Who's the bigger sell out?

[Tracker]

Not to offend any one but who do you think is being a biger sell out (movie wise) DC comics or Marvle.

I personal belive Marvle is letting them make to many comic book movies.

[Ryanderman]

Why is making a lot of movies selling out? Marvel is in the business to make money, it always has been. The same with DC. Just because Marvel has been more successful in making the transition to a logical market than has DC, why should you consider that selling out? And besides, DC does not seem to have any qualms about making their comics into movies as well.

[Tracker]

Well becasue the directors mess the moveis up in some cases like the Incredible Hulk now that they are making more superhero movies the are messing up the Stories from some of the Comic characters. And they are making a boat load of money on some crapy movies (not all of them. Some of them are ok)

[Mesden]

Well becasue the directors mess the moveis up in some cases like the Incredible Hulk now that they are making more superhero movies the are messing up the Stories from some of the Comic characters. And they are making a boat load of money on some crapy movies (not all of them. Some of them are ok)

Well, you see, they normally do this to uncomplicate movies.

Take X-Men, for example. The movies are already long enough and putting in alien superbeings (Phoenix) and magical powers (Juggernaut) takes a LOT longer and a LOT more boring explanation time out of the movie, which they would have to do for the viewers that don't know the whole thing.

It applies to just about all of them, really.

[Phobic]

I don't think you can really say DC or Marvel is selling out. They have been the giant money machines of comics for a long time now. If anything, they sold out long ago.

Besides, with things such as X-men and Superman, there are so many versions, and alternate universes, and stories done by various writers that I don't think it's really possible to "ruin" the story. The movies are just yet another version, similar to the different comics.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

I think, that if there's any justification for selling out, it's that half the gorram books are adverts for crap.

But if I had to pick one, it'd be DC for no other reason than, "Kill Blue Beetle and replace him with a younger one," "Kill Firestorm and replace him with another one," and "Hey, let's make a new Crisis on Infinite Earths! It'll be great!" sorta thing.

Marvel Comics, really, I dunno. It's the having two or three big events within a whole damn month of each other, that would do it for Marvel.

Of course, I'm biased.

[Elbodo]

First of all, I don't see what's so bad about selling out. A creative artist who can't make a living won't be creating for long. If an artist is good at what he does I don't mind paying for the privilege of getting to see more. And while DC and Marvel are companies (rather than creative artists) they are companies that are good at enabling artists and disseminating their work. Why shouldn't they make money?

As for the whole business of the movies not getting the story right, I've never considered the comics to be canon for the movies or vice versa. We're talking about two different media. The way you tell a story in one is inherently different from the way you tell a story in the other. Each medium has it's own strength's and weaknesses and I don't fault the people making these movies for altering the story a bit to take advantage of celluloid's strengths and minimze it's weaknesses.

I mean, come on -- the X-Men's yellow and blue costumes looked great in the comics, but can you imagine how cheesy those same costumes would have looked in a live-action movie? And then, yeah, there's Mesden's point about character and plot exposition in movies. It takes time to do those things and every minute/scene/shot in a movie is costly.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

I'm operating under the assumption that "sell out" is used to describe when someone changes the way they do things solely to make money, i.e. a musical group developing a more "poppy" sound just to get listeners and therefore money, or when someone compromises their message for the sake of cash.

[Zweihander]

I'm operating under the assumption that "sell out" is used to describe when someone changes the way they do things solely to make money, i.e. a musical group developing a more "poppy" sound just to get listeners and therefore money, or when someone compromises their message for the sake of cash.

In which case, the companies would be insane to not sell out. You try explaining to stockholders why you're choosing a path that leads to fewer profits.

Most fans accuse their targets of selling out whenever they change something about themselves. Comics companies have been "selling out" for years. Marvel's done it (Endless Phoenix returns, anyone? Maybe some Cosmic Powers Spiderman? House of M? Civil War?), as have DC (the murders of some of the fans' favorite characters, the resurrection of some of them, Crisis on Infinite Whatever, the Women in Freezers thing).

In short, I say the same thing to those who bemoan Liefeld getting more jobs: If you don't like it, don't buy. Your wallet's the only thing you have to control a company with.

[Fifthfiend]

SELL OUT?

Son, let me tell you how it is.

Stan Lee is only about two things:

Gettin' Laid and Gettin' Paid.

And that is why he is The Man.

'Nuff said.

...

EXCELSIOR!