The 3 directions of DC?

[godisawesome]

Yesterday, I attended Planet Comic-Con in Kansas City. In particular, I got to see a panel titled Superhero Movies: the Good, the Bad, and the Weird, hosted by Kevin Maguire, Mitch Brian, and the guys from SciFi4Me.com.

It was a great panel all around, but something they said comparing DC's media approach with Time Warner against Marvel's struck me. One of the advantages of Marvel, and a big one, in one of their opinions (it was casual and very informal panel) was that the Marvel productions have a uniformly cohesive approach to tone and style (I.e., more "fun") versus Time Warner.

And in a way, Warner does have in affect 3 separate styles and tones for their media empire of DC heroes:

1. "Nolan style"- darker palette, much more focus of a person developing into a hero as opposed to someone jumping out in costume, ready to go. They thought it worked for Batman but were vehemently against it on any "lighter" heroes, especially Superman. (I personally disagreed, but like me, they had personal reasons for their opinions.)

2. "New 52 Animated"- They saw them as being mostly inferior to their predecessors. They didn't expound on it much beyond one panel member disliking the sexuality in Assault on Arkham, and some questions posed towards the audience about the New 52 that seemed to hint at overall dissatisfaction with it.

3. TV- the panelists loved Flash, and used it as their ideal DC property at the moment, and seemed engaged with Gotham. They interpreted Flash as being an example of a superhero hitting the ground running, which they liked over the developing into a hero Nolan style.

So, do you guys agree with the overall assessment? Because I agree that there's a huge difference in tone and style between the cartoons and the movies, but I also think that a lot of Flash's strengths are tied to the Nolan style of Arrow, and actually show more cohesion in live action than they let on.

The new animated movies do have a different approach; ironically enough, I would say it definitely seems patterned off Marvel, with an emphasis on action, character conflict on the heroic side, a strong dose of adrenaline humor, and a lack of consistently strong villains. It lacks the slow burn of some of their better predecessors, and does seem geared towards being a kickass action movie for teenagers first.

But I think the development of Barry into Flash echoes the development of Superman and Batman, and is basically just a perfected translation of the formula after they tried it out on Arrow. Arrow itself is clearly patterned after Nolan's TDK trilogy, and in spite of the more fantastical and sometimes lighthearted elements of the Flash show, they're not all that separate from MOS's style, particularly in showing the hero enjoying his powers, explaining the costuming and powers behind the characters, and in having strong, seriously dangerous villains that the hero must first become mature to overcome. And since I like MOS and the Flash, and believe Arrow and Batman have already proved the formula, I think the animation is more an outlier than a faction unto itself.

How do you guys view the three different media divisions of DC right now?

 

[Victarion]

I prefer the variety, as the Marvel movies all tend to run together when it comes to tone. You have a few like Iron Man 3 that distinguish themselves on the strength of their story, but for the most part its all one big homogenous mass. Variety keeps things interesting.

I personally don't want more Nolanesque origins. It was done well once, I'd prefer to jump headfirst into each hero's franchise as was done with The Flash.

 

[Arach Knight]

This will sound rough, but I feel that Marvel is guilty of what opponents often accuse DC of: making all of their movies in the style of the same character. In this case, I am referring to the way in which many detractors argue that DC "always" tries to make their other heroes into Batman (Man of Steel, Arrow). With Marvel, I feel that they attempt to more or less make most of their film characters into Spider-Man. Most Marvel movies feature a character that engages in non-stop jokes and combat banter.

Anyway, as far as DC and tone, I don't mind that Warner Bros. has a penchant for creating more dramatic movies. Marvel movies are amazingly awesome, but they are ultimately popcorn fluff. I don't really think about life, consequence or death when I watch a Marvel movie. But when I watch something such as Watchmen, A History of Violence, The Dark Knight or The Man of Steel, I do tend to reflect on reality.

It is rather odd, because Marvel is supposed to be the universe where the characters are more relatable (which is largely false and reliant solely upon the X-Men's social struggle and Peter Parker's life, rather than being an accurate reflection of the entire Marvel universe), but Marvel pretty much makes buddy-cop films that have a larger ensemble. I know I will have a good time when I watch a Marvel film, but I also know that deep thinking is largely optional.

 

[Victarion]

For me, the illusion of reality you get in MoS and TDKT are what make the movies a fun ride. But we don't need every origin to be "Insert Hero Here Begins."

I wouldn't say no to more Shane Black stuff from Marvel, or in the DCU though.

