If you’d be interested in hosting one of my guest articles, please let me know at superheronation-at-gmail-dot-com.  I’d really appreciate if you would suggest an article topic (e.g. How to Write an Interesting Sidekick) or some general genre of articles (e.g. anything about characterization) you find interesting, but it’s not necessary.

1. Very few people are actually prepared for a life-or-death, organ-stabbing fight.  ”Herein lies a crucial distinction between traditional martial arts and realistic self-defense: Most martial artists train for a ‘fight.’ Opponents assume ready stances, just out of each other’s range, and then practice various techniques or spar (engage in controlled fighting). This does not simulate real violence. It doesn’t prepare you to respond effectively to a sudden attack, in which you have been hit before you even knew you were threatened, and it doesn’t teach you to strike preemptively, without telegraphing your moves, once you have determined that an attack is imminent.”

2. All other things being equal, I would imagine someone that’s pretty mild-mannered and hasn’t been in many fights would probably have quite a learning curve as a superhero.  Most violent criminals (e.g. supervillains!) are used to violence that most people could not fathom.  In a savage fight, it is very possible that a superhero’s mental/moral hesitations and inhibitions and unfamiliarity with violence could be disastrous.  Superhero organizations might want to have new recruits fight nonpowered criminals in relatively low-stakes cases until it looks like they might be mentally and physically hard enough to survive a psychotic killer like Mr. Freeze or a death camp survivor that mentally ripped a foe’s tooth out of his mouth… back when he was a protagonist.  And, let’s be honest, it’s not likely that every would-be superhero can successfully make that transition.  (If you’re writing a larger organization like the Justice League, what does the group do about heroes that are so ill-suited for combat they will probably get themselves killed?  For example, maybe some get retrained as crime-solvers and partnered with ace combatants and maybe others get let go and maybe still more take on important support roles like medic or scientist or whatever that might involve some exposure to violence but aren’t as intense as actually being a combatant).

3. Although I think the author discounts the potential benefits of bravery, I agree it definitely has potential costs.  I don’t think we see very much of that in most superhero stories.  For example, violence for Spider-Man is sort of Disney-fied–virtually the only permanent costs of violence (Uncle Ben’s death) are caused by not being brave.   For most superheroes, I think the violence is heavily romanticized.  Being a superhero is more or less fun and games except when a (usually secondary) character dies and, let’s face it, he will probably come back anyway.  On the other hand, I personally don’t enjoy deep-R violence and would feel uncomfortable including it in something primarily meant as entertainment.  (For example, in Kickass, a gangster gets crushed in a car-compactor–it’s decidedly unpleasant and I’m sort of annoyed it was a laugh-line for the audience).

4.  It might be dramatic to make a hero choose between his pride and other goals.  For example, if 3+ muggers have guns drawn on Bruce Wayne, it’d be pretty banal for Wayne to flawlessly disarm the criminals and walk away completely unscathed–pretty much every superhero would do the same in that situation.  It might be more interesting if the character allowed himself to be robbed, walked away and got his revenge later.  How much is his pride worth?  Alternately, if the character does decide that his pride is worth risking serious physical injury and/or revealing that he has superpowers, have him pay something for it.  (For example, the first sign to Gary that something is not right about his coworker Dr. Mallow is that Gary witnesses several men rob Dr. Mallow, taking among other things a cherished personal memento.  Over the next several weeks, all of the assailants end up in mysterious accidents and the good doctor has his memento back.  Mallow could have just let it go, but trying to protect his property even after the fact bears a cost for him).

• Q: “Erik, what would happen, if say, you received a proposal where the art wasn’t good enough for it to be accepted but the pitch and story was extremely impressive and one of the best ideas you’d ever come across?”  A: “It would be rejected.”
• Q: “Would you consider publishing a story written by a 16-year-old? I’m talking about legal issues.” A: “What legal issues? If the work is exceptional–we’ll publish it. Most 16-year olds aren’t that good, however.”

PS: If you’re a long-time fan of Batman, you might remember that Adam West hid the remote control for the entrance to the Batcave inside a bust of Shakespeare.

*Never proven in a court of law, but Batman isn’t much into legal niceties (like verdicts).  Double points if he does Roethlisberger with a Terrible Towel.

