Calm down, JD. Once again, by posting "ran for 8 years", that is an attempt to make it appear as if the Super Friends consistently ran for 8 successful years, which is rewriting history, thus your statement is patently false. The SF was cancelled in 1974, as it was a failure with audiences and did not return until another three years and most importantly, NOT based on its own merits, but the popularity of two, unrelated live-action TV series. in other words, if not for the success / interest in other properties, the Super Friends would have been a one season wonder of the early 1970s. Next, it was cancelled again in 1983 and needed a reboot to try to shed the image of the silly series it was considered to be. That is not consistent or a success. A series that is consistent and a success is one that runs from start to finish and is not cancelled two times along the way, such as The Flintstones (ABC, 1960-66), The Beverly Hillbillies (CBS, 1962-71), The Cosby Show (NBC, 1984-92), or NYPD Blue (ABC, 1993-05). The Super Friends does not fall into that category at all.
Wrong. Plan 9 from Outer Space is only acknowledged thanks to it having the one-two punch of being almost universally judged to be the worst film ever made, directed by almost inarguably the worst filmmaker in history. Infamy does not make something a classic, a term usually attached to a work of high regard/great quality. Needless to say, the films of Ed Wood do not meet either standard of judgement. Just the opposite.
...and was unfit to direct a comedy such as the heavily criticized 1941. Coppola failed with One from the Heart. Ang Lee was out of his element on Hulk. I can cite pages of directors from the earliest days of the business up to recent times--Whedon on Justice League being a textbook example--when certain talents were not fit for, and did not understand the content of certain projects.
Much in the way you are selling the alleged feelings of phantom people who want to see a return to George Reeves, the Super Friends, Donner's version, etc., when there is no evidence to support any such notion.
Bull. It is clear you are so "MCU-ed" in your thinking that you believe the approach of Whedon's Avengers movies made him a fit for JL. The real world results shatter your opinion. The JL (or all of the DCEU) was never going to establish its own voice by grafting the tonally wrong MCU to its body; the very reason there is so much widespread, excitement / interest in seeing Snyder's original vision finally carried out, as he shaped a strong DCEU by not sharing the tone and approach of the MCU.
You cannot separate Snyder's JL from the franchise he shaped. The JL as a film concept was initially launched as a natural continuation of what was established in other DCEU films--which is what fans around the world realize and want to see--for the version that should have been produced, instead of Whedon's disaster.
.
Minimal presence at best, and certainly was no takeaway like the gritty superhero film WW was, as opposed to the quip-spatterd worst of the MCU, where jokes are fired off at the most inappropriate times.
Where? Point to any large body of Superman fandom wanting a return to George Reeves, the Super Friends or Donner--again I remind you the latter approach had fans unenthusiastic about it as they learned Superman Returns was set in that universe, and sure enough, it was a major disappointment, as that version--its tone, content and approach was not the Superman modern audiences wanted to see. Their rejection of SR flies in the face of everything you're saying.
The interest in seeing superheroes in relatable, realistic settings is very appealing to audiences, not winking camp counselors in a saccharine-imbibed world not at all similar to the one they live in.
BBATB was a stylized cartoon that could only work within its narrow animated, semi-comedic confines, which means nothing to how a live action production would be approached. No movie producer would ever try to make a modern day Batman movie in that manner, and certainly not the Dozier way. The last time a live action Bat-film went in that direction, the world ended up with the Schumacher Bat-films, which were derided crap-fests for a universe of justified reasons and killed that 1st Bat-series. In other words, no one wants to see the return of Bat-Dozier in a live action Batman film.
) Say we set up a light-to-dark scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being light, quippy Marvel movies like Ant-Man & Thor: Ragnarok and 10 being the grimdark DC extreme of Batman v. Superman. I would give Aquaman a 3.8. It's not the lightest thing ever but it's certainly closer to the Marvel half of the spectrum.