There is No Justice After All

DC will try to shoehorn a Justice League movie while
the iron is hot.

Once upon a time, DC comics ruled the saturday morning cartoons and the Justice League was seen by every kid around. Detective Comics released a couple of blockbuster movies but their franchises died in their fourth installments- Batman & Robin and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. That all changed with the turn of the century when Marvel finally worked out how to make comic book movies work. DC had to regroup and did so successfully with the Dark Knight series. At the same time, Marvel unveiled it's plans to make an Avengers movie. To do so Marvel decided to create a full universe where these characters could interact. Once the Avengers made $200 million in it's opening weekend, DC became jealous and continuously leaked rumors that they are planning a Justice League movie. However, last month DC said they're making a Superman/Batman team up movie with Ben Affleck donning the cowl of the Dark Knight. While fans whined about Bat-fleck, they keep overlooking that this film is doomed from the start.

As a Justice League movie's future began to get cloudy when DC's Green Lantern flopped at the box office and the Dark Knight wrapped up in a way that the public loved though it didn't make sense, the Superman reboot was to start up the "New DC", but they didn't introduce Lex Luthor in Man of Steel at all. With the introduction of Luthor and a NEW Batman, the Man of Steel sequel has got A LOT on it's plate. If the goal is to release the film in 2015 against Avengers: Age of Ultron, DC will have to step their game up.

The Avengers was a game changer for comic book movies

In 2008, Marvel carefully planned out how to make the Avengers a reality. Starting with Iron Man (it also used the "credit's scene" effectively) to tell Tony Stark's origin and introduce Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. S.H.I.E.L.D. would be used a month later in The Incredible Hulk with Tony Stark making a cameo. A couple years later, Iron Man 2 included the Black Widow and Hawkeye made a cameo in Thor a year later. Iron Man 2's credit scene had Agent Colson finding Thor's hammer. Lastly, Captain America: The First Avenger finished the pre-Avengers plan when it connected itself to Iron Man's father Howard Stark and then to Nick Fury. ALL OF THAT PLANNING TOOK YEARS. By the time Avengers premiered in 2012, it felt organic and not just thrown together. If you watched the film without seeing the others, you were introduced to each character well without needing much exposition. It blended together each film's style, made it's own while not making the characters completely dependent on each other.

DC may not have realized that Christopher Nolan screwed them with the "popular" ending of the Dark Knight Rises. While Bruce Wayne gives up being Batman (which he's never done willingly) that means they have to reset where the timeline is when he appears in Man of Steel 2 or introduce the "new character" as Batman. Does that sound like it's going to work? Rumor has it that Batman's involvement is far less than the working "Superman vs Batman" title would indicate, but even that sounds like it's being forced. Again, Ben Affleck isn't the biggest problem here. If DC wants to get to a Justice League movie by 2017, they will need to find a way to make Wonder Woman, Flash and possibly Martian Manhunter movies as well as a Green Lantern sequel/reboot. The other problem for DC: these are main characters, not bit characters. Marvel got away with cameos for Black Widow and Hawkeye, but DC may not be able to do that with these characters.

Anyway, we'll see the answers to these problems in 2015, but it's far from a homerun for DC. 

Imported Movies Can Lose in Translation

America likes it's imports -beer comes to mind- but Hollywood likes to import ideas too. As far as movies go, Quintin Tarantino adapted the Seven Samurai and spun it into Reservoir Dogs. Hollywood has adapted many foreign films and "Americanized" them with varying results. Christopher Nolan adapted the Norwegian film Insomnia as a gritty detective story in Alaska with great performances by Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hillary Swank. The Ring and The Grudge were both imports with box office success in the states. The Grudge's strategy was to use the same director and it would make the transition easier. This brings me to a 2003 Korean film called Oldboy that was recommended highly from a friend of mine. The film was on IMDb's list for the Top 250 Movies of all time. It presented a great twist and one of the greatest single shot fight scenes of all time. The "twist" was one that turned the film completely on it's head and I find myself recommending it to everyone.