• The writing was consistently clever and entertaining.  I’m not sure how much of it I will remember a few weeks from now–most of it wasn’t brilliant–but it was a very fun time.
• The movie played with a few superhero tropes.  For example, there’s the obligatory chase scene where a villain tries to escape by throwing a civilian into danger.  A villain throws a boy into a river and runs off.  The Captain glances at the boy, who says something like, “I can swim.  Go get him!”  However, I think they could have more smoothly handled the trope that the super-serum could not be replicated.  Spoiler: The project falls apart because one scientist gets killed and he didn’t have any notes or additional doses of the serum anywhere?  Didn’t he have any lab assistants?  (I don’t think it would’ve been hard to plug this hole.  Maybe he was worried that the Nazis would steal his notes, so he did as much from memory as possible and/or he used a code that only he could understand).
• I liked that Steve Rogers proved himself, whereas many other superheroes are just passively chosen for greatness (e.g. they’re born with superpowers or happen to be in the right place at the right time for a genetically-modified spider bite).   Rogers is selected as the test subject for the serum because he shows uncommon character, cunning and bravery.  The bravery struck me as a bit banal (he leaps on a hand-grenade without knowing it was a dummy).  The cunning was much more memorable. That flagpole scene was pretty kickass.

• If you think too hard about the plot, it probably makes less sense than most other good superhero movies.  For example, Captain America uses a car-door and a Hollywood prop shield to stop bullets and he’s instantly brilliant with his superpowered shield even though he’s never shown practicing with it.
• It was a bit refreshing to have a superhero story without a secret identity.  Among the superhero movies with secret identities, I feel the only two that have used them notably well have been Kick-Ass and The Incredibles.  For example, after Kick-Ass gets mauled by a criminal, he begs a paramedic to get rid of his costume so his father doesn’t find out his secret identity.  This leads to a touching and grimly hilarious scene where the father misconstrues just what the crime was.
• As in First Class, there was some minor historical whitewashing.  Rogers’ unit is racially-mixed, which would have been uncommon in World War II.  (Most Army units were segregated until the Korean War).
• As with most superhero universes, pretty much everything is hereditary.  (I didn’t see any notable traits distinguishing Shannon Carter from her grandmother or Tony Stark from his father).
• I found the Stan Lee cameo highly amusing.  ”I thought he was going to be taller?”

2-Week U.S. Gross as a Percentage of Total Budget. (Obviously, international sales are just as important, but I had a really hard time finding reliable international data.  Let me know if you know where I can look).

*-I had trouble finding a reliable estimate for the marketing budgets for Punisher and Thor.  The other statistics came from  The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, Reuters or the New York Times.

Week 2 Declines for First Superhero Movies–When movies drop off steeply from week 1 to week 2, it usually means the movie is getting bad word-of-mouth or ran out of fans relatively quickly.

• Spiderman: -38%
• Batman Begins: -43%
• Thor: -47%
• Iron-Man: -48%
• The Punisher: -55%* (rebooted)
• Ghost Rider: -56% (sequel scheduled for 2012)
• X-Men: -57%
• Fantastic Four: -59%
• Superman Returns: -59% (will be rebooted in 2012)
• Catwoman: -62%* (no sequel)
• Green Lantern: -66%
• Hulk (2003): -70%* (rebooted)

*I bolded the movies that resulted in a reboot or a series cancellation.

Week 2 Declines for Superhero Movies This Year

• Thor: -47%
• X-Men: First Class: -56%
• Green Lantern: -66%

Observations and Predictions

• All of the massively successful multifilm series (Spiderman, Batman, Iron-Man and X-Men) were respectively launched by movies that lost only 38%, 43%, 48% and 57% from the first week to the second.  That’s an average loss of 46%.  I think it bodes poorly for future Green Lantern films that this one fared substantially worse (-67%).

