Why aren't DC's films fun?

[Carstonio]

I grew up with the DC superheroes, not the Marvel ones. So when my children became interested in the Captain America and Avengers films, I was somewhat out of my depth. I have to credit Marvel's movie arm for making superhero movies that are fun while having depth.

So why can't DC and Warner do that? Snyder and Goyer clearly don't understand the characters they're working with, and Goyer has expressed contempt for comics fans. Batman v Superman, although an improvement over Man of Steel, confirmed my belief that the two filmmakers work from executive summaries of well-known comics. Almost like DC chose some time ago to focus on TV and realized too late that it needed to put more priority on movies. I haven't kept up with Supergirl but that show seems to have the sense of fun that's missing from the DC films.

[Backward Galaxy]

Superman is more than 75 years old. In that time, there have been many interpretations. Some of them are light and happy. Others are not. There are plenty of Batman stories that are extraordinarily dark, twisted, and push the boundaries of hopelessness to the limit before bringing things back into the light.

So, while I also wish that the DCU was lighter in tone, I don't think it's fair to summarily dismiss the darker iterations as if these filmmakers don't "get" these characters. They probably just "get" a version that isn't your or my ideal. The bigger flaw might be that they don't realize they are in the minority. In that sense, they are making films for an audience much smaller than they think, with a whole other group of fans bound only for disappointment.

Additionally, "fun" is subjective. Many horror fans think Saw is "fun" for some reason. Many find Daredevil on Netflix to be fun, but that series is dark as an abyss. I think it's more difficult to enjoy films that are both bad and darker in tone because we're inundated with negative emotions AND also not entertained. It doesn't leave much left. A film that is playful, even if bad, leaves no impression. You don't carry it with you. That's what popcorn flicks are trying to be. The DCU isn't trying to be that. It's trying to be something more. The execution has just been terrible thus far, and probably targeted at a minority.

[costas22]

Personally speaking, I'm fine with their tone not being light. There are only so many times you can go to the well. DC has produced numerous light toned Supermen and Batmen over the years. A change was needed. Especially with Marvel's style of hero movies. Sadly, not many people appreciated the need for diversity and now we'll end up with DC movies being light as well.

[Carstonio]

Good points. No disagreement that a dark story can stay true to the characters, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Kingdom Come is dark but ultimately uplifting, and the personalities that Waid gave the older versions of the heroes are very believable.

When I said that Snyder and Goyer don't seem to understand the characters, I was referring instead to the personalities. Jesse Eisenberg gave a compelling performance, but his character wasn't truly Luthor, but merely a dot-com Joker. Luthor is supposed to provide contrast to Superman, power for his own benefit instead of for others, and offering aid only when he stands to gain from it. Batman's motivation for taking down Superman wasn't Batman enough - the film borrows from Dark Knight Returns but strips that conflict of its context.

Superman was closer to the comic character in the second film, but I wanted to see the killing of Zod addressed in a substantive way. (In the source material, that act shattered Superman psychologically, betraying everything he stood for, and he ended up exiling himself while working out his guilt.)

The irony is that I have no idea how true the Marvel films are to their own source material.

[Lipzo]

Like BG said, there are plenty of dark stories for both of those characters and the DCCU has embraced that side of them which is something I personally have thoroughly enjoyed. Unfortunately with the interpretation's of Superman that the majority of people are used to, the DCCU doesn't match with that and it's hard for people to break their pre-conceived perceptions as to what a character should be.

I agree on the Eisenberg aspect, I don't think anyone really disagrees with that as far as I can see. He didn't come across as Luthor like, though at the same time he had very minimal time to truly portray that so potentially that could be a reason. As for the reason for Batman wanting to get rid of Superman I have no problem with that given the context of MoS. The problem is that they did take aspects of the DKR run which was set in a period in which Bats and Supes had known each other for an extremely long time and Supes was going against Batman's core beliefs of simply doing what you're told to do. It was always going to be convoluted in terms of his reasoning for fighting him when there was no backstory between the two.

