WB's "no joke policy"

[Flint Marko]

It depends on the reactions a director is trying to get from the audience. Comedy is cool, but if you´re trying to convey a strong sense of tragedy, it´s not the best way to go about it.

But comedy can be used to effectively heighten and accentuate tragedy when it comes. It depends on how it's used, obviously, but if done well it's as strong a tool as any to connect the audience with the characters.
Again, the idea that humor always waters down a movies overall quality is completely off base and rooted in the pretentious idea that only movies with a dark, humorless tone can be considered quality cinema. If you believe that you are wrong, no exception.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Luckily these aren't produced by Chuck Lorre.

Two and a Half Men, with Batman and Superman?

 

[piccolo]

I actually thought Cap 2 was pretentious, contrived and the humor was forced and over the top in certain scenes. I don't want the DC film verse to copy Marvels comedy act in it's films. I like variety....

Cap 2? Contrived humor?

What??

Are you sure you're not thinking of another movie? There may not have been a single joke in there.

 

[smallville fan]

Yeah, this would be unbelievably stupid on their part. Heck even MOS and the Nolan films had humor, and those took themselves quite seriously overall. Now if it's a mandate about not having too much humor so that it doesn't overwhelm the film and take away from the drama, then I could see that. It's one of my big complaints about IM 3 and TDW, they were so concerned with being funny that it took away from the moments that SHOULD have been more serious/killed the tension. Plus the humor wasn't all that good either.

I think you are right. Even then, DC'S big movie-worthy storylines aren't that humorous anyway.

Batman did the macarena dance.

I agree, no one wants to see the Macarena. I say he should be doing the Batusi!

 

[CaptainWagner]

Superhero movies should have some humor in them. But it depends...I wouldn't like it if they gave us scenes where Lex Luthor made fart bubbles in his jacuzzi, or Batman did the macarena dance.

I don't know, Bruce Wayne being coerced into doing the Macarena would be rather amusing.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I agree, no one wants to see the Macarena. I say he should be doing the Batusi!

They could have some references to it.

I don't know, Bruce Wayne being coerced into doing the Macarena would be rather amusing.

Lex Luthor (unveils scary looking machine): "I call this machine the macarena-maker 3000. Are you ready to dance with the devil in pale moonlight, Batman? Hahaha!"

*macarena starts playing*

Batman (dancing): "Wha...no! Damn you, Lex! Please...don't!"

Superman: "You're a monster, Lex...and I'm going to stop y...huh? No, not that!" *uncontrollable twerking*

"Will our heroes escape before Lex Luthor uploads this on youtube? Watch the exciting conclusion next year. Same bat-time, same bat-theatre!"

 

[Lord]

Just say no to self-deprecating humour.

None of the greatest movies ever made ever denigrate themselves self-referentially.

Aim high DC.

You don't need to make every single of your characters serious-serious, not all of them work well that way, look at Ghostbusters and THe Incredibles, or even Back to the Future, be varied.

 

[Gabe99]

“This is the fun-vee…the humdrum-vee is back there.”
Iron Man

"D'you see anybody having fun?"
Scrooged

"No Capes!"
The Incredibles

"How the **** am I funny, what the **** is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!"
Goodfellas

 

[DocHolliday]

The ignorant idea that comedy is a lesser form of story telling is laughable. Its actually very difficult to make it work. Marvel has had more successes than failures in this regard. I advise you to read FILM CRIT HULKS write up of Guardians and be enlightened.

Film Crit Hulk? Who? Why the hell is his opinion relevant?

Also the idea that dark and grim and sombre is inherently more mature is the attitude that led to the 90s era comic

Image and Marvel might have been stinking it up in the 90s but DC was pretty damn good(mostly thanks to their Vertigo line). They were doing grim n gritty right. Image is the reason why most people look down on 90s comics. Don't lump everyone else in with them. Image sucked because you had a collection of Alan Moore and Frank Miller fanboys(McFarlane, Jim Lee, etc) that had no idea what made stuff like Watchmen or DKR good in the first place.

Who the hell wants to see a Justice League movie with its own head stuck up its ass? I mean seriously what is with this angsty desperate need for superheroes in colourful spandex to be portrayed so sombre and depressingly? Its pathetic. Superheroes should be fun! They should inspire us and make us wish we could be them. A Justice League movie that doesnt embrace the INHERENTLY silly nature of itself but rather plays it portentous and sduper serious will be a total disaster.

Jumping to conclusions here seeing as Justice League isn't even in production yet. How about waiting to see how Batman/Superman turns out?

 

[Lord]

I completely disagreed with his review of Guardians, his comparison to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was weird since that was actualy the film that took its oun time better, while Guardians was more obvious with the emotions and what was happening.

 

[DocHolliday]

I miss the WB/DC mindset that made Superman: The Movie(still their crowning achievement as far as I'm concerned and still one of the best superhero movies ever made).

What mindset? WB had little involvement in the production of the original Superman. The Salkinds, Richard Donner, and Tom Mankiewicz were responsible for getting that movie off the ground. IIRC, WB had no interest in making a superhero movie at the time(it was the era of uber serious 70s dramas). Ilya Salkind was the one that was most enthusiastic about seeing Superman on the big screen. WB only came into the picture when the Salkinds ran out of money and went to WB for additional funding. They showed the studio execs a rough print and they were blown away and more than eager to get in on the action.

 

[DocHolliday]

You don't need to make every single of your characters serious-serious, not all of them work well that way, look at Ghostbusters and THe Incredibles, or even Back to the Future, be varied.

Pretty much. I don't know why it has to be one or the other.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Because humor is unrealistic! When was the last time something funny happened in your life? That's right, real life is dark and gritty. We can't take a step outside the door without aliens and serial killers trying to kill us all. I want my superhero movies to reflect that.

