I'm over the Dark and Gritty

[Airea]

I'm going to premise this this say that I don't hate "dark and gritty" 100% of the time, but with the current crop of TV shows, comic books and movies I am over the whole damn thing. It was good for a time - it was - but one more Arrow or Man of Steel and I'm turning off the tv for good, permanently. Books win.

It's become an issue, as finding anything in the realm that exists between brainless reality/chick flick and super dark/depressing had become near impossible. If I watch MASH again I may be able to recite whole seasons on request. The only things I have right now are The flash and Agent Carter. It's sad.

Please tell me there's stuff I just haven't been able to dig out yet. I'm a full time student heading to grad school in an already depressing topic and I need someway to relax and blow steam or I will go nuts from sheer stress and the *fun* of reading about genocide or genital mutilation every other day. There's too much dark in my life already, and I just can't do more.

[Aotrs Commander]

Murdoch Mysteries might be worth a watch if you can locate it. It is one of, what, four TV programes I bother to watch these days (over the course of the year, the others being CSI Vegas, SHIELD and Doctor Who.)

It's a detective-y sort of show set in 1900s Canada, and is a generally fairly light-hearted show. In particular, the titular character has a tendancy to "invent" modern forensic or policing techniques with contemporary, which is usually hilarious. (Last episode I saw was basically manual photo facial recognition, but they have done things like fax machines (basically a paint by numbers over the Atlantic), luminol, fingermarks... If you are not opposed to the crime/detective genera, it is worth a giggle, I think.

[Lethologica]

Problem: American graphic media is too gritty at present

Assuming this is true, some paths towards solution:
Look at non-American media, like anime
Look at non-graphic media, like books
Look at older media

Some possibilities along those paths:
Wolf Children
Ping Pong The Animation
Ano Hana
Discworld
Ringworld
Snow Crash
Maltese Falcon
It's A Wonderful Life
Being John Malkovich

However, a suggestion from modern American graphic media that isn't dark or gritty: Her.

[Metahuman1]

So, some suggestions depending on tastes.

First, for not dark and gritty anymore then entirely necessary, My Little Pony Friendship is Magic might well be worth a look.

Another bit of Animation that also comes to mind in terms of "Only as Dark as necessary to tell the story, and no darker." is Batman: The Brave And the Bold. As does Avengers: Earth's Mightyest Hero's. Both are concluded (and earlier then intended I'm certain.), but both are stellar.


Casting my eyes over to the anime realm, and slightly darker then the above suggestions, is a long running Anime Series called Fairy Tail. Which is lovely as just a fun action romp with generally charismatic characters with neat ability's. A touch dark in places but not by any means pervasively so.

After that, next though, One Piece. Easily the darkest suggestion so far, but it REALLY only uses it when and as much as needed, and not an ounce more.

[eggynack]

I strongly recommend Steven Universe as an excellent animated show that rarely ever even approaches dark and gritty, even as it touches on really complex and adult themes. I'd also recommend Bob's Burgers along the same lines, as well as Gravity Falls. Just really high quality stuff, none of it particularly full of that grittiest of substances known as grit.

[nyjastul69]

...I'm turning off the tv for good, permanently. ...

I pretty much did this 3 or 4 years ago and I haven't regretted it. (I still occasionally watch some news, sports and weather though)

[Nai_Calus]

I'm also over dark and gritty in everything.

Mostly I just don't watch much of anything anymore. Marvel superhero movies, Disney, the Sailor Moon original anime and Sailor Moon Crystal on Hulu, Once Upon A Time a bit(Though oh my gods Episode 14 of this season was full on Grimm Dark towards the end, pun intended hard, haven't seen 15 yet since I don't have Plus).

Tired of grimdark video games, movies, TV, books, post-apoc everything(No, I don't want to play Dark Sun, gah), crapsack world, etc.

The grittiest thing I've been able to stand recently was the BSG reboot, and I really struggled with much of Season 2 and the mutiny part of Season 4 and parts of the rest of the series, but it does ultimately strike a hopeful tone and even has a happy ending.

And then inexplicably I watch shows about airplane crashes on youtube. I have no idea.

[ryuplaneswalker]

I'm going to premise this this say that I don't hate "dark and gritty" 100% of the time, but with the current crop of TV shows, comic books and movies I am over the whole damn thing. It was good for a time - it was - but one more Arrow or Man of Steel and I'm turning off the tv for good, permanently. Books win.

It's become an issue, as finding anything in the realm that exists between brainless reality/chick flick and super dark/depressing had become near impossible. If I watch MASH again I may be able to recite whole seasons on request. The only things I have right now are The flash and Agent Carter. It's sad.

Please tell me there's stuff I just haven't been able to dig out yet. I'm a full time student heading to grad school in an already depressing topic and I need someway to relax and blow steam or I will go nuts from sheer stress and the *fun* of reading about genocide or genital mutilation every other day. There's too much dark in my life already, and I just can't do more.


One Piece, and Toriko.

