Dante9 said:
d21lewis said:

That's not true. It's a common misconception used to discredit DC characters. There movies could be better written but the actual characters on written page are pretty similar.

For decades, Marvel characters were supposed to be relateable everyman characters while DC was full of billionaires and gods and aliens with special abilities. Tony Stark? Thor? Silver Surfer?

Marvel Characters were written with real world problems but DC characters have been written the same since at least the 70s. Hell, half the time the people who created the characters or wrote for Marvel also wrote for DC! The only major difference is that a lot (not all of the time) of the time, DC characters are loved by the public while Marvel characters are feared. And even then there's tons of examples that contradict even that.

Many of the DC core characters came about in the 30s or 40s, it was a different time where superheroes were about ideals and they were presented as virtuous and wondrous and something to look up to and admire. Like you say, perhaps they were given more relatable problems in the 70s but maybe it just doesn't work so well because their original starting points are so far removed from the human experience. (Compare to, say, a student dweeb who gets bitten by a radioactive spider, but still has to be a student dweeb as well as a hero in secret.) Let's take your examples. Tony Stark doesn't have superpowers, he's just a genius with technology. He builds his suit out of necessity to keep himself from dying. He has an ego and troubles in his relationships, plus he goes through bouts of alcoholism and whatnot. Not exactly an example of a shining paragon among men, but a lovable jerk. Thor is a god, yes, but he's hardly a living statue to be adored like Superman. He has to go through ordeals to redeem himself and grow as a person, because he starts off as an arrogant ass. He needs to be worthy at all times in order to wield his weapon. There's a major arc of developing his character. He also struggles with complicated family tensions and his position among the powerful in his world. Silver Surfer? Now here we go into trouble territory. Very galactic and powerful, no real human characteristics or problems and due to these things, he is already much more difficult to relate to. That's why I don't think Marvel is going to bank on him too much, unless they somehow manage to pull off a successful reboot of the Fantastic Four, which haven't been too hot either in previous attempts. Actually, this seems to be an argument in your favor, because it's baffling to me how bad the FF movies have been. I could easily see Marvel doing a much better job with them. So maybe it's more to do with execution after all? I'm not trying to discredit anything. I just think that there might be something inherent in many DC characters that explains why - with the exception of Batman - they haven't really taken off on the big screen in the contemporary world. Could be I'm just biased and totally off the mark, or maybe there's something to this. Sorry about the layout, the quoting is broken again.

The problem I see in your comparison is that you are doing it with two scales. For the DC you consider their origin in the 30's for their super power and paragon of virtues, while for Marvel you are using rendition of the current movies. Use the same for both. Thor, Iron Man and several others from Marvel aren't relatable to most people

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994