No Jokes in DC Superhero Movies

[Nightowl1701]

Even if that's true, it doesn't logically follow that every comedic or light-hearted movie must fail. Correlation does not prove causation, though good luck convincing any Hollywood executive of that.

There's comedic, there's light-hearted, and then there's just plain mocking the comic characters you're presenting. You can almost hear the studio execs in the background going "Seriously people, what do you rubes see in these spandex-wearing muscleheads anyway?"

The people behind the Marvel movies are open and proud fans of the comics they're adapting themselves. They love these characters. They know what parts of them would work best on screen, what wouldn't, and what needs to be tweaked. (Sometimes, as with the Incredible Hulk, it takes a couple of tries to get it right.) Except for Donner, Burton (debatable) and Nolan, the closest the DC/WB filmmakers got to the actual comics they were adapting was a brief browse at Barnes & Noble. (Or at least one gets the distinct sense of that.)

And there are probably exceptions. I haven't seen Constantine, but did it take itself seriously?

I haven't seen it myself. I suppose it did, though I doubt anyone could take Keanu Reeves seriously after The Matrix Revolutions...

And Superman Returns took itself very seriously but evidently wasn't well-liked enough to warrant a continuation.

That movie's premise was inherently and fatally flawed from the outset. If you're gonna make a direct sequel to Superman II, ignoring the following two films (sensible), you can't have Superman going from "I won't let [Earth] down again" (II's last line of dialogue) directly to abandoning Earth for five whole years on a wild goose chase to find Krypton (after his holodad told him Krypton was gone) and expect to keep the audience's sympathy. That's a whole different kind of joke, and it's on the audience - a fundamental betrayal of the character, before even getting to all (truth, justice and) "the other stuff" that happened in that film. And the ending of that film left any continuation written into a corner that there was no good way out of without doing some serious damage to the wider franchise.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Meanwhile, at this point ( post-GOTG ) the Marvel viewer is probably thinking the opposite: Can we trade some of this excessive levity for some grim, dark and gritty?

Pretty please?

Yes, people get tired of smiling, laughing, enjoying life and being entertained by their entertainment.

It's MUCH easier to feel overwhelmed by dark, heavy themes than by lighter happier ones. MUCH.

 

[mos6507]

What Marvel's doing is consolidating all its characters, rebooting as necessary, to create sort of a single unified franchise that kind of all feels cut from the same cloth. It's not that there's no diversity, but the overall entertainment experience, the brand, as it were, will be pretty consistent.

DC hasn't done this, at least hasn't yet. It has to let go of the Nolanverse and have Ben Affleck be Batman in order to allow him to coexist with Superman. How much mileage they get out of that continuity after that film, I don't know. But Marvel is just doing a better job doing the crossovers and building this web of interconnections.

 

[Christopher]

And Superman Returns took itself very seriously but evidently wasn't well-liked enough to warrant a continuation.

That movie's premise was inherently and fatally flawed from the outset.

Agreed, but that's not what you were talking about before. You were equating a light, comic approach with failure. That is not the case here.

That's a whole different kind of joke, and it's on the audience

Now,that's just belaboring the point.

 

[Mudd]

People who think the Marvel movies are brilliant seem to think that's the only approach that should ever be taken.

You've got it backwards.

Switching up genres doesn't mean altering their formula, and they don't very much. It's genius in its way, I suppose. It's also cloying, especially when a movie isn't any good - the Thor films being the best examples of bad examples.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

^^
Switching up genres and altering the formula means altering the formula.

Are Captain America 2 and Iron Man 2 using the same formula at all? Even close? Even with sharing a common character to help make your argument easier? Besides the basic "good guy vs bad guy" thing, obviously.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

^^
Switching up genres and altering the formula means altering the formula.

Are Captain America 2 and Iron Man 2 using the same formula at all? Even close? Even with sharing a common character to help make your argument easier? Besides the basic "good guy vs bad guy" thing, obviously.

In a sense they are. Capt America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2&3 are filler until the next Avengers movie comes out. A side adventures for the characters. The results and consequences of which will be resolved in their next solo installment. Except for IM since RDJ is not doing anymore solo IM films.

 

[Kelthaz]

Switching up genres doesn't mean altering their formula, and they don't very much. It's genius in its way, I suppose. It's also cloying, especially when a movie isn't any good - the Thor films being the best examples of bad examples.

