DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Nolgroth]

It is my observation that the general viewing public prefers their heroes survive, while taking grim pleasure in the death of bad guys. That may or may not explain the disparity between hero and villain mortality rates.

[Bazza]

Yes, I know all that. But why is killing them so necessary? Regardless of how many villains you need for your filmic milieux, there is no good reason to kill the ones you don't intend to reuse. The idea that death is a common risk associated with being a superhero or supervillain is simply not part of the genre conventions.

 

I agree with CT that the reason these basic genre conventions are disregarded is that Disney/Marvel mistakenly believes that they are (and/or should be) making conventional action movies albeit with a fantastical element, rather than superhero movies.

Why do supervillains keep getting killed while superheroes survive?

 

Because, audiences expect it. You may laugh as this rationale, however consider this:

• How many bad guys/villains survive in Westerns? Spaghetti Westerns?
• How many bad guys/villains survive in film noir?
• How many bad guys/villains survive in the James Bond series?
• How many bad guys/villains survive in the Dirty Harry series?
• How many bad guys/villains survive in Die Hard series?

Ergo I believe it is reasonable to suggest that audiences have a general expectation that bad guys/villains will meet their demise. There are plenty of of counter examples of course, but that there is a number of examples that "prove" this suggestion is why I believe it is reasonable, and a general expectation.

[Bazza]

Arrow-Flash-Supergirl-Legends of Tomorrow Crossover Villain Revealed

http://screenrant.com/arrow-flash-supergirl-legends-tomorrow-crossover-villain-dominators/

[Christopher R Taylor]

Why do supervillains keep getting killed while superheroes survive?

 

Because, audiences expect it.

 

Not so much.  Its what audience have been given.  Studios expect that because as Bigdamnhero noted, they see these as action flicks, not superhero flicks, and that's how it goes in Die Hard and Commando.

[bigdamnhero]

I hate to be the one to keep saying it, but superhero movies are not made for comic book fans. Frankly there just aren't enough of us to matter; if every comic book nerd on the planet goes to see Dr. Strange three times, it's still going to be a studio-killing bomb of Ishtar-ian proportions unless they can draw in a general audience. So yes, they're going to do what they feel they need to do to bring in that broader audience, and if that means following the tropes of action movies that routinely draw in tens of millions of people over the tropes of comic books that draw in a few thousand? Yeah, that's a no-brainer from the studio's perspective. I don't like it, but hey I'm not the one gambling $200M+ on the idea.

 

And I'm not sure why folks are singling out Marvel/Disney for this sin, especially given the title of the the thread:

 

DC:

• Ra's al Ghul - dead
• Scarecrow - alive, reused
• Joker - alive (almost certainly would've been reused, damn you Ledger!)
• Two-Face - dead
• Bane - dead
• Talia al Ghul - dead
• Zod - dead

I haven't seen BvS or Suicide Squad, so someone else can continue this list but it doesn't sound like villain life expectancy improves significantly.

 

Spider-verse:

• Green Goblin (Spider-Man 1) - dead
• Doc Ock - dead
• Venom - dead
• Sandman - dead?
• Green Goblin 2 (Spider-Man 3) - dead
• The Lizard - alive
• Electro (ASM 2) - alive

Note here that the only movies that didn't kill their villains were the two ASMs, which bombed. I'm certainly not suggesting that's why they bombed, but from the studio's perspective it's not like they're going to be looking at those two flicks for things to emulate.

 

I have no desire to go through all the X-Movies, only half of which I've seen, but aside from Magneto (obviously) I think the body count is similar.

[Starlord]

As I foreshadowed with my point about Ultron, hasn't every villain (and hero) there is died at some point, only to reappear later??  Killing off villains is a moot point.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I agree, its not Marvel that's the problem here.  Batman murdered pretty much all of his villains as well, except Scarecrow.  Superman killed Zod.  Its a flaw with the films and I do understand it from the perspective of the studios, but... they haven't really tried the alternative much to see how it works, either.  Granted, they have tremendous pressure to not be creative or try new things, from the board and investors, but still.

There are exceptions.  Batroc wasn't killed in Cap 2 (he just didn't have a name or costume).  Yellowjacket isn't necessarily dead, but is highly unlikely to return.  Scarecrow as I said is alive.  Most of the X-Men villains make it through each film.  And those movies did not lose money as a result.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm OK with villains dying in the Marvel movies, as long as the heroes lose all their Karma.

[zslane]

I didn't mean to single out the MCU. However, given the distinct tonal difference between the MCU and the DCEU, one might reasonably expect the kill ratio to be substantially lower.

 

Again, I agree with CT. Audience expectations are built around what they are given. If you give them a series of superhero movies where the heroes and villains don't die, then that becomes the new expectation for the genre. But I guess the unchallenged belief is that movies must have a (lethal) finality to them that other longer, seralized forms of storytelling don't require.

 

Oh well. It's a bit of a shame; I really didn't need to become so aware of yet another way in which these movies don't feel like their source material.

[Cassandra]

I'm OK with villains dying in the Marvel movies, as long as the heroes lose all their Karma.

 

Nice Marvel RPG Reference!

[Cassandra]

I'm going to admit something that may make everyone on this thread believe that I am insane.

 

I really liked G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

 

And that would be a perfect archetype for a Superhero vs. Supervillain movie.  We are introduced to the Villains, then the Heroes, and Crisis comes up.  There are a few battles between a few of the Heroes and Villains.  The Mastermind makes his move, and the Heroes have to stop him.

 

The problem with the DC/Marvel movies that they have spent so much higher big name actors the can only focus on the Heroes, and one Supervillain.  They keep focusing on the origin stories to introduce us to the Heroes instead of just having the Heroes established and then going back to making a Prequel to show where each of them came from.