 

• My fearless prediction is that Warner Brothers won’t release another Green Lantern movie this decade.  Right now, Man of Steel is scheduled for a 2012 release, around 6 years after Superman Returns came out.  There are several reasons to think that Warner Brothers will probably be even more skittish about Green Lantern than it has been about Superman.
  1. So far, Green Lantern is doing worse at the box office than Superman Returns did.  In its first 2 weeks in the U.S., Superman Returns’ gross was roughly 54% of its total budget.  Green Lantern’s gross was only 32%.  Of the 13 launch films I looked at, only Catwoman did worse.  WB reportedly spent around $300 million to produce and market Green Lantern.  Breaking even looks like the best-case scenario at this point.
  2. Warner Brothers thought that Superman Returns underperformed by at least $100 million at the box office. SR earned $390 million at the box office against a $270 million production budget and $40 million of advertising. After all the charges (like taxes and the theatres’ cut of ticket sales) and additional revenues like DVD sales ($80 million) were factored in, it probably wasn’t a substantial profit.  Green Lantern is on pace to do substantially worse.
  3. Although Superman Returns did not do so well, the Superman franchise had several blockbusters to its name in the 1970s and 80s.  Green Lantern does not have that level of demonstrated market appeal or name recognition.

Caveats

• Box-office sales and the week-on-week decrease aren’t the only factors determining which movies get sequels, which get rebooted and which get canned.  Otherwise, we’d be up to The Incredibles 3 by now.   (Its box-office gross shrank only 29% from week 1 to week 2 and it ended up grossing $630 million against a production budget of $92 million).  Likewise, a series might get rebooted because the lead actor(s), director and/or lead screenwriter just weren’t interested.
• It’s possible for a movie to lose lots of viewers early but still become a blockbuster.  For example, Dark Knight lost a fairly high 53% from week 1 to week 2, but it was starting from a high base.  It’s obviously too soon to say whether Green Lantern will definitely be a box-office bust, but the evidence available so far is not encouraging.
• I’m only looking at the launch titles.  Sequels tended to lose a larger proportion of their audience from week 1 to week 2.  Also, I only included movies from 2000 and later, but I did not notice major differences between modern superhero movies and older ones here.

1. I’ve included the movies that have come out in the past year (X-Men: First Class, Thor and Green Lantern).
2. A few people thought that it would be fairer to look at only the current wave of superhero movies (starting in 2000 with X-Men).  I’ve added a section comparing both companies’ performance post-2000.

Summary

• Including the older movies, the average Rotten Tomato score was 50.2% for DC and 58.1% for Marvel.  If we look only at the modern movies, the gap narrows somewhat.  Since 2000, DC has averaged 54.8% and Marvel has averaged 59.9%.

• Marvel has been having more critical success with more series.  Since 2000, DC’s non-Batman movies have averaged 47.1%.  Since 2000, Marvel’s non-Spiderman movies have averaged 55.8% and its non-X-Men movies have averaged 56.4%.

DC Movies

A-Grade (80+ on Rotten Tomatoes)
The Dark Knight-94%
Superman-94% *
Batman: Mask of the Phantasm-87% *
Batman Begins-85%
Superman II-83% *

B-Grade (60-79 on Rotten Tomatoes)
Batman Returns-77%*
Superman Returns-76%
V for Vendetta-73%
Batman-71%
Watchmen-64%

C-Grade (40-59 on Rotten Tomatoes)
The Losers-47%
Constantine-46%
Batman Forever-44%*

D-Grade (20-39 on Rotten Tomatoes)
Green Lantern – 25% (after three days of reviews–this figure may change slightly as more reviews come in)
Superman III-23% *

F-Grade (19 or less on Rotten Tomatoes)
Steel-13% *
Jonah Hex-12%
Batman and Robin-12% *
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace-11% *
Catwoman-10%
Supergirl-8% *

*–These movies came before 2000.

Marvel Movies

A-Grade (80+ on Rotten Tomatoes)
Spiderman 2-94%
Iron Man-93%
Spiderman-90%
X2: X-Men United-88%
X-Men: First Class-87%
X-Men-81%

B-Grade (60-79 on Rotten Tomatoes)
Thor-77%
Iron Man 2-73%
Incredible Hulk-66%
Spiderman 3-63%
Hulk-62% (How!?)

C-Grade (40-59 on Rotten Tomatoes)
Blade II-58% *
X-Men: Last Stand-57%
Blade-55% *
Daredevil-44%

D-Grade (20-39 on Rotten Tomatoes)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine-36%
Fantastic Four-36%
The Punisher-30%
FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer-26%
Ghost Rider-26%
Blade Trinity-26% *

F-Grade (19 or less on Rotten Tomatoes)
Elektra-10%

*–These movies came before 2000.