The original Oldboy takes place in Korea and begins with a man holding another man over the edge of a building. He tries recalling something very little... like his name. We're quickly taken through the last 20 years of Oh Dae-su. Dae-su was a drunk, but a joyous man with a mischievous side. One night while on a bender, Dae-su is kidnapped and imprisoned in a hotel-style room. He is fed three meals a day and his only friend is a TV, which shows the time passing with the news -including the murder of his wife whom he is framed and his daughter is orphaned. As time passes, Dae-su stops drinking and works out by punching a wall. Twenty years later, on the day he plans to escape, Dae-su is released. He tries to piece together who he is now while he befriends a twenty year-old girl Mi-do. As Dae-su is consumed with revenge, his focus is off and he tracks down the men who imprisoned him until he meets Woo-jin Lee, the man who imprisoned him. He asks two simple things and promises to kill himself if Dae-su succeeds: who am I and why did I imprison you? As Dae-su turns over the clues, he fails to see the forest through the trees.

Last month, Oldboy made it's Americanized debut with Josh Brolin and Spike Lee directing. The film has no real desirable location, but it centers with more of a back story on Joe Doucett in a negative light. He is imprisoned for 20 years and set free. The film follows many of the plot points of the original until the third act (possibly because of the American audiences wouldn't understand the simple plot). It's actually unfortunate because the audiences are smarter and better than what they thought. Should you chose this movie, you'll understand.

Can Arkham Origins Be What Arkham City Was?

Arkham Origins hits the shelves
later this month.

It wasn't too long ago that comic book video games were...well awful. It wasn't until Rocksteady released Arkham Asylum (based off the Batman comic) and struck it rich. The result was a game that emerged players into the world of the Dark Knight and were given a mature themed game that perfectly captured Batman better than the recent Christopher Nolan movies did. Bringing back Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy to play the Joker and Batman from the successful 90s animated series. The game was also filled with a side mission to solve riddles and pick up trophies hidden by the Riddler. For the sequel, Rocksteady "stepped their game up" by going BIGGER, DEEPER and BETTER. However, it's recent release Arkham Origins goes the prequel route and telling the story of the Dark Knights first days. Can they recapture the fire they put into gamers' hearts with Arkham City?

Arkham City gave you the feel of being Batman

First to Arkham City. This game has appeared on multiple platforms and succeeded in every possible way (best selling AND award winning game). To put it in perspective, Arkham City came out the same year as The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Skyrim: The Elder Scrolls. It's so addicting that many gamers played through it MULTIPLE TIMES and still can't get enough. The Arkham City map was immense and had plenty of nuances that weren't required by the developer. It not only reminded fans about the characters (as Arkham Asylum gave you bios on each character), but also caught you up with their stories. From the tales of Joker's demise and Black Mask's escape, to experiencing the Catwoman/Two-Face feud. The side missions weren't just Riddler trophies. They were Riddler deathtraps and it wasn't just the Riddler this time. From Random Acts of Violence to Deadshot, Bane, Hush and the MadHatter. The number of Easter Eggs in the game that only made the story deeper and better were so pleasing, you had to replay the game immediately. Every aspect of Arkham City brought you under Batman's cowl. It was perfect with very few blemishes. Once again, this beat out Skyward Sword as the Game of the Year by many critics. That's quite a complement.

Can Arkham Origins continue this breathtaking franchise?

Now with Arkham Origins due for release later this month, you really have to wonder if it can match the perfection of Arkham City. It also will not answer any questions left from the Arkham City game- like Hush's plan. That didn't work for Lost on TV- ya know NOT ANSWERING QUESTIONS. Instead, Rocksteady is going back to the Batman Begins Era, which is really not that compelling. Most superheroes have interesting origins, but Batman's story is more interesting where he's already established. You got to wonder if they have a segment where you get to figure out a stupid Bale-like Batman voice. Also Rocksteady must introduce these characters instead of simply creating a continuing story for them. It's sound less creative, but now they must shoehorn the stories together.

