spike TV.

The show basically compares different warriors from different eras and time periods. They then look at their fighting styles, their weapons used and analyze the date.

All to compare in the end, who would win on a one to one fight.

Looking at all the costumes and designs, I think all of them could honestly be used and designed to make superhero characters. And I’m surprised it’s not really used.

For example, redesign a Spartan who is time displaced, has his big shield and sword. And take it from their. Add him to a superhero team.

Also for an action figure company, I think a cool idea would be to take all these warriors such as: Ninja, Samurai, Spartan, Knight, Viking, Egyptian Warriors, etc… and create an action figure line around them.

They are all fair use and no one has to pay fees or get permission to make such figures. Their also good army builder potential. I just hope whoever did make such a thing, would try to be historically accurate as possible. Such a figure would not be only cool to collect, but it would have historical significance.

From the Free Comic Book Day event, I was able to get my hands on the Savage Dragon issue which features the original Public Domain Daredevil.

Erik Larsen provided a nice stand alone issue which has the Dragon and Daredevil team up. At the end was a nice two page text piece that Erik Larsen wrote about the Daredevil character. He recounts the history of the character, as well as how he plans to use him. He also acknowledges that which version currently out now is the “real one” ? He says they are all legitimate because the character is public domain, and free to be used by creators and fans alike.

Overall a good issue to read, and I most also mention the FCBD Dragon issue had a nice production quality and paper used. Looking at the FCBD paper Marvel and DC used in their books, I wonder if both companies are cutting corners a bit? Because either they are, or Erik Larsen is making sure to provide a book with high paper production quality. Either way the differences are quite noticeable.

Wolverine is A Patchwork Character

When I hear the casual comment by writers that: ‘Wolverine was created by Len Wein’ I can’t help but wince.

When you look at Wolverine as we know him today, you have to realize he is a virtual patchwork character with no one major creator responsible for the overall character and what he has become.

What I mean by this is look at all the other major heroes and characters. They had one or two creators make the hero, origin, powers, supporting characters, and main villains.

For example, with FF: Lee and Kirby made the FF, Doctor Doom, Galactus, Silver Surfer, The Inhumans, etc.

With Spider-Man it was Lee and Ditko making Spidey, his main villains, supporting characters.

Batman, it was Kane and Finger who brought that world around.

You get the picture.

Anyway, with Wolverine, who was responsible for his overall character? Answer, not any one particular creator. The main ones I know of are:

To name a character Wolverine. The credit probably goes to Roy Thomas who wanted him a Canadian hero. But from what I’ve read no one recalls exactly the circumstances of who said what, so it was either him or Len Wein. Whatever the case:

Len Wein got the initial idea rolling with Roy Thomas. However Wein imagined him as a teenager and the claws were only a part of the gloves.

John Romita Sr. drew the initial costume, but Gil Kane redesigned by accident, the mask Wolverine wears now.

Dave Cockrum gave us the face of Wolverine, behind the mask.

John Byrne suggested the name Logan, because of a Canadian mountain.

Chris Claremont helped to develop a lot of the personality Wolverine has become.

Barry Windsor Smith gave us the Weapon X story and explained how Wolverine got his adamantium skeleton and claws.

Under Larry Hama, and whatever editors decided it then, it was revealed the Wolverine had actual bone claws as a part of his skeleton. Also the idea of the false memory implants started.

Jemas, Quasada and Jenkins then gave us the Wolverine origin and his real name.

Wolverine’s main villain Sabertooth, was not created by any of the people involved with Wolverine at the start. Such as Len Wein, Thomas or Romita.

The healing factor power was initially a throw away idea, in no way imagined to become what it has meant to the character. I believe it was a Claremont idea. But can’t nail a specific source. So I leave that possibility open to Wein, Byrne, or Thomas.

By now I think you get the point of this post. Wolverine is a very fragmented creation as a character and who contributed what. However to give Len Wein full creative credit for creating Wolverine, I think is absolutely wrong. His idea and what he contributed to the creation of Wolverine as we know him today is VERY little.

Wein DID NOT design the signature Wolverine costume, make his name / identity of Logan out of the costume. Did not design his signature face out of the costume. Did not make the claws a part of Wolverine’s body. Did not create the bone claws idea. Did not create his revealed Origin and name. Did not create his main villain Sabretooth.

Wein basically saw him as a teenager with gloves that had claws on it.

At one point Wolverine was also seen as a sociopath who could possibly cut down an ally for any minor little perceived slight.

Overall, I’m glad most heroes have only one or two creators who started them, there origin, powers, and main villains.

Using Wolverine as an example, I just find a character created like this to be very messy. And if we were talking financial royalties situation, I think it would be a mess. And in this example, Wein should not and does not deserve much financial royalty on a character like this at all. Because he contributed very little to the status quo of the Wolverine character and what he has become.

And sure I know their was no royalty situation then. But that’s not the point. Overall, as a top selling icon character of Marvel, Wolverine is probably their most patch work created character.