 

[kedrell]

What mindset? WB had little involvement in the production of the original Superman. The Salkinds, Richard Donner, and Tom Mankiewicz were responsible for getting that movie off the ground. IIRC, WB had no interest in making a superhero movie at the time(it was the era of uber serious 70s dramas). Ilya Salkind was the one that was most enthusiastic about seeing Superman on the big screen. WB only came into the picture when the Salkinds ran out of money and went to WB for additional funding. They showed the studio execs a rough print and they were blown away and more than eager to get in on the action.

Well I never claimed to be a film historian or know what all went on behind the scenes with those movies beyond knowing that Donner was fired or left Supes2 after filming nearly 3/4 of it and replaced by that joke Richard Lester. So thanks for the info. In a way that makes WB/DC's situation even worse from my POV. It means that unless they were lucky enough to score someone with real vision like Donner & company(or Chris Nolan on BB or even Burton on Batman'89 to a limited extent), they the studio really don't have their own unique vision for this material and I'd say more than any other single reason, THAT is why they are behind the eight ball now. At least Marvel has Fiege and love him or hate him, he DOES have a vision.

 

[Lord]

I don't want to defend WB, but they don't need to have the vision, they just need to hire someone that does, Burton was a risk back in the day, they do deserve credit for that. They want a single vision for their harry potter franchise and i honestly wish they didn't, the last 4 films were realy good but felt stale in comparison to the first 4 that were constantly changing Directors and with that keeping things fresh.

 

[kedrell]

Well I wasn't talking about their non-DC properties. And hiring someone with vision IS the route they've chosen for as long as they've been making DC films. The problem with that tactic is that when you do it you're just temporarily borrowing that vision since those whom are hired are just temp employees at best. Once they leave you gotta start over again. But if the studio itself has a vision and is run by someone who has that vision and is in it for the long term, well then you're playing at a whole other level and the old way won't be able to keep up with it.

 

[Flint Marko]

Well I wasn't talking about their non-DC properties. And hiring someone with vision IS the route they've chosen for as long as they've been making DC films. The problem with that tactic is that when you do it you're just temporarily borrowing that vision since those whom are hired are just temp employees at best. Once they leave you gotta start over again. But if the studio itself has a vision and is run by someone who has that vision and is in it for the long term, well then you're playing at a whole other level and the old way won't be able to keep up with it.

WB needs a show runner like Feige to keep all their ducks in a row and to make sure the continuity from movie to movie makes sense.
That being said, here's a solid article about WB's mishandling of their DC properties: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-dc-comics-has-no-clue-how-to-make-superhero-movies/

 

[DocHolliday]

WB needs a show runner like Feige to keep all their ducks in a row and to make sure the continuity from movie to movie makes sense.
That being said, here's a solid article about WB's mishandling of their DC properties: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-dc-comics-has-no-clue-how-to-make-superhero-movies/

Terrible article that just rehashes the same **** everybody's been saying for a while. He keeps ranting about how DC should do this or DC should do that. DC has no control of their properties. Disney gives Marvel reasonable leeway with their films. WB doesn't even trust DC enough to run their own studio. They appointed a Warner exec(Diane Nelson) as president of DC Entertainment.

And what's with the nonstop whining about the Superman and Wonder Woman costumes? Are we going to pretend that the MCU costumes are 100% accurate too?

Even by Cracked's now low standards, that article is pretty bad.

 

[kedrell]

I believe the model shown by Disney/Marvel, Disney/Pixar(and hopefully Disney/Lucasfilm) shows that specialization of sub-studios is the wave of the future. Marvel Studios makes a highly successful product because that's all they focus on. Ditto Pixar. While directors/writers/actors can all float around the spectrum just fine, it helps tremendously to have the studio making the film completely in tune with the particular genre they specialize in.

This goes beyond superhero or comic book movies. This is a model for the industry as a whole. I agree that the Cracked article is pretty much a rehash of what we've been hearing for the last 2 years ever since The Avengers put a huge stamp of "I told you so" upon Marvel Studios's experiment and frankly I'm tired of that argument since it really seems to go nowhere. Not to say many of it's points don't have some merit.

 

[zeptron]

I'm so looking forward to a Flash movie that's devoid of any humor.







Sarcasm aside, it was mentioned that the recently announced Shazam movie would have humor in it. How much you wanna bet that the hardcore DC fanatics that hate Marvel humor praise it?

 

[Masone]

If it's along the lines of MOS and the Nolan Batman series, that's completely fine.

 

[Masone]

I'm so looking forward to a Flash movie that's devoid of any humor.







Sarcasm aside, it was mentioned that the recently announced Shazam movie would have humor in it. How much you wanna bet that the hardcore DC fanatics that hate Marvel humor praise it?

I don't think the sarcasm ended there.

 

[Masone]

WB needs a show runner like Feige to keep all their ducks in a row and to make sure the continuity from movie to movie makes sense.
That being said, here's a solid article about WB's mishandling of their DC properties: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-dc-comics-has-no-clue-how-to-make-superhero-movies/

Goyer/Snyder

And if that's in Feige's job description, he's been failing.

 

[zeptron]

I don't think the sarcasm ended there.

Nope. I was actually being serious at the bottom there. A lot of hardcore DC fans hate on the Marvel films because of the humor. They often label them "kid" movies because of that. But if a DC movie were probably to do the same, they'd probably praise it. Which will really shows their bias there and hypocrisy.

 

[Flint Marko]

Goyer/Snyder

And if that's in Feige's job description, he's been failing.

Lol wut? How has he been "failing"?
And it'd be a stretch to call either if them show runners.