Reverting Controls Isn't Always a Good Idea

How will the Wii U change the Legend of Zelda?
Hopefully, not at all.

Last year, the Wii U launched with lots of fanfare and only ONE game from Nintendo's Brand Name franchises (Super Mario Bros U). Now Nintendo is about to launch a revamped Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (one of the series most underrated games behind Majora's Mask) in early October, but there's a conundrum that faces Nintendo. How do they revert back to simple controls after the advanced controls of The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword? Before you think it's not a big deal, Nintendo has done this before with a Brand Franchise to mixed results when they revamped Metroid: The Other M.

Despite it's cartoony look, The Wind Waker was one of
Zelda's darkest game.

Before Wii U's launch, the Legend Of Zelda: Skyward Sword impressed many as the final big name game for the Wii. Nintendo combined their Wii Motion Plus into the game and featured a much more "motion anticipating" combat style. IGN rated Skyward Sword as a PERFECT TEN and a Masterpiece. In the review, it said, "This will change the way Zelda games are played." That's pretty high praise for the game franchise that changed adventure games forever time-and-time again. You thought this franchise could struggle moving from console to console, but Nintendo has kept Zelda fresh and consistently upgraded their style and controls. From the jump to 3D with Ocarina of Time to motion controls in Skyward. (Note: Twilight Princess' motion controls were not as thorough as Skyward's refinement.) Nintendo tried to remake the franchise's look in The Wind Waker, but fans were outraged with the cartoony look... that is until they played the game. The Wind Waker was one of Zelda's tougher and darker games in the franchise. Now Wii U is set to release the updated HD version, but one can look at it as a retro game and simply not a new addition. However, what is the future of Zelda on the Wii U with the touchpad controller? They don't have the controls that Skyward or Twilight Princess used. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer either.

Metroid: The Other M was a sharp departure from the
nearly perfect games Nintendo released for the last decade.

If you remember Nintendo switched around Metroid's style and controls TWICE. Metroid Prime switched from a third person adventure to a first person shooter. Some gamers were skeptical since Samus Aran would switch into a ball, but then the skeptics were proven wrong. Metroid Prime put you under Samus' helmet and gave you the control of the universe's most feared bounty hunter. When Metroid Prime graduated to the Wii, Nintendo used their motion controls perfectly to give the gamer Samus' arms as well as her eyes. The right arm (the Wii Remote) was the arm cannon and the left was the free hand. Gamers weren't just sitting on the couch. They were engaged. Then Metroid: The Other M was released. While Other M decided to try and flesh out Samus as a character (whereas most Nintendo characters are mute) reverted back to a third person formula and entered first person mode as a pivot point with nothing more. Scanning objects was nearly jettisoned from the game completely as Samus would enter cinematic cut scenes to give exposition. The game was rated 8.5 as opposed to the 9.5s of it's three predecessors, but if you click on this video, you'd think it's a 0. After playing Metroid Prime 3: Corruption lately, I'd have to agree these games are CLEARLY superior to the franchise's latest installment. However, Nintendo listens to it's consumers and changed Zelda back to it's more realistic look. Will Nintendo switch Metroid back to a first person shooter?

The point is that controls make the game just as much as story does. I understand that you can plug in the Prime series at any time and play them. Same is true for Zelda, where you can download any game or simply play them on the Wii U- which is still backwards compatible. The thoughts expressed here is on the future of these franchises and what to do besides changing things up for the sake of just changing things up. Metroid Prime was a complete reconstruction of a dormant franchise. Zelda is not. Hopefully Wind Waker is a retro game, not a sign of things to come for arguably the most popular console franchise today.