[Theshadow129x]

I'm fine with movies being different. The Dark Knight trilogy is hardly for kids. Those are dark movies that are kind of meant for adults. the difference between that and the the new DCEU movies is that those movies, more or less the third dark knight movie, were actually well plotted out movies in which characters well developed to give you a sense of motivation and great editing in which the plot never suffered.

Furthermore, I didn't like Man of Steel not because it was a bad movie, but because the characters were wrong compared to their source material counter parts. I have this mantra when it comes to comic book movies and its :change the world, change the story, but the characters have to remain the same. I feel as though this superman, in both movies, is not who they have tried to tell us he is. He is burdened with his powers, he explains nothing to anyone to make people feel more secured over the idea that he is around, and he never smiles. Smiling is rule 101 to making people feel welcome and secured and he never even bloody does that! and this Batman is just a murderer!
the Kent's just seem like their concern is only about their son but never on the idea of doing the right thing no matter what. they are maybe my biggest problem with these movies to be honest. In all forms of the Superman mythos, his parents tell him that doing the right thing is what matters most, no they dont want to give him up or want him revealed to the world but doing the right thing is what this world needs the most and just one act of kindness is worth more than an act of evil more than anything. Its a great lesson. A Pa Kent who tells Clark that maybe he should have let those kids on the bus drown really rubs me the wrong way. A Ma Kent who tells Clark he owes the world nothing so its okay to turn his back on the world when it needs a hero is not okay to me. These are the values of people who would raise a hero.

Its a big difference from the Marvel movies where they show the values of the characters being on the screen who do the right thing regardless of whats in their way. That guy Chris Evans is playing is clearly Captain America, but the other different these marvel movies have had is that they are just freaking good. So yeah tone doesnt make a difference, its about character and the stories they tell. I just dont think DC has done that very well.

[Backward Galaxy]

When I said that Snyder and Goyer don't seem to understand the characters, I was referring instead to the personalities. Jesse Eisenberg gave a compelling performance, but his character wasn't truly Luthor, but merely a dot-com Joker. Luthor is supposed to provide contrast to Superman, power for his own benefit instead of for others, and offering aid only when he stands to gain from it.

Lex Luthor used to be a fairly generic mad scientist. In his first appearance (1940), his secret layer was a flying city suspended by a blimp. Superman destroys it with Luthor still on it. In the 1978 film, he was basically a diabolical used car salesman. The Luthor you're talking about didn't really come into existence until 1986, when the character was already 46 years old. That's 46 years of being something else.

Also, I would argue that Eisenberg's Luthor was much more Riddler than Joker.

Batman's motivation for taking down Superman wasn't Batman enough - the film borrows from Dark Knight Returns but strips that conflict of its context.

I disagree. I think Batman's motivation was plenty for him to want to take down Superman, and appropriately Batman. It was (part of) the motivation for the United States to go to war with Iraq after 9/11. In the comics, Batman has always been about being pre-emptive. That's what the Babel storyline was about. That's what every single Batman fan uses as their argument for why he would beat Superman in a fight (which we all know is ridiculous). The problem is that they didn't carry the metaphor through the conclusion of the fight, leaving everything unresolved and muddled. The actual fight turned out to be about something else entirely, so none of the questions the movie brought to the forefront were answered or even addressed by the conclusion.

[HalJordan4184]

On the topic of Luthor, I personally feel his best characterizations have been when he sees himself as the hero of the story. His hatred of Superman is a deep, seathing anger, based on the fact an alien has usurped the position as guide post of human destiny. Luthor is a humanitarian in some regards. His building a children's hospital doesn't always have an ulterior motive. He believes human kind can rise above the pettiness, if it has the right motivation. He just sees himself as that motivating factor, and the person best suited to decide how best to move us along. Superman is an interloper, who is doing more to retard human progress, than propel us to our ultimate destiny. He's a crutch people are using to avoid bettering themselves. He's keeping the true human spirit from being forged in the fire of life.