Horrible things do happen to the characters, but there is thing they have through both series. it is called FUN, it must be a Japenease creation because american TV doesn't seem to understand the concept at all.

As for Toriko, there are some dark moments but even those moments are countered by the fact they are usually doing something utterly insane. Like say...Summoning Pac man to eat an eldritch abomination.

[DoctorFaust]

Well, depending on just how over you are of dark and gritty, there's always K-On!, Nichijou, and Azumanga Daioh. And I'd second the recommendations of Discworld and Doctor Who.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, depending on just how over you are of dark and gritty, there's always K-On!, Nichijou, and Azumanga Daioh. And I'd second the recommendations of Discworld and Doctor Who.

It also depends on what "dark and gritty" means. I love Fullmetal Alchemist. The deaths that happen in that lend weight to things, without overshadowing it. But reading Vinland Saga became a chore fairly early on and I dropped it. Finishing Trigun was hard for me, because when it got to its darkest point I just disconnected. I don't even bother with new shows on American television, except maybe Gotham (I've had the note to self to catch up on it for a while now).

[Zmeoaice]

I don't get why people say Man of Steel is "gritty". It was just another high budget action blockbuster.

But I am pretty dissapointed that the Daredevil TV show is going down that route. TV-MA seriously? At least the logo looks fun. I'm glad DC has Flash and Supergirl cos I'll watch that instead.

[BWR]

I don't get why people say Man of Steel is "gritty"..

Because it wasn't laughably brightly colored and Clark didn't have a perfect childhood and seemed to be a bit uncertain about how to proceed at points. Never mind that it actually was about a guy who was faced with problems of alienation, uncertainty and suddenly thrust into a barely comprehensible situation with the fate of the world on his shoulders, and won. Not perfectly, but he won and found new hope for himself and the future.

This, apparently, is 'grit'.

[endoperez]

I strongly recommend Steven Universe as an excellent animated show that rarely ever even approaches dark and gritty, even as it touches on really complex and adult themes. I'd also recommend Bob's Burgers along the same lines, as well as Gravity Falls. Just really high quality stuff, none of it particularly full of that grittiest of substances known as grit.

I second Steven Universe. If it seems slow in the beginning, keep in mind that after a certain point, basically all the episodes refer to a few things from the previous episodes. If the early episodes seem like generic monster-of-the-week stuff, it's because you didn't realize you were shown approximately half a bazillion hints about future events and episodes.

[Man on Fire]

I actually like dark and gritty, but I've noticed that it's especially challenging genre - you need to do it really well to do it good and if you screw it up, you screw up hard.

[Eldan]

Because it wasn't laughably brightly colored and Clark didn't have a perfect childhood and seemed to be a bit uncertain about how to proceed at points. Never mind that it actually was about a guy who was faced with problems of alienation, uncertainty and suddenly thrust into a barely comprehensible situation with the fate of the world on his shoulders, and won. Not perfectly, but he won and found new hope for himself and the future.

This, apparently, is 'grit'.

It would have been dark if they had dwelt on any of it. If they didn't just show the collapsing skyscrapers, but also the rescue efforts, or if Superman wasn't joking around just after breaking Zod's neck and standing in the ruins. This way, it just came across as badly written and inconsistent.

[ryuplaneswalker]

Because it wasn't laughably brightly colored and Clark didn't have a perfect childhood and seemed to be a bit uncertain about how to proceed at points. Never mind that it actually was about a guy who was faced with problems of alienation, uncertainty and suddenly thrust into a barely comprehensible situation with the fate of the world on his shoulders, and won. Not perfectly, but he won and found new hope for himself and the future.

This, apparently, is 'grit'.

there is a very large gap between "perfect childhood" and "No son, let me die when it would be trivial for you to save me because, eh we gotta figure out some way to fill your origin story with you being a Hobo, cause Nolan Batman did it"

Mind you I wouldn't call Man of Steel Gritty, Grimdark requires you feel empathy for the people that live in the setting.

[Tengu_temp]

The problem with Man of Steel is not that it's gritty, the problem is that it's a bad movie.

But overall, yeah, live action movies and TV shows have gotten really gritty these days. This is why I suggest switching to the animated medium - whether western cartoons or anime, there's a lot of really good stuff here that's not gritty at all. Anime has the bonus of covering all kinds of genres, while good western cartoons are almost all episodic comedies.

[themaque]

I didn't like Man of Steele because they had a 30 year old Clark Kent acting like a spoiled teenager.

I will say, If you want light, fun, well written entertainment watch THE FLASH. It's been mentioned before, and it bore mentioning again.

[Starbuck_II]

I recommend izombie, it is witty but not gritty. It has some writers of Veronica Mars so it has good dialogue. plus, the idea of it is interesting take. While the idea of a morgue doctor helping to stop crime has been done before with True Calling (where she talked to the dead), a zombie take it on is pretty neat.

Granted, who knows is it will get dark later.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has gotten over the dark parts in season 2 and now we are back in Season 3 (like Season 1) in the funny. Check it out. They needed to rage against the darkness moment in Season 2 before they were ready to take on Shredder again.