I don't see this formula that you're talking about. The last two Marvel films, Captain America: The Winter Solider and Guardians of the Galaxy, are very different movies.

 

[Harvey]

I've seen the first two Iron Man films, The Avengers, The Incredible Hulk, the first Captain America, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Based on that sample, I'd say Dennis is right.

Of that sample, The Incredible Hulk is the closest thing to an outlier in terms of the formula, and Marvel has nearly disowned the film.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

In a sense they are. Capt America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2&3 are filler until the next Avengers movie comes out. A side adventures for the characters. The results and consequences of which will be resolved in their next solo installment. Except for IM since RDJ is not doing anymore solo IM films.

You just described every single franchise, though.

Empire Strikes Back is just a side adventure which will be resolved in their next installment.

Every James Bond is just filler until the next movie (whatever the term "filler" means in this case, that's an odd way to look at these movies. Was Cap 2 merely just "filler"?)

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Forbes.com - Why Warner Doesn't Really Have A 'No Jokes' Policy For Superheroes

 

[cylkoth]

Of that sample, The Incredible Hulk is the closest thing to an outlier in terms of the formula, and Marvel has nearly disowned the film.

Banner did mention 'breaking Harlem' in The Avengers, so they aren't pretending it never existed.
It's not that they've disowned the film, so much as it's owned/distributed by Universal, and therefore not directly under their control.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

In a sense they are. Capt America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2&3 are filler until the next Avengers movie comes out. A side adventures for the characters. The results and consequences of which will be resolved in their next solo installment. Except for IM since RDJ is not doing anymore solo IM films.

You just described every single franchise, though.

Empire Strikes Back is just a side adventure which will be resolved in their next installment.

Every James Bond is just filler until the next movie (whatever the term "filler" means in this case, that's an odd way to look at these movies. Was Cap 2 merely just "filler"?)

Well if you look at the phase 1 MCU films

Iron Man (2008)
Incredible Hulk (2008)
Iron Man II (2010)
Thor (2011)
Captain America TFA (2011)

They are all preambles to The Avengers (2012). World building and setting up the characters and their relationships for the big event in Avengers.

After Avengers though, you have the phase 2 movies.

Iron Man 3 (2013)
Thor TDW (2013)
Captain America TWS (2014)


All these films are side stories/filler till the next big event; Avengers 2.

Iron Man
Neither Tony's battle against AIM or the identity of The Mandarin (hinted at in "All Hail the King) is not going to be addressed in Avengers 2.

Thor
The battle against Malekith and the near destruction of the universe (via the Aether) is not going to have an effect of Avengers 2.

Loki's new position as ruler of Asgard is not going to be addressed in Avengers 2 either.


Captain America:
The resurgence of HYDRA secretly in SHIELD
The nearly disastrous attack of the Hellicarriers on the population
The resolution of Steve finding Bucky.

All of these will probably not be resolved in Avengers 2.

While these are significant events to each individual character's stories. The big event that is the Avengers 2 has it's own story to tell. Captain America TWS's hanging threads will probably be resolved in Captain America 3. The same goes for Thor and Loki's story, to be concluded in a third film. As for the Mandarin? Probably be saved for Avengers 3 at this rate. RDJ doesn't want to do a fourth IM film.

 

[davejames]

What Marvel's doing is consolidating all its characters, rebooting as necessary, to create sort of a single unified franchise that kind of all feels cut from the same cloth. It's not that there's no diversity, but the overall entertainment experience, the brand, as it were, will be pretty consistent.

DC hasn't done this, at least hasn't yet. It has to let go of the Nolanverse and have Ben Affleck be Batman in order to allow him to coexist with Superman. How much mileage they get out of that continuity after that film, I don't know. But Marvel is just doing a better job doing the crossovers and building this web of interconnections.

Well DC has just barely gotten started with their movie universe, so I think it's a little early to start judging its success (and yeah there have been a couple false starts out of the gate with SR and GL, but we never really got the sense those movies were part of any grand plan like we're seeing now with the MOS universe).

And with the Nolan Batman movies being among the most popular and profitable superhero movies of all time, it's also easy to understand why WB didn't feel the need to rush into a new universe (and with Nolan's Batman existing in it's own separate world, they obviously would have had to wait anyway). It always cracks me up when people start comparing Marvel and DC and somehow try to factor out the enormous success of those three movies.