As for the movies, some people can't do a lighthearted, good natured character, while still being "grounded". Some people can't see past their pet interpretation of something. I've been guilty of that before. DC's biggest problem has been leaving the same guy at the helm, and expecting a change. His past body of work doesn't show a change was really likely.

[Backward Galaxy]

Good to see you, Hal!!!!

As usual, I agree with you.

[Fish1941]

Why do all comic book hero movies have to be "fun"? Why does everyone assume that none of the DC Comics movies or television shows are "fun"? And why does everyone assume that all of the Marvel productions are "fun?

[Halberdier17]

I think they are fun.

If you're wondering why they are "dark" well this is a good article about it.

Basically it is so instilled into Warner Bros. DNA they were always like that since their inception.

[President_Luthor]

That Forbes article makes a good point -- and a good reality check. The whole "Disney"-fication of taste would seem to be part of the issue. Sure, the Marvel movies and the revamped SW franchise are successful, no disputing this -- this does not automatically mean WB/DC films are somehow less "fun". Less fun on what basis?

Full disclosure: I'm a Batman fan first and foremost and consider the Nolan trilogy one of the best. I enjoy the Marvel films too, but I have to laugh at some of the Monday morning quarterbacking out there from some fans re: whether what Nolan accomplished with Batman deserves the praise it did or whether the legacy of his dark spin on Batman means DC movies must now be less fun than Marvel ones as a result. They don't like "dark" and "brooding"? It's in WB's DNA, long before Nolan entered the scene. They are being true to their roots, just as Disney is being true to theirs.

Suicide Squad's experience would seem to fit into the debate. It's doing well in the box office despite the brutal reviews, a lot of them citing the "not fun" argument to justify their poor ratings. It holds little weight with me.

[Aurora Moon]

I think there's a proper way to do "Dark" stuff without going too grimdark. Just saying.
When things in movies and other series goes grimdark without any hope in sight, it always feels like it's trying too hard to be mature. And that it was written by some angsty teenager who has no idea of what maturity really is.

Take Batman VS Superman for instance. It seemed to me as the whole movie's message was to talk about how much humanity sucked, and that they didn't deserve superheroes. [SPOILER]Oh, and they killed off Superman![/SPOILER] OOOOH, so edgy! not.

I think it was one of the reasons why it was so poorly received. That isn't to say that BVS didn't have it's good points though.

Bat-affleck's drinking problem aside, he was honestly one of the best batman I've seen next to Nolan in a long time. He actually did detective work, etc.
And I liked the fact that the movie held Superman accountable for the destruction in metropolis, and elsewhere. Seeing things from Bruce's viewpoint made it far more reasonable that Batman would see Superman as an real threat to the world, and for good reason.

Wonder Woman felt kind of tacked on, but her scenes were also wonderful. The bit where the guys go, "Is she with you? "" I thought she was with you." was hilarious a little bit.

It was just the whole ending and the over-all message of the movie that ruined the entire story, I think.

[President_Luthor]

BvS does seem to be a better Batman movie, seeing events the way he would perceive them, than it ever was an actual Superman sequel. Clark/Supes does come off (slightly) better in the Blu-Ray extended cut -- basically more of Clark -investigative reporting from Clark and Lois and a bit more context (not much) in how Lex orchestrated things to drive Bats and Supes into conflict. I actually prefer the extended cut. Didn't improve the movie significantly, but it helped make more sense out of the story.

As much as I'm excited about WW and her stand-alone movie, all the backdoor JL prequel stuff in BvS was tacked on and came off as such. Ideally, we should have had a real Supes sequel first, maybe Batman and WW solo films first, without worrying about cobbling together a whole JL right here right now etc., but it's spilled milk at this point. They've let that "JL now!" cart loose first and are willing to let the horses run up to catch it.

