No Jokes in DC Superhero Movies

[Grendelsbayne]

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.

Personally, I prefer the X-Men off in their own universe. It may be a bummer for certain storylines, but thematically it works so much better (although I am starting to get a little impatient for Fox to really expand that universe beyond just the one core team).

Overall, though, I don't see how the division of the Marvel characters really has any relevance here. Marvel Studios has created a successful shared universe despite not having access to some of their more popular characters, and most of the general audience probably doesn't even know about the split.

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.

That seems a very likely possibility.

 

[DWF]

To me the only real problem with the Breen Lantern movie was Ryan Reynolds attempt at humor. Still I can't see this as being real, I can't see the upcoming Shazam movie as being all that serious.

 

[Trekker4747]

So.... Superman crashing an aerial drone and saying that he "grew up in Kansas so is all American" while a female soldier gushes over hot Superman is wasn't a joke?

I mean, sure, it's no Superman popping his head out of locker and quipping some one-liner but the movie certainly had a level of humor in it. Heck, even the Batman movies had a degree or two of humor in them.

There's a difference between "no jokes" and "no humor."

 

[Turtletrekker]

So.... Superman crashing an aerial drone and saying that he "grew up in Kansas so is all American" while a female soldier gushes over hot Superman is wasn't a joke?

Not a funny one. There were a few attempts at humor in MoS, but they mostly fell flat.

 

[Kelthaz]

Heck, even the Batman movies had a degree or two of humor in them.

Yes, we know. That's what makes the whole "no jokes" rumour so stupid. If this is true, then it proves that WB really doesn't get why Nolan's Batman trilogy was so successful. Those Batman films were incredibly serious, but they knew that levity has its place no matter how serious the story.

 

[Christopher]

As for the "no jokes" rumor, what I'm reading online today is that it was your standard Internet overreaction/mishearing, that it's not "Nobody can tell a single joke in any movie" so much as just an intention to take a more serious tone overall to contrast with the Marvel movies -- basically just to continue the style of the Nolan and Snyder films, which of course did have elements of comic relief among all the serious stuff.

While the basic space opera style of BSG (and certain obvious things like the space battles) was clearly inspired/ripped off from SW, I never really got the sense that the characters were as well. Starbuck just seemed to me to be your standard hot shot pilot who was popular with the ladies.

I found this article about the origins of BSG:

http://www.galactica.tv/main/what-is-battlestar-galactica.html

Apparently Larson first pitched the general idea in the '60s, as a premise called Adam's Ark. But once Star Wars came along, everyone was looking for something similar in their intellectual property, so Universal revived Larson's dormant pitch and had him rework it. Initially that revised premise was much more similar to Star Wars, being called Star World and featuring leads named Skyler and Lyra, but the names were changed to prevent lawsuits. (Although we still got a pilot named "Saga of a Star World.")

So basically it's a mix of both -- some of it was independently developed, some of it was blatantly derivative. But since pretty much everything in Star Wars itself was blatantly derivative to begin with, does it really make that much difference?

 

[Agent Richard07]

 

[Cyke101]

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.)

All the Marvel films from 2008's Iron Man onward are in that universe, so by that standard they should all be included.

I grow weary of all of these films that are homages to his dark, gritty style. It's good in measured doses, but Jeez, can we have some levity in our cinematic lives?

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?

Marvel viewer here. I didn't think like that because we already have movies like that: the Punisher movies, Ghost Rider, and Days of Future Past. Sure, only one of them is good (and they're by different studios), but it's enough to make me thankful that things haven't gotten too apocalyptic; even the Winter Soldier went down a somewhat dark route, but that was more of a political thriller than anything. That way, when something big and bad finally does come to the MCU, it's done with impact.

 

[Aragorn]

Overall, though, I don't see how the division of the Marvel characters really has any relevance here. Marvel Studios has created a successful shared universe despite not having access to some of their more popular characters, and most of the general audience probably doesn't even know about the split.

Also, Marvel probably wouldn't be making movies like Guardians of the Galaxy if they had money makers like X-Men and Spider-Man in addition to their main superheroes.

