People's mileage may vary but I found Batman Returns to again veer too far off the easy path for it of a comic book movie into Tim Burton's random idiosyncracies. I might in retrospect have included Batman Forever though.
But anyway, anyone have insights to my question? Like in the past 30 or so years, I can't say I've seen every DC animated movie or series, but of the ones I've seen, they've been enjoyable, well-acted, no plot holes to speak of, a good mixture of character development, action, humor and themes, a good balance of respect for the original and willingness to do their own thing. To take My Adventures With Superman, I love that they got Clark's secret out of the way early on. I love little things like the Brain and Monsieur Mallah being lovers (although I guess that probably precedes this). I love their Mxy. I think it shows how to make Clark as a nice guy not boring and very relatable as opposed to deadbeat dad stalker in Superman Returns or broody angst machine who might let people die because his Pa said his secret's that important.
I agree with your premise that the animated films have been a lot better than the theatrical live-action films. Two big reasons, IMO: 1. A lot of the animated films are based on graphic novels, and tend to largely stay true to the graphic novel. 2. Zack Snyder (who had a big hand in the DCEU) is a hack. I actually liked Man of Steel, despite all its flaws, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I agree with WAB's 1, but not his 2. Snyder is a source-loyal comic fanboy, it's just his source choices, Dark Knight and Injustice, make for a dark brew, too dark to build the whole universe around. His trilogy should have been self-contained, and the DCU should have been built around Wonder Woman. But, even that gets tricky, because he picked Gal Gadot, and lobbied for Patty Jenkins.
If Snyder had chosen Dark Knight and Injustice to build his universe around, and stayed true to the source material, the DCEU may have actually been successful and a counterpoint to the light-hearted MCU. But he didn't. And he's a hack. His cut of Justice League is proof that he sits in a room all day and smells his own farts. I know the fanboys will disagree but the truth often hurts.
Snyder's too loyal to his source material is the problem. One thing that fucking annoyed me to no end was all the times in 300, where he'd do a freeze-frame, for no other reason than he could say, "Look, guys! Here's a panel from the comic! It's exactly the same as the panel! See? I'll freeze frame it so you can get a really good look in the theater." Look, dude, the majority of people going to see this movie are probably not overly familiar with the comic the movie is based on. Maybe they know something about Alan Moore, or you, or the history of that particular battle, or they just saw the trailer and said, "That looks cool as shit!" I know you've got to put fan service in a movie like that, but dude, it's like having Kirk stop in the middle of opening his safe, look at the camera, and say, "The combination is..." Half the fun of things like that is trying to work it out on your own, and then seeing if it is re-used or contradicted somewhere else. You're literally ruining the movie for us, and taking away reasons to rewatch it. Where's the fun in sitting there with the comic book in your lap and seeing which shots match up with the panels in it, and which show things that don't match up with it, when you stop the fucking movie and do the cinematic equivalent of putting a giant flashing neon sign over it?
I'm wondering if it's that WB executives decide to let the animation folks do what they want because it's "just for kids" or because the upfront costs are so much cheaper. Or is it because there's a more natural affinity for those who are into animation to be into comics versus those live action movie directors who may or may not have ever read comics. A lot of the live-action stuff is at least somewhat adapted from comic series, but comes out mixed IMO. And Batman TAS was in many ways just the brilliance of its creators as much as what was going on in comics in the time.
I think with the movies they have to reach a broader audience so there's probably more execs who are interfering where as the animated stuff is geared towards a specific audience.
Close. At the time when the first really good animated comics-based cartoon stuff (be it DC or Marvel, or whoever) started showing up on TV, the government had requirements for the content of kids' TV programs. So, they had to have X amount of content for kids, and it had to meet certain requirements to count for things like "educational entertainment" (that's why we got all those "Now You Know" things at the end of cartoons). The suits running the studios didn't give three shits about providing content to kids (they don't have jobs, they don't have money, etc), and by snagging certain comics and putting on TV, they could meet the requirements and make some money off of a minimal investment. Much of the content was "pre-sold" as they say, and they knew that even if they couldn't get enough kids to watch it, they could get adults who were fans of the comics, or previous incarnations of the characters in movies and TV to watch, so they could still breakeven.