Ultimate Spiderman is never that dark.

Hart of Dixie is more romance and bizarre comedic situations( drama).

Sirens is just comedy of rescue personal.

Ninjago is Ninjas.

But there is enough non-grit/dark to watch TV.

[t209]

Ultimate Spiderman is never that dark.
But it kinda inferior compared to Spectacular Spiderman.
Should have made Deadpool a protagonist (Fourthwall breaking goofball).
Even Spiderverse comics made fun of the show. No, he didn't die since the show is still running.

[bluewind95]

I second Fullmetal Alchemist (Brotherhood, anyways) and iZombie.

[Talya]

Meh. I don't see it. The darkest show I watch is "Grimm," and even it's not very dark and gritty. Okay, maybe Gotham, but it's a Batman prequel. "Dark and gritty" was pretty much defined by Batman.

My favorite shows over the last two decades (in no particular order):

Stargate SG-1/Atlantis/Universe
Burn Notice
White Collar
Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel
Firefly
Star Wars Clone Wars
Star Wars Rebels (currently still airing)
Grimm (currently still airing)
Marvel's Agents of SHIELD (currently still airing)
Person of Interest (currently still airing)
Elementary (currently still airing)
Doctor Who (always still airing)

I also watch CW Arrow/The Flash, but those are more like guilty pleasures than great shows. They're pure pulpy trash, but I have fun with them. None of the shows above are particularly "dark & gritty."

I still haven't made up my mind about Gotham - but it's definitely "dark & gritty".

[Clertar]

^

Stuff like Person of Interest, doesn't that actually have a darker tone like the seemingly infamous Man of Steel?

[Flickerdart]

Another bit of Animation that also comes to mind in terms of "Only as Dark as necessary to tell the story, and no darker." is Batman: The Brave And the Bold. As does Avengers: Earth's Mightyest Hero's. Both are concluded (and earlier then intended I'm certain.), but both are stellar.
B:tBatB even had an episode lampshading that they were getting cancelled so yes, gone before its time, which was a shame.

Watch Black Books - it's a dark comedy, which might help you sympathize with the protagonists (such as they are) given your outlook on life. Also, Danger 5 is a great intentionally light-hearted show (with episode titles like Lizard Soldiers of the Third Reich, how could it be otherwise?).

[Talya]

^

Stuff like Person of Interest, doesn't that actually have a darker tone like the seemingly infamous Man of Steel?

Person of Interest has a horrifying concept that would work well on a "dark & gritty" type show, but I don't find it's played for its "dark & gritty" side at all.

[Psyren]

I don't know about TV series, but if you want "feel-good," the MCU is taking that by storm, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers.


there is a very large gap between "perfect childhood" and "No son, let me die when it would be trivial for you to save me because, eh we gotta figure out some way to fill your origin story with you being a Hobo, cause Nolan Batman did it"

Mind you I wouldn't call Man of Steel Gritty, Grimdark requires you feel empathy for the people that live in the setting.

Nailed it.

[Airea]

Good news is I knew about 90% of these. BBC has most of my viewing, I just wish it would update more.

A few good things here I'm hearing for the first time, once classe slow down I'll try them out.

[brionl]

Meh, I was over Dark & Gritty in the freakin' 90's.

I don't know why more people don't like Randy Cunningham, 9th Grade Ninja. It's awesometacular. There's some good stories (Ninjception) and some that are just goofy (The Curse of Mudfart). The protagonists are 14 year old boys, so lots of fart jokes and such. But only when they are integral to the story. :smallwink:

[Talya]

I don't know about TV series, but if you want "feel-good," the MCU is taking that by storm, particularly Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers.


The MCU does include several TV series, now: Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, and the soon to be released direct-to-Netflix Daredevil.

[Metahuman1]

the soon to be released direct-to-Netflix Daredevil.

You realize there going for Dark and Gritty in that iteration, right? Same with Luke Cage.

[Talya]

The grittiest thing I've been able to stand recently was the BSG reboot, and I really struggled with much of Season 2 and the mutiny part of Season 4 and parts of the rest of the series, but it does ultimately strike a hopeful tone and even has a happy ending.

Ugh. BSG seasons 3 and 4 really sucked, not due to grittiness or darkness, but due to crappy writing...and i found the ending horribly depressing.


You realize there going for Dark and Gritty in that iteration, right? Same with Luke Cage.

It sure looks it. I wasn't commenting on it as an alternative for not dark & gritty stuff, just commenting to Psyren that the MCU has a significant television presence.

Mind you, Daredevil has never been anything but "Dark & Gritty" - if they didn't, it would be wrong.

[Zmeoaice]

Mind you, Daredevil has never been anything but "Dark & Gritty" - if they didn't, it would be wrong.

Only if you define "never been" as 20 years after he creation.

[Talya]

Only if you define "never been" as 20 years after he creation.

I don't know... while Frank Miller certainly took him to new levels of dark and gritty, Stan Lee's original storyline was not exactly sunshine and flowers.