I suppose there is a fine line between going dark to be "edgy" and going dark and making it seem depressing or a downer or "not fun". BvS might have thought it straddled this line, but some fan/reviewers reactions would say it didn't. What works fine from the Batman perspective (we expect him to be a cynic, brooding etc.) doesn't translate as well when it's seen from Clark/Supes perspective (we don't normally expect him to be the skeptic, or having his headspace in a dark place).

In a way I can see why they had Batman not Superman lead the title, since it's his perspective that does come out better.

I did like that Supes was held to account for the significant damage, loss of life etc his battles with Zod caused. This was a necessity. I would have detested it if Supes was given a pass on all of it because, hey, he saved the world, he's a friend of humanity/role model/icon aka the "because Superman!!!" reason. Like some sort of extraterrestrial diplomatic immunity that only he gets just because he's the last son of Krypton. Earth is still our house, our rules. Fans might not like the extremes Bats and Lex went to seek redress, but Supes did have to face the music, and be seen to do so. His presenting himself before Congress was probably his noblest act in this regard.

The film did this, needed to show him held to account, so at least on this front if this made some moviegoers uncomfortable seeing Supes in this way it was likely the desired response.

Going back to the extended cut, I think those scenes might have helped flesh out the Clark side of things as well as better showing Lex's hand in pitting him against Bruce. I don't know what reasons they had to cut them out other than perhaps due to running time.

[WickedJenn]

I really like this question - it's something that hadn't crossed my mind much before.

Going back to the basics on Bats and Supes on this. Batman is generally a darker character to begin with. All this is emphasized by the symbol he's chosen, the clothing he wears (costume and clothing as Bruce), his past, his methods, etc. Even Gotham itself is a "dark" place, and the name origin supports that, this is an interesting read: https://www.nypl.org/blog/2011/01/25...-gotham-anyway. The only time I've ever really seen Batman portrayed in a "fun" way would be on the 1960s TV series "Batman" with Adam West. In general that whole set was lighter, Bruce was not a broody character like he is in more modern tellings, and even the villains did not translate on screen as menacing (though I don't necessarily include The Joker) as their newer counterparts. Though this probably has much to do with the time period in which it was filmed than anything else.

Going by that, Batman films, IMO, will never be categorized as "fun" in a more light-hearted way like The Flash would be (using the TV series as an example). It just wouldn't bode well for the character. There are films like Batman Forever that took on a more facetious tone than a lot of the other ones, yet still, at it's core, it was a darker film. If they tried to do it, and it was successful, great but if you ask me, I wouldn't want that. Batman is not about that.

Superman, obversely, from his primary colors, clean cut look and mannerisms in addition to the obvious like his moral compass, is the light end. If there was a DC character to make a more fun film about, it would be him. The Reeve films and even Superman Returns, I wager, is in general more aligned with that. The problem began when Man of Steel came out, I remember reading an article prior to its release where Zack Snyder was interviewed, and he spoke about how MoS was going to have more "realism" and how people would really react to someone like Superman. Here's my problem with that - not to delve into this too much, but with Superman especially there's a suspension of belief. IMO, that should stay in tact, I enjoy the concept because it's NOT something that could really happen. Trying to shoehorn it that way, takes away the magic of it all. Never in my life would I ever have thought Superman could be so dark, but Snyder pulled it off.

So, in order for everything to jive in Snyder's DCU, there really couldn't be a lighter, more fun Supes, because it would contrast too much with the rest of his world, and be horribly awkward, as I see it. For me, he's completely ruined that lightness about Superman that I always loved. I'm not saying that so much as a slight on Cavill, but still... A director who truly understands the comics-to-film concept is one who still keeps those important parts of what we love about said characters in tact.

With that all being said, we have yet to see how it'll be with The Flash and Aquaman, there's a very slight possibility they may be more fun. I've always felt The Flash is the best character outside of Supes for that. But, reiterating my point above about Snyder's DCU, I have my doubts.

And note to self, do not type lengthy posts while drinking sangria