But the thing is, it's not like the sort of audience who would like live action superheroics is inherently different from the one who likes animated content. And the success of animated superhero films like The Incredibles and the Spider-Verse movies should have shown that they can bring the audience to them too. So I don't know if demographics is the factor.
I thought Joker was to the DCEU what the Kelvinverse movies are to Trek. "The Batman" was fine, but it did not need to be three damn hours. If I hadn't been on a flight to Hawaii, I never would've watched that film just on its runtime alone.
No, it's that they're suits. They got the job they have, not so much because they really love things like movies, TV shows, or other entertainment products, they got the job because they like numbers, and they also kinda like things like entertainment. So, they don't see a great story as being a great story that should be told for no reason other than it is a great story, they see it as a way to make piles of money. If you can't show them that numbers for a live-action version of an animated program will make a bunch of money (and you probably can't, unless someone's already done a live-action version for that particular title), it's not an easy sell. Easier than a wholly original property, but not nearly as easy as another sequel/prequel to the franchise that's already live-action.
Most of the animated movies they put out are straight to home video though. Some of the early animated movies that came out in the early 2000s were marketed to my generation who grew up with the Bruce Timmverse and the voice actors carried over into those movies. It was essentially just a continuation of Justice League, in a way. Those movies didn't air on Cartoon Network until much later. They wanted twenty something me and @Diacanu buying those DVDs. They also knew we weren't going to buy them if they got bad reviews so the quality had to be good. Now they've burned through all of the good major stories, changed voice actors, changed the animation style and the quality has dropped. They're now trying to build a new audience while also still appealing to my generation. Harley Quinn and My Adventure With Superman are doing a good job of this. Then throw in the occasional elseworld Batman animated movie and they're good. Easy money.
Right, but when those movies were released, was that before things like Batman TAS aired? I don't know. I do know what the regulations were on content that could be produced for children on TV (and it didn't matter if it was OTA or cable, they had many of the same restrictions). So, I can well imagine them looking at such things as "brand-extension," in the sense that they could put them out and pull in folks who'd have been pre-sold on the stuff airing on TV. You know what Cecil B. Demille said? "Give me a page out of the Bible and I can make a movie out of it." If you've got creatives in charge of the purse-strings, you've got a chance of getting good shit out. If you've got bean counters running the show, then you're going to get the cheapest thing that they can make, sold at an inflated cost.
Agreed. It's so "Elseworlds" it's left the DC universe. My first reaction is still my view: I already saw this story and it was called "Falling Down"
The suits actually often yanked the leash on Timm and his crew. The upcoming Batman animated series by Timm is said to be under no such "Hey! This is for kids!" restrictions. Batman: Caped Crusader Will Try To Do Everything Batman: The Animated Series Couldn’t (movieweb.com)
I actually think the dark gritty gets to be too much after a while in the connected films. That is where BvS was failing and I think the Justice League overall fails in live action. The one thing that keeps me going through animated justice league is the humor that sometimes comes around. It really needs to be better developed. It is one of the things I liked about Teen Titans that thery went too far with in Go. I do not want it to be all wisecracks, but too dark and gritty hasn't seemed to have worked for a full universe. The Dark Knight seemed to almost do it, but I think that was too reliant on the awesome performance of the Joker. You could have struck off from that, but it was getting a bit old. I really think when Thor became a smartass and guardians came along it saved the MCU. I think people were put off by emo tony stark, and captain america and black widow were the dedicated morals of the group. You cannot have them being smartasses. The DCEU needs flash to be the wisecracker, and probably a more funny cyborg. Green arrow was good for the DCEU to bring a more fun anti-establishment theme to it. Batman does good as the failsafe anchor. A funny hawk girl could probably do good also. You have to have the likable funny guy who is not creepy like their present flash.
As much as I'd rather they had chosen Fillion for Hal instead of Guy, there's potential for wisecracking there given the proper foil. I'd recast Flash with Neil Patrick Harris and half the work is done right there.