 

Then again, I also liked the McHale's Navy movie so what do I know?

[Christopher R Taylor]

It wasn't bad, I liked the weapon too, the kinetic device.  It wouldn't do remotely the kind of damage indicated but its a cool idea.  I liked it pretty well as just a dumb action movie.

[death tribble]

I saw both GI Joe films and the first one is much better.

[Bazza]

I saw both GI Joe films and liked both of them. I absolutely love the blue spiral kinetic device from the first film.

[zslane]

I saw the first one but don't really remember any of it.

[Cassandra]

Regarding G.I. Joe: Retaliation being better the G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

 

Adrienne Palicki, The Rock, and Bruce Willis!

[zslane]

Cassandra wins.

[bigdamnhero]

I didn't mean to single out the MCU. However, given the distinct tonal difference between the MCU and the DCEU, one might reasonably expect the kill ratio to be substantially lower.

Okay, that's fair.

 

Audience expectations are built around what they are given. If you give them a series of superhero movies where the heroes and villains don't die, then that becomes the new expectation for the genre. But I guess the unchallenged belief is that movies must have a (lethal) finality to them that other longer, seralized forms of storytelling don't require.

Also fair. Tho the problem of Hollywood being scared to try new things so they keep giving audiences the same things over and over because they've worked in the past is hardly unique to superhero movies.

 

The problem with the DC/Marvel movies that they have spent so much higher big name actors the can only focus on the Heroes, and one Supervillain.  They keep focusing on the origin stories to introduce us to the Heroes instead of just having the Heroes established and then going back to making a Prequel to show where each of them came from.

I think to some extent that's also a reaction to the superhero movies of the 80s and 90s, where the heroes were very 2-dimentional and the villains were far more interesting, culminating in Batman & Robin where the heroes didn't even get top billing. (Not that there weren't plenty of other problems with that POS...) Then along comes a Spider-Man, followed by Batman Begins and Iron Man, all of which were critically praised specifically for humanizing their heroes and helping us understand why they chose to do what they do. See above re doing the same thing over and over because it's worked in the past.

 

That said I agree it's overdone and time for them to mix it up a little. Heck, I'm just happy we've now had 2 Marvel movies in a row that didn't end in CGI mook smackdowns.

 

Regarding G.I. Joe: Retaliation being better the G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

 

Adrienne Palicki, The Rock, and Bruce Willis!

I haven't seen it ...but you make a compelling argument!

[Cassandra]

I saw the first one but don't really remember any of it.

 

 

I think that says it all.

[Cassandra]

Now, to be fair the DC TV Universe is working out quiet well.  I was more entertained with the preview of the second Season of Supergirl then the entire last season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

[zslane]

Tho the problem of Hollywood being scared to try new things so they keep giving audiences the same things over and over because they've worked in the past is hardly unique to superhero movies.

True, but the MCU is something quite new. Marvel/Disney took a chance on building a fresh superhero world/franchise from the ground up, showing uncharacteristic patience with their multi-year lead-up to the big team film. As I see it, the MCU was the opportunity to shape audience expectations for what a superhero movie universe could and would look/feel like. But by taking only half measures in many areas involving any degree of creative risk, it is quite possible that Marvel/Disney made half as much money as they could have.

[zslane]

Now, to be fair the DC TV Universe is working out quiet well.  I was more entertained with the preview of the second Season of Supergirl then the entire last season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

I'm kinda only half with you on that. I think Supergirl is the only part of the DC TV universe that is working out quite well. All the other CW shows are (or have become) atrocious IMO. By comparison Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is a bloody masterpiece. But for my money, nothing surpasses Supergirl, and most because of Melissa Benoist. She is a national treasure.

[Nolgroth]

I like all the CW superhero shows. I realize that there have been legendary comic book stories along the way; stories that are real landmarks. Most of them are not. I consider the CW shows on par with following a monthly comic. You're going to get episodes that range from brilliant to blunder. I've found them much more watchable than the endless cycle of "reality TV", criminals as heroes, hokey sitcoms, and yet another police procedural shows.

[Bazza]

I saw the first one but don't really remember any of it.

 

 

I remember it, but have only seen the sequel once and don't really remember it.  

 

Regarding G.I. Joe: Retaliation being better the G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

 

Adrienne Palicki, The Rock, and Bruce Willis!

 

Cassandra wins.

 

I remember The Rock and Bruce Willis in Gi Joe 2, but not Adrienne Palicki.

[bigdamnhero]

But by taking only half measures in many areas involving any degree of creative risk, it is quite possible that Marvel/Disney made half as much money as they could have.

[shrug] It's also quite possible they made twice as much money as they could have if they'd more closely followed comic book tropes instead of action movie tropes. I mean I get your point, but given the orders-of-magnitude difference in audience sizes we're talking about, I can't really get too mad at the studio for not throwing away all the lessons they've learned from decades of making movies that are backed up by an ocean of (flawed but extensive) research and focus-grouping, in favor of tropes favored by a relative handful of nerds just because I happen to be one of the latter. And as for taking half measures, don't forget they already took a huge number of risks that many people at the time didn't expect to pay off. They only look safe now in hindsight because we know they paid off.

 

As for the CW shows, I love Supergirl, really like Flash, enjoy Arrow in spite of its flaws, and thought Legends was a complete train wreck. (Haven't seen any of this season's premieres yet.)

 

Agents of SHIELD I gave up on after I realized that each week I couldn't remember the previous week's episode until the "Previously on..." recaps; at least the CW shows are seldom boring.