Here are some other ways to look at the data.

ALL OF THE ABOVE MOVIES (REGARDLESS OF YEAR)

Including the older movies, the average Rotten Tomato score was 50.2 for DC and 58.1 for Marvel.

ONLY MODERN MOVIES (SINCE 2000)

Excluding the older movies, the average Rotten Tomato score was 54.8% for DC and 59.9% for Marvel.  That’s closer, although Marvel movies are still a bit better on average.

Some other trends that stuck out.

• In the modern era, Marvel is having more critical success with more series. In the modern era, DC averaged 54.8% with all movies included, but 47.1% in non-Batman movies.  Marvel averaged 59.9% with all movies included and 55.8 in non-Spiderman movies and 56.4 in movies without X-Men.  In the modern era, DC has had 4 non-Batman movies rated A-grade or B-grade.  Over the same period, Marvel has had 8 non-Spiderman and 8 non-X-Men A-grade or B-grade movies.  
• Hollywood is still as inept with female leads as it was 25 years ago. Elektra (10%) and Catwoman (10%) turned out as bad as 1984′s Supergirl (8%).  That probably can’t just be attributed to budget: Catwoman had a production budget of $100 million in 2004 and Elektra had $43 million in 2005.  According to IMDB, Supergirl’s budget was $35 million, which (if adjusted for inflation) works out to about $80 million in 2005.  Other films did much better with comparable budgets, such as X-Men ($75 million in 2000).  That said, most of the above movies had budgets between $100-200 million.

Questions? Concerns?  Other comments?  Please let me know and I might incorporate them when I update the survey with more recent releases.

Filled with unintentionally laughable characters, intergalactic gobbledygook, sudden pacing shifts and a hero whose superpower is downright cartoony, this latest comic adaptation makes something like “Spider-Man” look both grounded and brilliant… The Big Bad in this film turns out to be a huge smoky cosmic octopus of sorts (which speaks English, no less). Certainly a candidate for the 10 Worst Villains of All Time list.  – Detroit News

…it’s not the concept that’s so mightily flawed. It’s the execution. The motivation behind the villains, including the yellow fear monster, could have been thought up by a reasonably priced blender. The plot doesn’t flow in the slightest. The whole mess is an extended trailer, or the sound a 10th grader makes when he knows he hasn’t done his homework and the teacher is about to ask him about it. The movie shouts at you the entire time, punishing the audience, but it never says anything remotely important or interesting.  – Laremy Legel

This blobby ever-changing monster is fueled by “the yellow power of fear,” which is almost as frightful as the movie’s other nemesis: the gray power of boredom.

Sure, comic lovers will thrill when Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) recites the Lantern oath for the first time, but I bet they’d be a lot happier if he had something interesting to do afterwards… Parallax is more special effect run amuck than actual villain. Strong’s terrific turn as Sinestro – Right there, people! Right there mocking us! – only pours salt in that wound. – Rob Vaux

Certainly Ryan Reynolds possesses the xylophone abs to play a superhero, and the smart-aleck persona to make him fun.  Only one of those gifts is displayed in Green Lantern, thanks to a digitally painted-on costume hugging his physique. This movie has little else to offer except gaudy CGI doodles including a villain resembling an overflowing septic tank with teeth. – St. Petersburg Times

Despite having an enjoyable, self-aware leading man, Ryan Reynolds, in the title role of test-pilot-turned-superhero Hal Jordan, Green Lantern fails on almost all levels. The story seems determined to hit every cliché in the universe, the dialogue is consistently trite and therefore instantly forgettable, and every film reference (tons of Star Wars, The Last Starfighter, Superman) only reinforces the realization that this movie can’t even gain any upgrade in class with its thievery of superior movies… Was the casting director drunk the night the 40-year-old Sarsgaard was deemed the right choice to play the son of the 51-year old Robbins? – Atlantic City Weekly