 

[Snow Queen]

Shane Black on Flash could maybe be fun.

 

[Marvin]

This will sound rough, but I feel that Marvel is guilty of what opponents often accuse DC of: making all of their movies in the style of the same character. In this case, I am referring to the way in which everyone says that DC always tries to make their other heroes into Batman (Man of Steel, Arrow). With Marvel, I feel that they attempt to more or less make every film into Spider-Man.Everything is pretty much non-stop jokes and combat banter.

Anyway, as far as DC and tone, I don't mind that Warner Bros. has a pension for creating more dramatic movies. Marvel movies are amazingly awesome, but they are ultimately popcorn fluff. I don't really think about life, consequence or death when I watch a Marvel movie. But when I watch something such as Watchmen, A History of Violence, The Dark Knight or The Man of Steel, I do tend to reflect on reality.

It is rather odd, because Marvel is supposed to be the universe where the characters are more relatable (which is largely false and reliant solely upon the X-Men's social struggle and Peter Parker's life, rather than being an accurate reflection of the entire Marvel universe), but Marvel pretty much makes buddy-cop films that have a larger ensemble. I know I will have a good time when I watch a Marvel film, but I also know that deep thinking is largely optional.

Some interesting points in here.

I think there is a level of repetition in some of the marvel stuff. When it comes to character arcs there is the whole spoiled selfish, brat of sorts, rather that of the self centered individual that culls his ways by the end of it. Mostly seen in the 3 ironman films not including IM3, Thor obviously, and most recently with Star Lord.
Cap is arc free and hulk is...quiet.
But still, people walk away with their finger on the character journey for it's very clearly present and easy to define with alot of them(in their better movies). But it happens often, for better or worse and I'm getting a scent of it again from Antman. With DC there is the whole I have all this power and stuff and I just need to find out what to do with it angle(even in Arrow).

Marvel does lean on the relatable angle in the marketing and fan discourse, when really that actually is the Parker Xmen thing. Funny enough WB played that game with superman most recently in a bold move to fix what could be argued as the major character flaw or turn off, in an ironic turn their success bred confusion and malcontents. On principle alone.
I think lots of people want DC stuff to stay as non engaging as it's always been. From superman staying as unappealing as he used to be in that he has all the answers, to these people that actually think the campy corny aquaman that everyone and their mother made fun of to no end is actually what DC should have put forward...

Lastly, when it comes to the difference in 'tone' I look to something like The Two Towers. A serious epic with a various moments of levity. Where marvel has Legolas and Gimli killing and maming the enemy, making good sport of it and keeping head count, DC plays this same scenario very straight, no counting or quipping.... In doing so the later is then hailed as failing in light hearted fun when the sad reality is that they are committing to their drama in a very traditional manner. The levity has it's time and place but never undermines the drama, whereas the marvel approach has almost perfected the art of sprinkling it at just about any odd place. From the subway ride in Thor 2 to the dance off. Two different approaches both have their value to be sure. The difference between True Lies and Speed if you will. Unfortunately the fans and pundits won't let things be and have to campaign for their preference to be the one to rule them all.
Shame really.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

As has been said... Variety. I don't want all things the same way, and one could make the argument that MOS was adding variety to Superman, as we hadn't seen a take like that for him before, where as with Batman we have seen things like the West show and B&R. So if Marvel will keep things with a lighter tone and insert more overt humor (sometimes that works for me like gangbusters and sometimes I want to blow my head off in the theater... I'M LOOKING AT YOU THE DARK WORLD.) then I have no problem with WB/DCE going in another direction at all. As I remember it as a kid, as much as the fantasy of morally perfect, happy warriors that super heroes are ideally appealed to me, I also took the stories very seriously (perhaps TOO seriously) and that, as Victarion has stated, was also a big part of "The Fun" of superheroes, in spite of how logically ridiculous they actually are when you apply rationale thought to them.


Here is a thought I have had recently... This supposed "schism" between the two companies (of which we only have one film to base it on, MOS, so, really, how much evidence do we have? But I digress...) was inevitable by virtue of the source material.