[Man on Fire]

To be fair, before Frank Miller took over, his stories were not well-regarded. And Gritty approach works for him, most critically acclaimed stories of his are dark and many lighter ones simply didn't work up until last few years with Mark Waid.
Some things do work in dark and gritty, lets nto drag the good along with the bad. These terms are not equivalent for being bad, you know?

[Starbuck_II]

Meh, I was over Dark & Gritty in the freakin' 90's.

I don't know why more people don't like Randy Cunningham, 9th Grade Ninja. It's awesometacular. There's some good stories (Ninjception) and some that are just goofy (The Curse of Mudfart). The protagonists are 14 year old boys, so lots of fart jokes and such. But only when they are integral to the story. :smallwink:

I rather did like mudfart.

[Zmeoaice]

I don't know... while Frank Miller certainly took him to new levels of dark and gritty, Stan Lee's original storyline was not exactly sunshine and flowers.

https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/753155.jpg

I will say though, that if the Daredevil TV show doesn't have him take the Yellow costume, I won't watch it. It was shown at the end of the Man Without Fear, so they have no excuse to not include it.

[themaque]

Picture Cut

I will say though, that if the Daredevil TV show doesn't have him take the Yellow costume, I won't watch it. It was shown at the end of the Man Without Fear, so they have no excuse to not include it.

Nah, to confusing for the audience when they finally give us the adaptation the fans REALLY have been asking for.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe Premier of!

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/comicsalliance.com/files/2011/08/dennisculver.tumblr.jpg

Try to contain yourself ladies. He's Single!

Now THAT'S who I'm really looking forward to! A real street level hero.

[Clertar]

I like how TV Daredevil wears a mask with no holes for the eyes. Also a neat stylistic choice (https://statelymcdanielmanor.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/blind-justice1.jpg).

[Hytheter]

I like how TV Daredevil wears a mask with no holes for the eyes.

Didn't Daredevil used to pretend he could just see normally though, to further distance the vigilante from his secret identity?

[HandofShadows]

I like how TV Daredevil wears a mask with no holes for the eyes. Also a neat stylistic choice (https://statelymcdanielmanor.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/blind-justice1.jpg).

You can't see Spider Man's eye's either. Marvel seems to have a few materials that allow for one way viewing.

[Brewdude]

Time to enter the wonderful world of Anime!

Here's a nice uplifting and great one to start with:

Space Brothers (http://myanimelist.net/anime/12431/Uchuu_Kyoudai)

Which is on Crunchyroll here as Space Brothers (http://www.crunchyroll.com/space-brothers)

Zero Grit, yet not a comedy, only pure awesome! This is the "The Right Stuff" of anime, literally!

[Tyrant]

It would have been dark if they had dwelt on any of it. If they didn't just show the collapsing skyscrapers, but also the rescue efforts, or if Superman wasn't joking around just after breaking Zod's neck and standing in the ruins. This way, it just came across as badly written and inconsistent.
I haven't watched the movie recently, but I really don't recall that. I recall him being obviously torn up about having to kill Zod and the next scene being him telling the military to stop spying on him.

I liked the movie, but I do believe it should have shown him helping to rebuild Metropolis, dwelling on the destruction, and possibly questioning if his dad was right about him hiding until he was ready. Overall though I believe people are way too harsh on the movie for essentially not being the Christopher Reeve movies all over again. It's got flaws (yes, the tornado scene is amongst them, though I believe if one thinks parts of it through there is another message buried in that scene) but at least it wasn't the pseudo-sequel/remake/whatever that Returns was. At least trying to break the mold counts for something with me (though I concede that the execution could've used some work).

[Clertar]

You can't see Spider Man's eye's either. Marvel seems to have a few materials that allow for one way viewing.

I meant actually with no mask-eyes at all:

http://static.tvguide.com/Includes/newsletter-images/blog-images/daredevil-embed.jpg

[Metahuman1]

Yes, he did.

As for man of steel, given the level they had to contrive it to to get him to Kill zod, and make no mistake, it was completely contrived just to be darker, grittyer and edgier, one seen of him screaming after it is not enough. Neither is him saving maybe a total of 3 people, all major characters in the movie.


And no, totally vandalizing the satellite to make cracks about being American as they come but do what I say while not helping the rebuild was not OK coming form superman.

[Tyrant]

As for man of steel, given the level they had to contrive it to to get him to Kill zod, and make no mistake, it was completely contrived just to be darker, grittyer and edgier, one seen of him screaming after it is not enough. Neither is him saving maybe a total of 3 people, all major characters in the movie.
I just don't get the "he didn't save anyone" complaint. Killing Zod and helping send the rest to the Phantom Zone saved everyone, for starters. This was a situation where directly fighting the threat is the most effective way to save people, not stop to save some while Zod kills others. I get that it's a comic book movie and has to somewhat play by comic book logic, but if someone is trying to kill and destroy they don't stop doing that just because you take a moment to save one of their victims. It's like dealing with an armed gunman. You can try to save the folks who have already been shot or you can deal with the guy doing the shooting. Sometimes the particulars of the situation means you can't do both and you have to choose.