A Divided World Inspired Neil Blomkamp

Elysium opens Aug 9th

For decades in South Africa, Apartheid was the law of the land that separated the races in that nation. To say that it produced many conflicts is an understatement, but the nation overcame it's controversy and even elected Nelson Mandela as it's leader (if you need me to tell you about this great man, get out from under your rock). Though Clint Eastwood made a great film (Invictus) about South Africa uniting to win the Rugby World Cup, South Africa was the center of one of this century's most underrated films, District 9. Director Neil Blomkamp drew inspiration from South Africa's history in telling his story and his follow-up film Elysium opens Friday with the same theme...only different.

Matt Damon stars in the action film.

Elysium is story about the manmade space station that the rich live on in an Utopian setting (free of hunger, disease and pollution) while the rest of the people live on Earth that is rife with all three of those. An ex-con Max DeCosta (Matt Damon) tries to move on with his life when a factory accident leaves him with 5 days to live. He straps on an exoskeleton and tries to sneak his way onto Elysium; past the the vicious forces of Secretary Delacourt (Jodie Foster) led by Agent Kruger (Sharito Copley). Unlike District 9, Blomkamp sets this film in Los Angeles, not Johannesburg.

Shartio Copley starred in Blomkamp's breakout District 9

Back to Blomkamp's first inspiration, as District 9 showed the oppressive government that was forcing aliens (called Prawns) out of their slums to a concentration camp setting called District 10. However, everything changed when clumsy, contemptible MNU company man Wikus Van De Merwe (Copley) stumbles upon a canister that he believed was a weapon. It wasn't, but the liquid was ingested accidentally by Wikus and caused massive physical changes. He began to become a Prawn. As his company (and father-in-law) turned against him, Wikus fled to District 9 for shelter. As Wikus' life begins to unravel, he "befriends" a Prawn named Christopher Johnson and they band together to get back the liquid Wikus confiscated- fuel to pilot a pod that could get the aliens home. At times, the two protagonists we're helpful and spiteful toward each other. Wikus wants desperately to be human again and Johnson sees the experiments MNU was doing to the Prawns. With a theme of "How the Other Half Lives", Blomkamp weaves story, action and character together so well that the pacing of the film seemed shorter than the nearly two hour running time. The perspective of Wikus worked perfectly too. Like American History X, this story was from the point of view of the racist. Wikus joked about an "alien abortion" and slaughter of alien young that it sounded like popcorn. It certainly turns your stomach, but once he is forced to retreat into District 9, Wikus begins to change. He becomes more concerned about his survival and aggressive as his racism softened, but not too much to be corny or unbelievable. The film had a perfect ending and should be on everyone's watch list.

District 9 delivered in every way. Can Elysium do the same?

Obviously, we draw from our experiences in creativity. Blomkamp appears to have done a great job with that. If Elysium can match the work of District 9, Blomkamp will be on his way to stardom.

Hail to The Wolverine

The Wolverine opens July 26th

In 2000, 20th Century Fox released X-Men and it cemented Comic Book Movies into the mainstream; making Marvel into a studio. At the center of Bryan Singer's first comic book film was the franchise's most popular character Wolverine. For the key role, Singer chose an Australian actor to play the Weapon-X subject Logan named Hugh Jackman. Many fans clamored for a bigger name to play X-Men's most colorful character. One such event was at the San Diego Comicon in 2000 where a Wolverine fan referred to Jackman as a "pipsqueak".  That said, Jackman took to the first X-Men like an actor taking on a role, but before long Wolverine acquired another huge fan- Jackman himself. In the 13 years since the claws first popped out of Jackman's hands, he has steadily improved on his performance so much so that fans cheered loudly at his cameo in X-Men: First Class. It's actually amazing how Jackman's career has flourished while perfecting his character and avoiding type-casting. While many other actors have been "perfect" for their comic book characters, Jackman has actually shaped his own performance more and more to fit the character in the books.

Jackman has refined his performance
with each film.