Thor did a better job with this, by mostly ignoring backstory except for movie’s first ten minutes and working it in as the movie went along. Then again, the Odinson’s background was comparatively simple (Dad strips the arrogant Thor of his powers and sends him to Earth to learn humility). Director Martin Campbell and his bevy of writers had the opposite problem: cramming the Green Lantern Corps history and Jordan’s initiation into their ranks into less than an hour’s running time in order to allow the new GL a chance to show his stuff. And it’s all terribly rushed. Jordan zips from receiving the ring from Abin Sur to the early manifestations of its powers to perfunctory boot camp on the planet Oa…it’s feels like we’re speed dating all these characters. – Houston Press

‘Green Lantern’ doesn’t follow in the same footsteps of recent superhero films and instead a being a dark and compelling companions to them, the film is as campy as ‘The Fantastic Four.’ – Wilson Morales

So they’ve combined that [serious] element with a jokier one that turns the hero into a callow hipster more in tune with today’s juvenile sensibilities. He may be called Hal Jordan and be a great test pilot, but in terms of personality the hero is a great deal closer to that other Lantern, Kyle Raynor. — OGO

Even by the standards of the current run of mediocre comic-book movies, this one stands out for its egregious shoddiness. Its characters, dialogue, and pacing recall a destined-to-be-canceled Saturday morning cartoon from the early ’80s or possibly an extended Hasbro infomercial.  — Slate

• Every DC series will restart at issue #1 and many of the characters will be younger than they were before.  It’s less clear whether the plots will substantially change in noncosmetic ways.  The only substantial changes announced so far are that “a lot” of series are not returning, Justice League will focus more on relationships and DC will branch into genres besides pure superhero action.  “We’re going to use war comics, we have stories set in mystery and horror, we’ve got Westerns.”
• “We really want to inject new life in our characters and line. This was a chance to start, not at the beginning, but at a point where our characters are younger and the stories are being told for today’s audience.”
• DC will be digitally releasing all of its issues the same day they arrive in comic stores.
• Some titles will return and “a lot” won’t.  Most DC writers and artists are also getting shuffled around. “Series that are successful and writer/artist combinations that work well together won’t be tweaked too much.”
• The direction for the costume changes is to look more contemporary.   They’re also trying to “alter the physicality of many heroes and villains to modernize the DC Universe.”  I’m not sure what that means, but it sounds like a dangerous surgery illegal in most countries.
• “The recent emphasis on diverse characters such as lesbian superheroine Batwoman, Hispanic hero Blue Beetle and African-American adventurer Cyborg (who will be a core member of Johns and Lee’s new Justice League) also will continue.”

1.  Relatable origins. Marvel characters usually come from fairly ordinary origins.  For example, Spiderman, Captain America and most of the X-Men had largely unremarkable lives before developing superpowers.  In contrast, the three most prominent DC characters are a billionaire playboy, an extraterrestrial, and an Amazon princess.

2.  Scale of superpowers and capabilities. I think DC is more receptive to high-power heroes.  For example, Superman doesn’t just have eye-beams or incredible strength or incredible speed or the ability to fly, but all of those and more.   In contrast, a lot of Marvel characters get just one (think Cyclops, the Hulk, Quicksilver, Angel, etc).  I think most Marvel characters usually have somewhat more ordinary capabilities.  (The Sentry is a notable exception for Marvel).

3.  Real locations vs. fictional ones. Marvel prefers New York City, whereas DC mostly uses fictional cities that are frequently stand-ins for New York City.  (For example, “Gotham” was a nickname for NYC at the time Batman was introduced and Metropolis isn’t fooling anybody).

4. Workload/quality of coffee.  DC editors work on 4-8 series per month and Marvel editors work on maybe twice as many.  Mercifully, Marvel has better coffee.  

5. DC characters were usually created first. Most of Marvel’s main characters date to the 1970s, whereas most of DC’s date back to the 1940s and beyond.

• I think this is why Marvel has fewer names in the model of [Modifier] Man/Woman/Boy/Lad: Iron Man, Spiderman and the Invisible Woman vs. Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Aqua Lad, Hawkgirl and Hawkman, etc).
• Many major DC characters were introduced before superhero teams became commonplace*.