 

[Venardhi]

Overall, though, I don't see how the division of the Marvel characters really has any relevance here. Marvel Studios has created a successful shared universe despite not having access to some of their more popular characters, and most of the general audience probably doesn't even know about the split.

Also, Marvel probably wouldn't be making movies like Guardians of the Galaxy if they had money makers like X-Men and Spider-Man in addition to their main superheroes.

They wouldn't be making movies at all if it werent for the success of the X-Men and Spider-man franchises back in their darker days. They weren't passing out film rights willy-nilly because they were stupid(though the way they were bent over in some of the contracts might lead you to think so), it was because they were broke.

 

[davejames]

So.... Superman crashing an aerial drone and saying that he "grew up in Kansas so is all American" while a female soldier gushes over hot Superman is wasn't a joke?

I mean, sure, it's no Superman popping his head out of locker and quipping some one-liner but the movie certainly had a level of humor in it. Heck, even the Batman movies had a degree or two of humor in them.

There's a difference between "no jokes" and "no humor."

Yeah I remember the trucker's failed attempt to push Clark getting a laugh in my theater. As well as "On our world it's an S", Jor-el giving Lois directions on where to shoot, and yes even "I think he's kinda hot."

The movie is definitely a lot more serious than previous Superman movies, and it has it's dark moments, but it's never struck me as being overly dark or dreary as a whole (like a Batman Begins, for instance).

 

[Aragorn]

So.... Superman crashing an aerial drone and saying that he "grew up in Kansas so is all American" while a female soldier gushes over hot Superman is wasn't a joke?

I mean, sure, it's no Superman popping his head out of locker and quipping some one-liner but the movie certainly had a level of humor in it. Heck, even the Batman movies had a degree or two of humor in them.

There's a difference between "no jokes" and "no humor."

These movies won't have Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey trying to out-mug one another.

 

[Masiral]

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.

The Aether is one of the Infinity Gems, so there's a good chance it will be addressed, and do you really think that Avengers 2 will not address the resurgence of HYDRA and the complete destruction of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

 

[Christopher]

...and do you really think that Avengers 2 will not address the resurgence of HYDRA and the complete destruction of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

Good point. I gather that the elimination of SHIELD is part of setting the stage for A2 -- now the Avengers are no longer part of SHIELD but are a private peacekeeping group, and the Ultrons are probably created to fill the security void left by SHIELD's collapse.

 

[DWF]

...and do you really think that Avengers 2 will not address the resurgence of HYDRA and the complete destruction of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

Good point. I gather that the elimination of SHIELD is part of setting the stage for A2 -- now the Avengers are no longer part of SHIELD but are a private peacekeeping group, and the Ultrons are probably created to fill the security void left by SHIELD's collapse.

Except for Captain America Hawkeye and the Black Widow the Avengers weren't a part of SHIELD.

 

[Masiral]

...and do you really think that Avengers 2 will not address the resurgence of HYDRA and the complete destruction of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

Good point. I gather that the elimination of SHIELD is part of setting the stage for A2 -- now the Avengers are no longer part of SHIELD but are a private peacekeeping group, and the Ultrons are probably created to fill the security void left by SHIELD's collapse.

Except for Captain America Hawkeye and the Black Widow the Avengers weren't a part of SHIELD.

The Avengers were gathered by SHIELD Director Nick Fury as part of SHIELD's Avengers Initiative - they may not have been formally inducted into the organization, but they were definitely a SHIELD project.

 

[Kelthaz]

They were contractors.

 

[DWF]

They were contractors.

Consultants at best but Stark even turned that down and Thor pledged to work with them plus his brother was involved.

 

[Set Harth]

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

Some people enjoy and are entertained by "dark and gritty", though. So no, people don't get tired of smiling, laughing, and enjoying life, but they could easily get tired of watching movie characters do the same.

 

[Christopher]

They were contractors.

That's a good way of putting it. Heck, Skye wasn't a member of SHIELD either for most of the first season of Agents of SHIELD, but she was still part of the team. And it's obvious from the movies that "the Avengers Initiative" is a SHIELD project from start to finish.