Let's look at Iron Man. If you are at all familiar with the character from the books... It can get quite dark, as a lot of Marvel Comics are. The characters in conception and execution were always way more filled with angst and navel gazing than the DC counterparts, even after DC started adding more sophistication to their characters and fleshed them out more. Look at Stark: His origin lies in him getting mortally wounded, he's got a drinking problem, he's been a paraplegic, he suffers from a crap ton of self loathing, he's a serial womanizer. I think that the brain trust at Marvel knew that, sure, people want characters with flaws and texture to them, especially in their heroes, it makes them... well, not bland and white bread, but there is a limit. So what do we get with the MCU Tony Stark? He's in a committed relationship. He's no where near as full of angst or self doubt, and when those things do raise their heads they don't stick around or define him in the least. Marvel's brass knows that to do these characters just like the books would be perhaps off putting to the mass audience. Thus, Cap doesn't have too much depression or anxiety of "being a man out of time" in the film (They dispensed with his heavy guilt over Bucky in many ways, not least of which was doing away with the Boy Commando part of the character) and when the issue does come up it's more often played for humor. Thor in the films so far doesn't wax poetic about the travails of "godhood" and turn all introspective. These things are usually big parts of the characters in the books but are either way toned down or not present in the films... And that's ok. It's understandable.


With DC, you see that they may take another route for the inverse reasoning. The DC heroes have been called more "mythic", more like fairy tale characters as opposed to the action-soap operas of the Marvel heroes. So of course, in bringing them to the screen you have to pump up the pathos and drama, and "ground" the proceedings a little more or it might come off as camp or the like. This isn't just something from today. Way back in 1976, Richard Donner knew that he had to make the audience feel that what was happening at least "felt" real, and that included focusing on the drama in the life of the hero. So, while the latter portions of SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE are full of humor and fun, the movie is anchored in the epic origin of Superman and the dramatic portions of his journey. Thus the portions on Krypton and Kansas are played very serious and straight. I loved MOS and liked that this was a Superman film that went whole hog on being "serious" fun (because lets be honest, it's still about an alien with super strength that fights bad guys and wears a blue suit and a cape). It still had high adventure and action, it just took the approach of this being mythology and ran with it, to leaven the impression many have of the DC heroes and Superman in particular of being less sophisticated than the Marvel heroes, which is a popular opinion in pop culture.

But that is also perhaps too simplistic as we see that yes, the other adaptations are also of a variety. Flash on TV is lighter than Arrow, but both are frankly, kinda cheesy in comparison to Gotham or Constantine. And I generally like all those shows, though with Arrow my complaints have less to do with it being Batman lite and just about general overall quality. Again though, we as fans are getting variety and that's just better for us and for the health of the genre as a whole.

 

[Snow Queen]

But that is also perhaps too simplistic as we see that yes, the other adaptations are also of a variety. Flash on TV is lighter than Arrow, but both are frankly, kinda cheesy in comparison to Gotham or Constantine. And I generally like all those shows, though with Arrow my complaints have less to do with it being Batman lite and just about general overall quality. Again though, we as fans are getting variety and that's just better for us and for the health of the genre as a whole.

I can't agree with you on Gotham here. Not after the Dollmaker.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I can't agree with you on Gotham here. Not after the Dollmaker.

Strokes and folks. I find Gotham has a tone that's more in line with a serious drama or night time soap opera. Arrow... Yeah, I can't take a lot of the show seriously due to issues of writing and casting. But again, that's me.

 

[Snow Queen]

Strokes and folks. I find Gotham has a tone that's more in line with a serious drama or night time soap opera. Arrow... Yeah, I can't take a lot of the show seriously due to issues of writing and casting. But again, that's me.

Oh, not talking about Arrow so much. That show...I've ranted enough.

 

[Marvin]

How do you guys view the three different media divisions of DC right now?

They're likely to converge at some point, there are just too many different properties under each house for them to fit into a singular style. It's already happening with Flash and DareDevil.
One could have easily confused the two with the wrong companies with little information. We'll be seeing more and more.

That being said, the more straight laced mythic approach fits Wonderwoman and the fish out of water Thor treatment imo.

 

[Victarion]

One thing I don't want to see with the rest of DC's properties is the plot being driven by something like the book in Arrow. I can't comment on the overall quality of the writing. I enjoy the show, but I haven't really sat down and done a marathon where I could compare one episode to another. The book driving the plot is the weakest link in that series, and I hope this sort of plot doesn't become commonplace.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I think those 3 categories are pretty arbitrary. They have lighter tones and dark tones in all media. (Flash, Constantine, Lego Batman, Assault on Arkham, Teen Titans Go, BvS, Shazam)

Whether individual movies/shows etc will have the right tone remains to be seen.

I personally have been fine with the tone of most of the stuff I've seen. Quality of writing, etc, is a different issue.