6. Use of magic and mythology. I think magic and mythology tend to be pretty rare in Marvel, and far removed from the lives and adventures of the main characters. In DC, I think there’s more magic/mythology, and it affects the main characters more.  For example, at least 12 of the episodes of Justice League/JLU feature magic.  Marvel characters like Dr. Strange and Dr. Doom sometimes bring magic into otherwise nonmagical stories, but I feel like Marvel stories are usually more purely science-fiction.

7. Marvel usually focuses on light science fiction, whereas DC sometimes reaches for high sci-fi and/or fantasy and/or really out-there stuff. For example, the most strange stuff in Marvel’s Armored Adventures is Fin Fang Foom (a dragon) and MODOK (a psychopathic science experiment). In contrast, the first season of Justice League had an alien invasion, a war with Atlantis, a sorcerer blackmailing Amazons to release Hades from Tartarus, extraterrestrial slave traders, Gorilla Grodd attacking Gorilla City, a demon assisting the League to defeat a sorceress, a criminal outfit called the Injustice Gang, the League transported to a parallel (comic book) world, and an immortal ex-caveman going back in time to help the Nazis win WWII.

8.  The average quality of DC and Marvel movies is pretty similar, according to Rotten Tomatoes. However, DC movies seem to be more hit-or-miss.  In particular, its misses are more spectacular.  Of the seven superhero movies that scored 15% or below on Rotten Tomatoes, only Elektra was by Marvel.  (The six DC bombs were Steel, Jonah Hex, Batman & Robin, Superman IV, Catwoman and Supergirl).

9.  *Many prominent Marvel characters were designed for teams (the X-Men, Fantastic Four, most of the Avengers, etc).  In contrast, many prominent DC characters–particularly those introduced before the JSA’s creation in 1940–were introduced as loners or partners rather than teammates.  Characters that are built for a team usually have fewer, simpler powers, because there isn’t as much space for each character.  Additionally, writers designing a team can delegate powers to different characters–for example, Reed Richards handles science, Ben Grimm is a pilot and the Invisible Woman does most of the team’s stealth work, but Batman usually does all of that himself.

10.  Most Marvel characters have powers/capabilities that are easier to explain. For example, “Storm controls the weather and can fly” vs. “Superman is supertough, fast, has eye-rays, ice breath, incredible senses and can fly.”  “The Thing is supertough” vs. “Wonderwoman is supertough, can fly, and can force honesty.”  Spiderman is an agile webslinger that can sense danger.  Batman is a master detective, ninja, martial artist, gadgeteer and scientist that makes NASCAR look like go-karts.

11. DC’s heroic personas sometimes get adopted by new people. For example, Robin, the Flash, Hawkgirl, Green Lantern, the Blue Beetle, Supergirl and Superboy have been different characters at different times.  Besides Marvel’s short-lived attempt to slot in Ben Reilly as Spiderman, I can’t think of similar examples from Marvel.  (Additionally, both companies have used a few short-term substitutes while the original character is getting over a temporary case of death, like Azrael-as-Batman and Bucky-as-Captain America, but these usually don’t have much long-term bearing on the story).

What do you think?  Am I missing anything?

However, I’d like to offer a qualification for the following statement: “Here’s a hint to the writer and artist: if the writer has a person saying one thing, don’t show her doing the exact opposite.” Okay, it could be a problem if readers don’t understand why there would be a discrepancy. (I haven’t read the issue, but based on the review it sounds like there isn’t a good reason for the character to explain why she’s refusing to train as she is training). However, under some circumstances, having a character say one thing while doing another might be dramatically effective.

• The character is being hypocritical. For example, a character talking about the need for sacrifice at the same time he’s eating a lavish dinner.  In most cases, a hypocritical character won’t be aware of the hypocrisy, but perhaps he does know and just doesn’t care what the other characters in the scene think of him.
• The character’s perspective of the situation is off. For example, if a really angry guy gets asked to calm down, he might scream something like “I’m being perfectly calm.  Don’t ****ing tell me to calm down!”
• The character is lying from off-panel. For example, John might give Mark’s widow a sob story about the horrible “accident” that killed Mark, but as he says that the camera flashes back to John shooting Mark in the back.
• The character is using misleading language or a double-entendre. For example, if Mark’s widow thanked him for being there with him until the very end, he could say something like “I always had his back.”

If readers don’t understand why there is a discrepancy between what a character says and what you’re showing the readers, readers will probably get confused.