In an interview with TV Guide in 2000, Jackman simply referred to Logan as "the type of guy that wakes up with a cold shower", but in an X2 interview Jackman was already looking forward to a new aspect of his character, "I want to see Wolverine go berserk and really let loose." The result: Jackman nails Wolverine's berserk mindset when the mansion is invaded. By the time Jackman got his own series with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, he had more ideas on how to perfect himself. Two-a-day training regimens to get all of the veins bubbling to the surface. His mannerisms and attitude was pitch perfect (and certainly less whiney than X3). It's a shame it was halfway wasted on the series second worse film, but that didn't stop Jackman from improving his flagship role. "If you don't improve each time, what's the point," Jackman said in a 60 Minutes interview.

It's impressive that Marvel
hasn't hindered Jackman's
career one bit.

What makes Jackman more impressive than Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, is the diversity of his roles since donning the claws. He won 2 Tonys for The Boy from Oz playing a gay choreographer, appeared in a handful of romantic comedies like Kate & Leopold and Someone Like You, more action films like Van Helsing and Swordfish, animated films like Happy Feet and Flushed Away, as well as Christopher Nolan's magician thriller The Prestige. When Hugh Jackman hosted the Oscars, he sang and danced around the stage concluding the opening number with "I AM WOLVERINE". There hasn't been a role Jackman has taken on without worrying about his future as Wolverine thus allowing him to grow as an actor while growing the Wolverine brand. Unlike Robert Downey Jr.'s recent comments about "overstaying his welcome", Jackman doesn't plan on retiring from the Weapon-X experiment anytime soon. Next year he will appear as Wolverine for the SEVENTH time in X-Men: Days of Future's Past.
It is a note that this blog has named Jackman as the best Comic Movie Hero in it's second post.

How Comic Book Movies Changed

Comic Book movies have
become more than hollow
action films

As many of you know, the godfather of all comic book movies was 1978's Superman: The Movie before the next big success was another DC adaptation 1989's Batman. Both were smash hits at the box office and both took vastly different approaches. In 1998, Blade was Marvel's first successful film after a slew of mediocre made-for-TV films (mostly sequels to The Incredible Hulk series) and Dolph Lundgren's Punisher before 2000's X-Men started the momentum that made Marvel Studios. At first comic book movies were cheesy, then slightly cheesy, then dark until taking themselves seriously. They've attracted big name producers, directors and actors to a lot of success. Heath Ledger broke through to win an Oscar for his performance of the Joker in 2008. Comic Book movies are changing "making it less comic-y" but let's take a look at the evolution in Comic Book movies.

"Comic Book Movies should not be origin stories because it's rare when someone picks up issue #1." -Joe Williams, author of the indy comic Kyaku

First, the Superman vs. Batman styles:

Superman: The Movie deal with a being
of unlimited power finding his limits. 

1978's Superman took the approach of the linear origin story. It starts with the demise of Krypton and the proceeding through the importance of Superman's childhood with the Kents. The death of Jonathan Kent is the most important part of his character development. When director Richard Donner told the story in this fashion, it worked and in spades. 1989's Batman ISN'T an origin story. Director Tim Burton does have a variation of the Joker's beginnings and a mere flashback to Bruce Wayne's parents death. Now, BOTH styles were perfect for their genre's. One story NEEDED to go into detail of the main character and the other could rely on simply telling the back story in seconds. (This style will be further explored in a moment.)

Marvel Employs the Same Tactics:

Did we need to see Blade grow up?
Nope. A simple monologue was
Blade'sorigin story.

Marvel had the same ideas employed by the DC movies in THREE of their films. First was Blade, that used his backstory with a perfect monologue by Kris Kristofferson. Second was a full backstory by Sam Rami in Spider-Man as audiences were shown Peter Parker's growth into his powers, trying to cash in and the MURDER of Uncle Ben. The third was used by Bryan Singer in X2 when he took less than 30 seconds to show Wolverine's Weapon X Experiment- still the most bone-chilling origin in comic films. Each film employed the origin the films needed and not more or less.

