How come Marvel direct to dvd animation never really caught on like DC direct to dvd animation did?

>>133068796I think that was just an anime studio wanting it.

>>133068338It's actually the complete opposite. Most modern DC straight to DVD movies are garbage, while Pre-Disney marvel animation consistently knocked it out of the park. hell even the post-Disney stuff is pretty good.

Attached: Avengers Confidential Widow.jpg (1100x773, 134.99K)

>>133068918This, the dropoff in DC animated movie quality is just awful.

>>133068918kek no and this comes from someone who likes both. DC clearly won. they had both quantity and quality over marvel.

>>133068796i don't even remember the art style on this one... i might had never watched it even.

bumpase

>>133068994Yeah i like some of them, but still.Tho the n52 DC movies were usually pretty shite.

>>133069727the new 52 movies are shit although flashpoint was ok imo but DC already had like 15 or something like that animated movies before new 52. marvel had like 10 MAYBE

>>133068287Because Marvel didn't have their own animation company like WB does to back them up.

>>133069789Well yeah, but DC had a ton of those n52 movies as well.The two superman ones were fun tho.

>>133069913my point was that DC had more direct to dvd animated movies out than marvel even before the new 52 animated universe even began

for me its doom and apocalypse

Attached: 1660783667810.jpg (2429x1500, 1.9M)

>>133070020True, but they started earlier too.

>>133070205bump

>>133068287That one had the deadpool thing.

>>133068287Disney bought them. The late 2000’s to early 2010’s where a golden age for both Marvel and DC.

>>133070075You didn't like the two-part TDKR film?youtube.com/watch?v=LyW48arS3oU

>>133073698>Disney bought themtheir animated movies werea) few and far betweenandb) a good portion of them were shitand that was all before disney bought them in 2009

>>133070075for me it's Crisis on Two Earths

Attached: MV5BMzg0ODZjNjUtNmVhZi00NTYxLWExNWMtMWI3MDFiMjhiNjc2L2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1_.jpg (899x1325, 414.26K)

I like it.

Attached: file.png (890x1331, 2.41M)

>>133068918what? marvel shit was never good. even the classic shows like x-men and spider-man suffered from the animation quality standpoint

>>133075786Same. One of the first superhero movies I ever watched

>>133068796Quite literally, Sony.

>>133077190in 2014 for some reason

>>133068287Actually, Marvel's direct to DVD stuff did very, very well. On part with the stuff Warner/DC was doing, actually. But then Disney bought Marvel and we all know Disney doesn't care about animation. So, cancelled.

>>133078123>On part with the stuff Warner/DC was doing, actuallyno. not even close

>>133078180The ult avengers one made 400 mil apprerntly, which is good.

>>133078218>The ult avengers one made 400 mil apprerntly,citation needed

>>133078230Misriemebered, it was over 500 thousand not million, my bad but stillthe-numbers.com/movies/2006/0UAMD-DVD.phpDo agree that the DC fare generaly sold better, tho the best selling one is still one of the worst.

>>133078262And the very first animated movie DC did, was quite a flop. Despite being amazing. So there's that to consider as well.

>>133078262Correction the second best selling one, apparently under the red hood sold more than doomsday, didnt know that. Thanks wikipedia.

>>133078180Different guy, but I worked at Suncoast when thsoe Ultimate Avengers and Hulk DVDs were new and we sold tons of them. We sold tons of the DC DVDs too, though.

>>133075786Fanfiction the movie. Are they still in 616?

>>133078262Okay actuall correction, that was just the units sold, so apparently the actual profits for that one were 3 Million. Which is not unimpressive.

>>133075786They seriously should bring back Torunn at least.

Attached: 4161612-3) torunn.jpg (475x960, 156.68K)

>>133078354She should draw a couple of googely eyes on those.

>>133068796I was pretty shocked by how much I enjoyed it.

One pretty big difference between the two is that DC can make movies about their single most profitable character, or including him and they do so constantly, while marvel couldnt for theirs.At most they managed to do one with wolverine towards the end.

>>133068918>modern DC>Pre-Disney marvel animationHow about comparing the DC movies at the time to the Marvel ones? The DCAMU didn't start until 2014. DC movies before that were stuff like Green Lantern First Flight (2009) and Under the Red Hood (2010) and those were so much better than even the best Marvel movies. By the time DC's movies took a nosedive, Marvel's were just as bad or nonexistent.

Attached: gl.jpg (736x1104, 144.69K)

>>133078458Those early DC movies were sooooo damn good. They gave me a glimmer of hope for the future. Too bad it didn't pan out.

>>133078458DC also did doomsday and gotham knigths which were kinda poor. But yes they were generally better.Still dont think that it means that Marvel's were bad either. Except for the iron man one, that one was ass.

you now remember the 4 marvel anime

>>133068333/thread

>>133068333this

bump

>>133078475There is no hope user. Things get worse...

>>133068287Does the death of the dvd make these unprofitable?

>>133078294>FanfictionSo better than a modern Marvel storyline?

>>133081700Digital is still a thing as is streaming.

>>133069886What is their excuse now?

>>133084444Nice.But to answer your question, all effort is swallowed by Disney to produce MCU-related shit.

>>133068287DC also tried to be more faithful to the material since they adapted a lot of their iconic stories for their direct to video films. Meanwhile Marvel because of Ari Avad selling the licensing of various characters off and the eventual buyout by Marvel couldn't or didn't want to adapt their iconic stories so they either did Ultimate shit (like who cares) or non canon stuff in either What If alternate worlds or stuff losely based on their MCUverse. Fuck Marvel sucked in animation.

>>133084524>DC also tried to be more faithful to the material since they adapted a lot of their iconic stories for their direct to video films.this which I think is why they tended to be better

>>133068457Superman Doomsday was the very first one and the first time Death and Return was adapted with actual dying and returning

>>133068287Yidsney was too scared of getting adult

>>133068796Remember the rise of technovore

>>133075786My first introduction to Ultron

>>133085356yes

>>133068287Hulk Vs. was fun. It, Next Avengers, and Planet Hulk were the only ones I saw

Attached: file.png (936x1317, 1.87M)

>>133085438imo only planet hulk and hulk vs were really any good

>>133068287Because they weren't as good as DC animated films and there was no reason to pump money into something not doing that good.

>>133085376For me it was EMH, I remember being so disappointed when AoU came out.

>>133085212Only in the loosest sense, and honestly its one of the worst ones.But yes the concept is why it sold.

>>133085438Hulk vs was a great thrill ride.

The animated Dr. Strange remains the best Dr. Strange movie.

Attached: Doctor Strange Movie.jpg (1024x574, 361.02K)

bump

>>133086382>I remember being so disappointed when AoU came out.Omg me too. EMH set a precedent on how Ultron SHOULD be a threat. Yes he was a threat in the movie/has his moments but they made him too quippy. Though some quips of his were good like "Well that was dramatic" and the "frisbee" joke.

>>133088010Such a good movie and the invincible Iron Man too

For some reason the artstyle of the recent-ish DC movies irk me. Love the older shows to death.

>>133088837new 52 happened

>>133089299The New 52 movies were insultingly bad. The worst part is how hard they were trying to be Marvel movies with all the quips and pop culture references.

>>133089736>The New 52 movies were insultingly badI liked flashpoint but the rest were shit yes