Was it contrived? Somewhat, sure. The whole thing is scripted. Any situation that ends with him killing Zod will always be met with cries of "but he's Superman, there had to be another way". So I don't care. It's not like Superman hasn't killed people before. He's even killed Zod before. I don't want Superman movies where he can solve everything with no consequences. I want to see him forced to make choices and live with the outcome. Like Superman I up until he flew around the earth to rewind time. Lex put him in a situation where there would be winners and losers. The movies will never dwell on the little things in Superman's life like how he has to actively choose to not save people because with his enhanced senses he can hear people in danger near constantly so seeing a larger scale version of that is nice. It also helps play into the idea that he is a symbol for hope. The 90s animated series had one of the best moments illustrating this. Superman was beaten and imprisoned by Darkseid, put on display for all of Metropolis to see to try to subjugate them. Instead it leads to them rebelling because Superman has provided the example for people to stand up to thugs like Darkseid. Showing that Superman can't solve every problem means there is room for ordinary people to have a role in a world with super humans (though in this case it is arguable that the part with the military dealing with part of the problem helps cover that idea). To get there Superman has to fail somewhere along the way. He isn't perfect.

[t209]

Yes, he did.

As for man of steel, given the level they had to contrive it to to get him to Kill zod, and make no mistake, it was completely contrived just to be darker, grittyer and edgier, one seen of him screaming after it is not enough. Neither is him saving maybe a total of 3 people, all major characters in the movie.


And no, totally vandalizing the satellite to make cracks about being American as they come but do what I say while not helping the rebuild was not OK coming form superman.
You know? I am feeling that Zack Snyder might accidentally read script for Miracleman instead of Superman. Except Miracleman's neck snapping Zod, or rather a psychopathic Captain Marvel expy, was well done and actually showed the consequence of their battle (not pretty).

[DiscipleofBob]

The problem is that in Man of Steel, Superman fails so completely at the "saves the city" part of his job it's laughable. By the time he even starts to try Zod is already in the process of mass-murdering. We see Superman stand there and watch like an idiot while Zod's doomsday device slowly gets into position on the other side of the planet. There is no reason that machine should have even started except to fuel someone's mass murder and destruction fetish. In a good Superman movie, we would see the hero overcome impossible odds to save the world, not stand in the gray, cataclysmic wreckage where Metropolis used to stand, pretend that everything is all right, and make out with Lois.

Compare to Superman Returns, where Superman is delayed in confronting the villain, but only because he takes the time to stop several disasters and actually save the majority of Metropolis.

[Kitten Champion]

The problem with Man of Steel is it's a very poorly written movie with a lack of any effective characterization, extremely stiff and exposition-heavy dialogue, and a non-linear story structure which is executed terribly.

It's also pretentious as ****.

[Eldan]

My problem with the Zod scene isn't that he kills Zod. I mean, I barely knew anything about Superman before Man of steel and I've never seen a Superman movie or read a Superman comic before. My knowledge was vague cultural osmosis and a handful of badly translated episodes of Lois & Clark.

The problem was that the problem never showed Superman as having a problem with killing. He went at the Kryptonians with full force throughout, even though he had no way of knowing they could survive being punched through a building.

And hte other problem was that yeah, the entire dilemma was stupid. Cover Zod's eyes. Have the family move a few steps aside. Knock Zod unconscious.

[Metahuman1]

I just don't get the "he didn't save anyone" complaint. Killing Zod and helping send the rest to the Phantom Zone saved everyone, for starters. This was a situation where directly fighting the threat is the most effective way to save people, not stop to save some while Zod kills others. I get that it's a comic book movie and has to somewhat play by comic book logic, but if someone is trying to kill and destroy they don't stop doing that just because you take a moment to save one of their victims. It's like dealing with an armed gunman. You can try to save the folks who have already been shot or you can deal with the guy doing the shooting. Sometimes the particulars of the situation means you can't do both and you have to choose.

Was it contrived? Somewhat, sure. The whole thing is scripted. Any situation that ends with him killing Zod will always be met with cries of "but he's Superman, there had to be another way". So I don't care. It's not like Superman hasn't killed people before. He's even killed Zod before. I don't want Superman movies where he can solve everything with no consequences. I want to see him forced to make choices and live with the outcome. Like Superman I up until he flew around the earth to rewind time. Lex put him in a situation where there would be winners and losers. The movies will never dwell on the little things in Superman's life like how he has to actively choose to not save people because with his enhanced senses he can hear people in danger near constantly so seeing a larger scale version of that is nice. It also helps play into the idea that he is a symbol for hope. The 90s animated series had one of the best moments illustrating this. Superman was beaten and imprisoned by Darkseid, put on display for all of Metropolis to see to try to subjugate them. Instead it leads to them rebelling because Superman has provided the example for people to stand up to thugs like Darkseid. Showing that Superman can't solve every problem means there is room for ordinary people to have a role in a world with super humans (though in this case it is arguable that the part with the military dealing with part of the problem helps cover that idea). To get there Superman has to fail somewhere along the way. He isn't perfect.

