I wrote this in response to an article on Salon here which explained why DC's approach to their "shared universe building" was more successful, at least in tone, than Marvel's. I wrote a response myself, but since Salon's website is shit, it wouldn't let me register my Facebook account and post the damn thing...

Since I spent so much time writing it, I though I would post it here. As a quick reference, the point I most took contention to was their reference to Marvel movies, exemplified in this quote:

“What Marvel, especially, is very good at doing is churning out product and keeping it just enough above the quality line that we’ll go back for more. That list of films above might as well be a list of fast-food hamburgers we’ll be eating for the rest of the decade.”

Here's my response:

I don't think it's fair to write off Marvel's movies as "just good enough." They're not necessarily Citizen Kane levels of timelessness, but they're more thoughtful and intelligent than a lot of the drivel that passes for summer blockbusters while simultaneously reveling in their source material rather than wearing it like a concrete block that they're afraid will drag them down to the bottom of the river (all the while revising just enough of that source material to bring it in line with more modern culture rather than blindly following what's come before simply as homage)

(incidentally, DC's television shows also follow the same philosophy)

I also wouldn't call DC's haphazard approach to their universe a strength.I do agree that the more serialized, episodic storytelling is probably a better way to approach comic book stories (I should say here that it is a more genuine way to do it that is in keeping with the style of the comic books that they represent, which is neither good nor bad), but there's no indication that they are succeeding BECAUSE they refuse to link their world. In fact, I'd venture that they're succeeding DESPITE it.

Also, also, I don't think DC's current approach to their non-comic book media ventures is particularly well planned at all. I think if they had their druthers (and weren't being hampered by terrible first attempts at movies like Superman Returns and Green Lantern), they would be VERY happy to be a carbon copy of Marvel (who wouldn't be?) with a shared movie universe and only token nods to television. I daresay the only reason they even created Arrow was as a way to buy time and keep relevance going so they could throw out Man of Steel in their wild attempt to do just that: copy Marvel.

Don't get me wrong, DC is succeeding in some regards. I LIKED Man of Steel, flaws and all (and there were plenty of flaws). It wasn't good enough to give me as much hope for their movie line as, say, the first Iron Man (as a start) or, later, the Avengers, but they've shown they can do it. And Arrow is good. Not great, but good. But Arrow itself shows that even they don't know what they're doing with their properties. I can just see the marketing meeting where someone pitched Green Arrow as a television show:

"We need a hero for a new TV show so people won't forget us while we work on our movies. Someone important but not iconic. Don't want to take anything away from the movies."

"How about Green Arrow? He's distinct, has a robust history and lots of lore to build off of. And very few people know about him so almost every story arc will be fresh."

"Well, that's ok I guess. But you know what would make Green Arrow better? IF HE WAS BATMAN!"