 

[Owain Taggart]

What I like about the Marvel movies, in particular the Ironman movies and the Avengers (haven't seen Gardians yet) are the moments of levity. Sure, there's tension, but in general, I feel they're well balanced. I like DC's Dark Knight movies too, and I think it being gritty fits the theme and tone, a stylistic choice that fits the character. But I do find it odd that they would (if true) purposefully go out of their way to make them all that way, especially when it's shown that Man of Steel didn't quite work using that style. Different characters have their own in-universe feel to them and I feel the movies should be made to reflect the characters, rather than having the characters reflect the style.

 

[Set Harth]

Of that sample, The Incredible Hulk is the closest thing to an outlier in terms of the formula, and Marvel has nearly disowned the film.

Banner did mention 'breaking Harlem' in The Avengers, so they aren't pretending it never existed.

And also some footage referencing it appeared in the next-to-last scene of Iron Man 2.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Of that sample, The Incredible Hulk is the closest thing to an outlier in terms of the formula, and Marvel has nearly disowned the film.

Banner did mention 'breaking Harlem' in The Avengers, so they aren't pretending it never existed.

And also some footage referencing it appeared in the next-to-last scene of Iron Man 2.

There was a reference to Blonsky in the "T.R.A.C.K.S." episode of Agents of SHIELD.

Jane Foster, Erik Selvig and Darcy Lewis all came from Culver University, which is the same college that Bruce and Betty worked at.

Also, an Incredible Hulk easter egg has already been spotted in a pic from the Ant-Man set.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

This is total nonsense. I can't think of one DC film that has completely omitted humor. Sure, if someone were keeping a tally, DC would probably have fewer jokes on a film by film basis, but none? I don't think so. Because a genre film completely devoid of humor is guaranteed to flop.

Also, I don't agree with it being strictly a Marvel/DC thing, at least not on the Marvel end. It's more accurate to strictly say the Avengers' films. (And I include Guardians here since it's being kept in the same universe.) If the definition of either is limited to what the OP implies, then, to me at least, both X-Men and ASM feel more like DC films.

And even within the various Avengers character films, there's a varying degree of darkness, serious, and even humor.

But let's be honest, if they decide to go through with Aquaman and Flash movies, does anyone honestly expect them to be anything but on the light side? A serious Barry Allen? I don't think so.

I agree the story sounds a bit off, but to be fair it has already been specifically stated that it's referring to future DC movies (or, at least, post GL movies), not to everything DC has ever made. Also the main point here was about DC's ideas of how to do superhero movies, not about comparing DC based movies to Marvel based movies. Yes, lots of people have a kneejerk reaction to compare DC to Marvel Studios (especially since dc's now jumping on the shared universe bandwagon), but that doesn't mean that those people are 'forgetting' Fox and Sony, etc. It just means that they're comparing WB to Marvel Studios, and what Fox and Sony are like doesn't really matter.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

I agree the story sounds a bit off, but to be fair it has already been specifically stated that it's referring to future DC movies (or, at least, post GL movies), not to everything DC has ever made. Also the main point here was about DC's ideas of how to do superhero movies, not about comparing DC based movies to Marvel based movies. Yes, lots of people have a kneejerk reaction to compare DC to Marvel Studios (especially since dc's now jumping on the shared universe bandwagon), but that doesn't mean that those people are 'forgetting' Fox and Sony, etc. It just means that they're comparing WB to Marvel Studios, and what Fox and Sony are like doesn't really matter.

It's not that WB is jumping on the shared universe bandwagon. It's that unlike it's competitiors, WB still owns the rights to all the DC characters. Marvel's characters are divided between 3 studios. 3 studios who are inflexible when it comes to working together. WB has the luxury of having all their character being able to show up in the MOS-verse.

It's a big bummer really. That's we'll never see Spidey team up with the X-Men (despite both operating in NY) or Hulk take it to the FF, well really the Thing in a slugfest. Sigh, Marvel comics was to hasty in selling the rights to their characters a decade or so ago.


Also is this no jokes rumor have any serious substance to it? Like did Thomas Tull (Chairman and CEO at WB and Legendary pictures) come out with this mandate? Or is this just an exaggerated rumor? It seems like click-bait to me.

 

[Aragorn]

This rumor sounds like the the rumor that George Lucas would temper the racial stereotypes perceived in The Phantom Menace... by having an Asian martial arts expert and a spiritual Native American in the next movie.