 

[Victarion]

Since this seems like the right thread, can anyone tell me what exactly "dark and gritty" means?

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

^It's a pretty wide category.

It can mean anything from the R-rated Dredd to The Amazing Spider-Man apparently.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I tend to feel like people equate "dark and gritty" with "everything that isn't as light-hearted as Marvel." I personally don't find MOS (or even Nolan's Batman films) all that dark; they're just more serious in tone than something like The Avengers. Is that the right approach for something like Superman or should it be more light-hearted? I think either approach can work really. On the other hand, some people felt like MOS wasn't as inspiring as it should be, but I don't know... do any of you go to see superhero movies to be inspired? I mean, I get that characters like Superman and Captain America are meant to be inspiring within their own worlds, but are they really inspiring to you beyond the token "he's a good guy who fights for good" sort of thing? I don't know. Movies like Selma and The Theory of Everything were inspiring to me. MOS? I just enjoyed the hell out of it. I go to these movies to be entertained. I feel like people take this stuff way too seriously.

 

[Victarion]

I don't really go to see any movies for inspiration. I'm there for entertainment. The feelings of inspiration usually crop up after I've seen the movie, as was the case with MOS, TDKR, and IM3. Felt like I could relate to all 3 heroes in these, but I didn't get this from following the filming or watching the trailers.

I agree with your take on "dark and gritty" in relation to the movies usually given the label.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, I mean... to me, really "dark and gritty" action films are movies like The Raid. Stuff where tons of people die in horrific fashions. The only superhero(ish) movie I've seen in the past decade that I'd called really dark and gritty was Dredd. Even though I'm not a fan of that film, it had some gruesome deaths and had an overall depressing and bleak feel to it. You can make that argument for recent Batman films, but I'd put those films more on par with really good action movies like Die Hard that are fairly serious, but not so grim that that they make you feel like you just took a tour through hell.

 

[godisawesome]

I tend to think of "dark and gritty" as being more like a Greek tragedy with a combination of seedy visuals; deeply flawed characters and Phyrric victories alongside garish and gory images. Dark Knight's the closest superhero film that was a mainstream success to that, with Watchmen and Sin City as an actual clear cut example of that.

I think part of the issue some people have with MOS and the new DCCU is more that it's more serious, but also that it's based off the 1990s tone and style. Whereas someone like me sees a red head Lois who's a smart and cunning confidant of the hero as normal, or Aquaman with a beard and longhair as normal, or seeing consequences played out instead of swept under the rug, others sees those as the antithesis of classic superhero stories.

 

[The Batman]

1. "Nolan Style": Well, so far there have only been two major examples of this: The Dark Knight Trilogy and Man of Steel. TDKT pulled off this style perfectly. MOS, IMO, often felt like Justin Hammer trying to recreate Tony Stark's technology in Iron Man 2. We'll see how other movie do since this will probably be the DCCU's general tone.

2. New 52 Animated: Generally inferior to the Animated films under Timm's regime.

3. TV: There are two problems with Arrow: The current season is inferior to the great season it had last year, and this show is in some ways a watered down version of Nolan Batman. The Flash is pretty much the best superhero show on TV right now. IMO, Unlike MOS and Arrow, it maintains an illusion of realism without making the lead hero a broody loner. Also,it generally doesn't feel like it's trying to apologize for the source material.

 

[Marvin]

The flash isn't for everyone, just it's fans really. I enjoy it but in the same vain as Lois and Clark. I also can't imagine anyone defending how they handle the teen romance on that show yikes.
I enjoy it but me pal feel off with the Gorilla stuff. Not for everyone and hardly worth mandating across the board.

Since this seems like the right thread, can anyone tell me what exactly "dark and gritty" means?

What Joseph Khan did to power rangers is text book. Especially when looked at via a before and after. Drugs and porn and all that 'gritty' stuff. Not simply taking itself seriously.

Dark
Gritty
Serious
Grounded

All different things. Kingdom Come for example isn't all of the above but it's most definitely two of them.

 

[Lord]

No, a film doesn't need to be inspiring and maybe a grounded world can work with Superman, but i just don't think whatever MoS tried to do worked at all.

 

[Victarion]

I'll throw in my two bits: Dark and gritty is where we're challenged to like a protagonist through a story that explores his or her psyche and the events that created the protagonist.

 

[Fallen Angel]

New 52 animated movies are largely crap. They should stick to the old DCU for animated movies.

 

[BarryAllen]

New 52 animated movies are largely crap. They should stick to the old DCU for animated movies.

This.