Sequels:

Spider-Man 2 is the perfect
character study of the hero

DC's Batman Returns and Superman II stand alone as really their only quality sequels (add Superman III if you're a fan), but Marvel's sequels have excelled greatly. Spider-Man 2 and X2 are among this blogs three best comic films and in spite of a weak Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3 and The Avengers were great. The main story line of each other the sequels remain the same: Is Being the Hero Easy? Some heroes go about their business (Batman Returns), some yearn to find answers (Wolverine), peace of mind (Tony Stark) while others question if they should be the hero (Spider-Man and Superman). At the time, villains ran the gauntlet. Start with the big villain and then go to the secondary villain, (Batman's Joker and Batman Returns' Catwoman and Penguin. Spider-Man's Green Goblin followed by Doctor Octopus) and all villains died until Batman Forever and X-Men. 

"There's three excuses to comic book movies: 
1) Because they're ninjas and ninjas are awesome 
2) Because it's comics so accept it 
3) Because it's Christopher Nolan and fanboys think he can't do wrong" - Scarlett

Christopher Nolan Enters:

Untold before, Batman Begins showed how the
Dark Knight came to be.

In, 2005, Memento director Christopher Nolan entered the fray. Armed with screenwriter David S. Goyer, they set out to reboot the comic movie franchise and likely didn't realize that they'd change comic films forever after that; focusing on making the story more character driven like the Marvel series. In Batman Begins, audiences were told about the origin of Batman and how he came to be the Dark Knight. Taken in by Ra's Al Ghul (pronounced differently from his appearance in the animated series and Arkham City video game) to be an assassin to take down Gotham, Bruce refused and left to become a symbol to unify Gotham. Focusing mainly on Batman and spending a little bit of time on secondary villains (Ghul and the Scarecrow), Nolan spent more time developing Bruce Wayne into Batman. In the process, he made the first film of the series without even a mention of the Joker until the film's closing seconds. Nolan also made the first successful "Dual Villain Film", which never worked out well in their history.

Batman's arch-nemesis wasn't even mentioned
until the closing seconds of Batman Begins 

In 2008, Nolan released The Dark Knight (the first of the series to not use the Batman name) and achieved critical success as well as box office records. As mentioned, Heath Ledger won Best Supporting Actor, but The Dark Knight was nominated for 8 Academy Awards. It prominently featured Batman's biggest villain (The Joker) and developed a second villain in the film (Two-Face). In 2012, Nolan finished his trilogy with the plot hole filled The Dark Knight Rises. Even though Batman is in the middle of nowhere with no money and no contact, he gets back to a quarantined Gotham with stealthful ease. Why? See rule #3. The third part to a comic series still has unperformed with Iron Man 3 (very) arguably being the best one and there's plenty of debate. Still what Nolan did was create a blueprint for the way comic book movies would be made. If you don't believe me...

Marvel Employs the Nolan Method:

Robert Downey Jr was perfect...PERIOD

Marvel released two notable Origin stories after Batman Begins. First was Iron Man, which is possibly the best origin story ever put to film, and recently was The Amazing Spider-Man. Now, the benefit of Iron Man was the lack of a central villain so every villain was secondary and the focus was solely on Tony and his changing role in the world. By the end of the movie, Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Marvel's playboy was all people could talk about. It also employed a disconnected timeline (a la Nolan's style), but did not have a tone too dark for the very flip hero. 

Did we need to see a full origin story for Spider-Man AGAIN?

With 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man, Marvel returned to tell Spider-Man's origin story that was told ten years earlier with a slight variation for the Ultimate Spider-Man series. The darker tone was good, but not quite a perfect fit for Spider-Man, but director Mark Webb used The Lizard and spoke about the Oscorp CEO Norman Osbourne without showing him. Thus the focus was mainly on Peter and developed him... slightly differently from the original series. In the next film, Chris Cooper will play Osbourne, but it is unknown if the Green Goblin will appear. Director Webb released a picture of "Locker 14" where Peter finds the alien symbiote that eventually becomes Venom- perhaps another foreshadowing of a future villain. It'll be interesting what Amazing Spider-Man 2 reveals next year.