... ... ...

the only reason the Military could do anything other then "Die a good death." (Yeah, you forgot that Zach Snyder plugged Frank Millers 300 in a superman movie I'll wager.) was because superman handed them over the tech and plans they needed (And then it had to be contrived as hell to kill as many of THEM as possible.). That's it. That's the only reason they did anything other then die, was because superman went out of his way to throw them a bone. (Oh, and way to drag one of Jack Kirby's creations through the mud there Snyder. Yeah, really appreciated that.).

And no, it was contrived, specifically, to make it fit the tone of Batman. And Iron Age Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns Batman at that. Done by people who HATE superman, like one David Goyer.


That whole no choice thing, that's crap, because superman is the Paladin for that universe. He is THE person who finds another way. And yes, he'll kill, but you have to work up to that, you have to EARN that. Man of Steel did jack all to earn it because they were too busy being tunnel visioned on Darker, Edgier, Grittery, Be Like BATMAN!!!!, because superman straight up sucks and is horrible and batman is just oh so much better. That's the only reason Zod was killed at all, was for that shock value of making superman darker and gritter and edgier by making him snap the bad guys neck on screen, and the whole movie was written around making that happen. Everything else be damned.






Now, for some other characters, that would be been an Ok movie Shaky Cam BS none withstanding. But this was not those characters, this was superman, this was the guy who's the bright shining light that makes you think things CAN be better and shows the best that is to be offered. By contrast, Batman is the scary one who's there to come out of the shadows and spook the crooked bad elements straight, and cow them into doing right. And while there is a need for that role, the point of having 2 characters and 2 opposite roles is for them to each fill 1 different roll, not fill the same one twice.




Also, yes, dear lord was Man of Steel god awfully pretentious.







I've heard a rumor, and I hope against hope it's true, that when Afleck started working on Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, he basically looked at what Goyer and Noland and Snyder and Frank Miller had planned, when ape-feces, threw a fit at the studio, and took over the movie set himself form them as a condition of him being in the movie. I Truly, Truly hope it is true cause while it doesn't assure a good movie or even a passable movie, it DOES give it the best chance it's had since announcement of not leaving me unable to see anything other then the color red for weeks after seeing it. And it is the ONLY prayer this movie and the DCCU has of not making me hate them.

Honestly the only characters they need to go dark and gritty for are Suicide Squad, Batman and Aquaman.

[DiscipleofBob]

I've heard a rumor, and I hope against hope it's true, that when Afleck started working on Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice, he basically looked at what Goyer and Noland and Snyder and Frank Miller had planned, when ape-feces, threw a fit at the studio, and took over the movie set himself form them as a condition of him being in the movie. I Truly, Truly hope it is true cause while it doesn't assure a good movie or even a passable movie, it DOES give it the best chance it's had since announcement of not leaving me unable to see anything other then the color red for weeks after seeing it. And it is the ONLY prayer this movie and the DCCU has of not making me hate them.

Honestly the only characters they need to go dark and gritty for are Suicide Squad, Batman and Aquaman.

I really, REALLY want to believe that rumor. I don't, not because I don't find you untrustworthy, but because I've been let down by DC too often to expect anything but the worst from them.

[Metahuman1]

I'm not sure I believe it myself, but I want to, and I hope it's accurate. Cause like I said, Frank Miller, Zach Snyder, David Goyer and Chris Noland have all proven rather firmly they'd do well to not be involed with super hero movies or comic books, so there's no way there gonna give us a worth while product.

[Zmeoaice]

Honestly the only characters they need to go dark and gritty for are Suicide Squad, Batman and Aquaman.

lol... wut.

[Flickerdart]

Honestly the only characters they need to go dark and gritty for are Suicide Squad, Batman and Aquaman.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/40/1410785-aquacheer.png

[Lethologica]

He said "need to." That's not a descriptive statement, it's a normative statement.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I assume Flickerdart's post was Aquaman reacting to finally being taken seriously. :smalltongue:

[Metahuman1]

lol... wut.

I don't like it, but it's necessary. Superman didn't have such a "Can't be taken as anything EXCEPT a joke" problem, at least nothing a well choreographed well shot fight scene with modern special effects and a good budget couldn't have fixed in short order.





Aquaman, does. Batman had this issue after the Adam West show, and because of Super-friends, Aquaman has had it since that show was on air. For Batman, it took The Dark Knight Returns and The Killing Joke and several other extremely dark and edgy and grim and gritty stories, and the very dark Tim Burton Movies and Batman: TAS to get people over that image. And Aquaman has had none of those. He's the one who needs to be straight up snapping peoples necks on screen to get hacks like Seth Mcfarlane to shut the hell up about talks to fish.

THEN after we've had that we can go back to finding a happy medium.

[Zmeoaice]

Yeah but Batman can be dark and gritty. I'll take a gritty Aquaman less seriously than a lighthearted one.