So I am giving up a bit on Justice league for a while as it is a trudge and I started watching Teen Titans. I have seen some of it, but I wanted to take a good look at it. This is so much better. There is a little bit more childish things in there, but that can't be it. They just do not have the good development of comradarie of the justice league that would make a good show.
JLU is worth it for the big hug from Wonder Woman in the final ep. If you haven't made it that far, also the call forward to Batman Beyond (NOT the one where they time travel).
Justice League, early on, put a lot of effort into being goddamn-serious and some of the characterizations were not fully developed to start (in particular, Jon was a rank asshole through a lot of season one) but JLU is excellent. My rewatch of JL has been marred more by seeing plot holes I didn't notice back in the day. For example, in War World Superman is fighting Mongul and NEVER flies or uses his laser eyes. Why not? I mean I know that for the writers they need the fight to seem in doubt but it's strategically just plain stupid that Kal doesn't attack from above.
TT has similar problems. Their powers are inconsistent. Robin keeps up when he shouldn't. Beast boy is useful only when the writers make him. Starfire and Raven can either blow up the world or tickle the enemy with their powers. Why would you not just use your powers at full blast escpecially when you already wreck the city while tickling your enemy? What the fuck is cyborg made out of that glass seems to cover some of his electronics, but nothing seems to break? In the end my mind is not bothered by the random shit, or worrying about the universe rules as much. Maybe it is that TT doesn't go full on serious all the time, and therefor my mind doesn't look for seriousness in the action. I also find that I really wanted some more interpersonal relationships in JL. Does none of the JL even talk to each other except when on missions?
Raven draws her powers from evil, like Spawn, so every use of her powers draws her closer and closer to going Sith, so she has to be careful and sparing, then diffuse the evil with meditation after. Starfire is solar powered, so her batteries are limited. Transparent metal.
In the case of Raven it makes a bit more sense, but even then the writing only uses her being overwhelmed when it becomes needed for a plot point. However, in Starfire's case it simply does not make sense to have a prolonged battle and waste energy on meaningless shots when you have a finite amount of energy. But it does break when the plot calls for it? I know, plot armor. I am just saying the flaws for TT do not bother me like they do for JL, despite being there. I am just not thinking about them because the action is good, and also because there is banter between the characters that JL does not get to. JLU seems to do a bit more, but not enough. For the number of episodes of JL and JLU they could have developed the personal interractions between the characters a lot more. It is like the adult heroes only adult, while the teenagers do other things aside from being in their tower, or space station, and get into battles. If you are going to adult, maybe they could do some interesting adulting things? Maybe WW drags Superman and Batman to go antiquing? Maybe Batman writes some depressing poetry and hangs out at hipster bars?
The premise in JL is that these people who are barely acquainted if at all are thrown together in the first story and are not, at all, "Super Friends" Clark is Clark so he's polite by default; Bruce is a loner and doesn't want to be involved with anyone else's shit; Diana is sweet but just got here; Jon's an asshole who still acts like a marine Sargent; Shiera was is a soldier-cop as we'll learn and we don't even know how long she's been on Earth, but she acks like you'd expect a soldier-cop (with something to hide) to act; Wally is a goof but he gets on everyone's nerves; J'onn like Diana literally just got here and has NO relationships, let alone with fellow heroes; When we see Aurthur, they know who he is (because everyone refers to him as "Aquaman" without having to be told) but he, too, has a chip on his shoulder and is only here for his own agenda. That's the literal premise. part of the character development, especially as they move into JLU, is how this various personalities come to work together (which you'll note often doesn't happen smoothly early on) and eventually care about each other. This is a BIT of a ret-con of the Batman crossover episodes of Superman:TAS where they seem to develop a mutual respect for each other by the time they part, but only slightly - Bruce is still Bruce and, as he says, "doesn't play well with others" I mean, it might not be to your tastes but the storytelling choice were deliberate, not sloppy.
It is very rare that Superman uses his powers even close to reasonably or prepares halfway sensibly. Just having super-speed that is just a tad slower than the Flash should mean that very few people could get a hit on him that's not a sucker punch. Having a utility belt or standard/specialized gear to protect himself from Kryptonite or other weaknesses is something he just doesn't do either.