Another staple of the "Nolan Blueprint" is rebranding the franchise. Batman became The Dark Knight, (from Frank Miller's series), but as producer his method and rebranding are now out for Man of Steel- the new Superman film. Again, focus on the hero's origin and a secondary villain as Lex Luthor did not make an appearance. You could say this same style was used in the Sherlock Holmes series that didn't introduce Professor Moriarty until the second film, but mentioned him in the first.

Marvel Creates a Universe:

A second credits scene at the end of The Avengers was
missed by most audiences that left early.

Starting in X3: The Last Stand, Marvel began using scenes after the credits. It was a simple scene that let audiences know that Professor X somehow survived his encounter with the Phoenix. In 2008, Marvel used another scene after the end of Iron Man to introduce Nick Fury and The Avengers initiative. After that, Marvel used it's films and characters to interact in their films even when the films are distributed by different studios (as seen when Paramount's Tony Stark made a cameo in Universal's The Incredible Hulk). Within the next couple years, Marvel firmly planted the idea that ALL of it's film's are connected. Now Marvel has encountered trouble blending Spider-Man into The Avengers, but Wolverine made a cameo in X-Men: First Class, Howard Stark (Tony's Dad) was a key character in Captain America: The First Avenger, Hawkeye was introduced in Thor and Black Widow was a supporting role in Iron Man 2. Even in Marvel's other film like the lucrative Spider-Man series, Eddie Brock was mentioned in the first film and Marvel used a credit-cut scene in The Amazing Spider-Man to hint at another mysterious character (Michael Massee). The point? There's more to a Comic Book Movie than just "here's a character and HIS story"; they exist in a world and occasionally those worlds can intersect with other heros. It is important to remember that the character exist FOR their own films. One complaint about Iron Man 3 is the lack of presence BY the Avengers even though the events of the film are continually referenced. If the Avengers popped up out of nowhere, Iron Man 3 would have suffered.
DC employs the Marvel Methods:

DC used a "Credits Scene" to hint at a
Green Lantern sequel.

DC did not use any cut scenes or references to Metropolis in it's Dark Knight series, but LexCorp and Wayne Enterprise made very QUICK cameos in Man of Steel. With rumors of a Justice League movie in the works, DC could have used a little momentum with a credits scene at the end. They chose not to, but DC did successfully employ the credits scene setting up a sequel... but it was in it's biggest failure- The Green Lantern. In the credits, audiences are shown the Ring of Fear and see it's stolen by Sinestro (perfectly played by Mark Strong). Say what you will about the lackluster Green Lantren, but the idea of Strong's Sinestro in a sequel is appealing. (By the way, you can't tell a guy would turn bad with a name like Sinestro!) There are perils to making a Justice League movie that will be covered soon.
The New Type of Comic Book Film:

Jackman is Wolverine again. That's good news for audiences. 

There is one more HUGE comic film on the horizon this summer- Marvel's The Wolverine. Director James Mangold has films like Girl Interrupted on his resume and Darren Aronofsky was originally slated to direct the film, but took a smaller role in production. The idea of the film is to flush out the Wolverine character. Sure it's going to have it's action, but the film is being billed as a "new type of comic book film". Time will tell in late July.

Comic Book Movies have shown they're more than just fluff when the situations have called for them. They could be tales of the "tragic hero" like a Greek Myth or simply show that there's more to a hero than wearing a stupid costume and covering his face (or not in Superman's case). They've evolved from 1978 to tell better stories that continually improve. Sure, now we're going through the reboots, but varying the adventures of these titans isn't necessarily a bad thing... if they can pull it off. Still, it's not out of the question that one of these days a Superhero film can take home a Best Picture as the quality of these franchises continues to improve.