Also I take issue with you saying Suicide Squad needs to he gritty as well. The Assault on Arjan movie didn't take itself seriously at all but was still enjoyable.

[Talya]

This Aquaman looks darker. Possibly some grit, hard to avoid when you're covered in salt water and standing on a beach.

http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2015/02/20/aquaman.jpg

While we're at it, how about light and gritty? Or dark and smooth? Does everything need to be light and smooth?

[Flickerdart]

I assume Flickerdart's post was Aquaman reacting to finally being taken seriously. :smalltongue:
No, I'm saying that Outrageous! Aquaman is the only correct Aquaman. Ronan Dax with a fork has nothing on the true king of the seas.

[Tyrant]

The problem is that in Man of Steel, Superman fails so completely at the "saves the city" part of his job it's laughable. By the time he even starts to try Zod is already in the process of mass-murdering. We see Superman stand there and watch like an idiot while Zod's doomsday device slowly gets into position on the other side of the planet. There is no reason that machine should have even started except to fuel someone's mass murder and destruction fetish. In a good Superman movie, we would see the hero overcome impossible odds to save the world, not stand in the gray, cataclysmic wreckage where Metropolis used to stand, pretend that everything is all right, and make out with Lois.

Compare to Superman Returns, where Superman is delayed in confronting the villain, but only because he takes the time to stop several disasters and actually save the majority of Metropolis.
Did you actually watch the movie? Superman fought the Kryptonians in Smallville. He went to check on his mom and Lois showed up telling him how to deal with the ship. While they were going to the military base with the ship and the plan, Zod enacted his plan. The second part was moving at mach 24. Superman had no knowledge of these events until after the machine was already running. There is no scene where Superman stands there and watches like an idiot while Zod's doomsday machine gets into position. The scene you have a problem with does not exist.

As for making out with Lois, that was a "thank god we're still alive" moment. Those happen right after near death experiences and sometimes they happen before the full gravity of everything has sunk in. Moments later he was fighting Zod. He wasn't pretending everything was all right.

The major difference between the finale of this movie and the others is the scale of the destruction. It is large enough to start to show you how horrifying these events would be and not toned down to the point that stopping them is trivial. The battle in Superman II should have been even more destructive than this if it were remotely honest.

It would also help if people would level factual complaints and not just make it up as they go.

The problem with Man of Steel is it's a very poorly written movie with a lack of any effective characterization, extremely stiff and exposition-heavy dialogue, and a non-linear story structure which is executed terribly.

It's also pretentious as ****.
While I don't agree with it, this is at least based on opinion and isn't just making up crap that isn't in the movie to fit the internet hate machine's narrative. I really don't see pretentious though. Or at least no more than Batman of the X-Men that somehow get a pass.


The problem was that the problem never showed Superman as having a problem with killing. He went at the Kryptonians with full force throughout, even though he had no way of knowing they could survive being punched through a building.
You mean the ones that were terrorizing his mom? Yeah, how thoughtless of him to not give a damn how tough they were before laying into them. He probably was trying to kill Zod at that moment. Contrary to popular belief, Superman is allowed to feel rage. Christopher Reeve Superman sure as hell did when he failed to save Lois. 90s animated Superman sure as hell did when Darkseid murdered Dan Turpin, and later when he finally had it out with Darkseid on Apokalips. He was ready to kill him both times. Sometimes Superman can be the bigger man, sometimes Superman gets pissed and things get broken. He's not an emotionless machine.

And hte other problem was that yeah, the entire dilemma was stupid. Cover Zod's eyes. Have the family move a few steps aside. Knock Zod unconscious.
Am I the only one that caught that this was essentially his first day on the job with no training at all? That is the answer to a large number of the supposed "problems" with this movie. This is like complaining that Bruce didn't use his Batman abilities on Joe Chill when he shot his parents in Batman Begins.

That's a general statement Eldan and not so much directed at you.

... ... ...

the only reason the Military could do anything other then "Die a good death." (Yeah, you forgot that Zach Snyder plugged Frank Millers 300 in a superman movie I'll wager.) was because superman handed them over the tech and plans they needed (And then it had to be contrived as hell to kill as many of THEM as possible.). That's it. That's the only reason they did anything other then die, was because superman went out of his way to throw them a bone. (Oh, and way to drag one of Jack Kirby's creations through the mud there Snyder. Yeah, really appreciated that.).
It's your prerogative to believe that a warrior saying the type of thing warrior types say in a movie is somehow plugging another movie. I don't buy it but whatever. There were two objectives and Superman isn't omnipresent. And, to be clear, you have a problem with the humans actually doing something to contribute? Just say you want a Superman movie like Superman I only where Superman stops both nukes before either one detonates and the end is rainbows and unicorns as Superman drops Lex in jail or throws a big plastic S that he pulled out of nowhere at the Kryptonians. It's okay to want that, just be honest about it. Personally I want a Superman that struggles, that isn't perfect. Perfect is boring. This movie might have gone a little too far on that front, but it was a step towards showing that every Superman movie from now to the end of eternity doesn't have to live in the shadow of Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner.

And no, it was contrived, specifically, to make it fit the tone of Batman. And Iron Age Killing Joke, Dark Knight Returns Batman at that. Done by people who HATE superman, like one David Goyer.
I'm just not seeing it. This movie is not in the tone of Batman.

That whole no choice thing, that's crap, because superman is the Paladin for that universe. He is THE person who finds another way.
First. day. on. the. job. The movie went to great lengths to get this point across. I am really starting to think that some folks think that the moment he puts on the suit and learns to fly that from that point forward he can do no wrong and every decision will be perfect with no negative repercussions. I will point out yet again that Superman could not stop both nukes in Superman I. He had to pull a power out of his backside to rewind time. Lex truly hit him with a no win situation. He gave up his powers, forsaking the planet, in Superman II, to be with Lois. That's kind of selfish. Once he gets his powers back he goes and gets revenge on some guy that was a jerk to him. That's real mature and the stuff of heroes. He forgot the lesson he learned the hard way in Superman II and in Superman Returns he went gallivanting off into space to confirm that his blown up planet was blown up despite the very existence of Kryptonite should confirm that. Once he gets back he acts like a stalker.

That's your paragon of virtue and infallibility. And yet all of the criticism is that he didn't do a flawless job the first day on the job fighting genocidal Kryptonians. Makes sense.

And yes, he'll kill, but you have to work up to that, you have to EARN that. Man of Steel did jack all to earn it because they were too busy being tunnel visioned on Darker, Edgier, Grittery, Be Like BATMAN!!!!, because superman straight up sucks and is horrible and batman is just oh so much better. That's the only reason Zod was killed at all, was for that shock value of making superman darker and gritter and edgier by making him snap the bad guys neck on screen, and the whole movie was written around making that happen. Everything else be damned.
I can't help but notice that you readily attribute the most negative attitude possible to people that do things you don't like.

Now, for some other characters, that would be been an Ok movie Shaky Cam BS none withstanding. But this was not those characters, this was superman, this was the guy who's the bright shining light that makes you think things CAN be better and shows the best that is to be offered. By contrast, Batman is the scary one who's there to come out of the shadows and spook the crooked bad elements straight, and cow them into doing right. And while there is a need for that role, the point of having 2 characters and 2 opposite roles is for them to each fill 1 different roll, not fill the same one twice.
How are they filling the same role? Batman acts like he will kill people and his enemies catch on that he's all talk. Superman killed one guy and is obviously pretty torn up over it. I don't see him going around trying to claim what he did was a good thing that he will do again if someone steps out of line. You are assuming things you have no basis to assume. We do not know what the fallout of this will be in future movies. You are assuming the most negative possible outcomes and somehow blaming a movie that does not feature what you have a problem with because it hasn't actually happened yet.

Also, yes, dear lord was Man of Steel god awfully pretentious.
How so?

I'll say again I believe the movie has flaws. But, I believe a lot of the problems are people applying a level of criticism that other Superman movies, much less other comic book movies, never have to deal with in an attempt for people to justify to themselves that what they really want is more Christopher Reeve Superman but for some reason they can't just say that so they have to tear down Man of Steel. It's okay to not like it, just be honest about why.

[DiscipleofBob]

Did you actually watch the movie? Superman fought the Kryptonians in Smallville. He went to check on his mom and Lois showed up telling him how to deal with the ship. While they were going to the military base with the ship and the plan, Zod enacted his plan. The second part was moving at mach 24. Superman had no knowledge of these events until after the machine was already running. There is no scene where Superman stands there and watches like an idiot while Zod's doomsday machine gets into position. The scene you have a problem with does not exist.

As for making out with Lois, that was a "thank god we're still alive" moment. Those happen right after near death experiences and sometimes they happen before the full gravity of everything has sunk in. Moments later he was fighting Zod. He wasn't pretending everything was all right.

The major difference between the finale of this movie and the others is the scale of the destruction. It is large enough to start to show you how horrifying these events would be and not toned down to the point that stopping them is trivial. The battle in Superman II should have been even more destructive than this if it were remotely honest.

It would also help if people would level factual complaints and not just make it up as they go.

Did you even watch it? Because I distinctly remember the two and a half hours of my life spent keeping myself from yelling at the screen. The scene I'm referring to is when Superman stands with the military and they are literally making the plan, watching the ship separate, watch one half go to the other side of the world to uninhabited waters, and decide that the military and Lois should take care of the one that's actually destroying Metropolis.

Even then, it makes no sense for Superman to do anything but immediately stop the half of the doomsday device that is destroying Metropolis and committing mass murder by the thousands every second, instead of the one on the other side of the world literally just making splashes in the water.

What's the point of a superhero movie where the superhero doesn't save anybody? This isn't Watchmen where the bad guy smugly activated the device 30 minutes ago. This is Superman. Basic superhero formula, or multiple genre of movies: bad guy threatens to do damage, hero finds way to stop damage from being done. Maybe in the sequel you have some dark ending that the hero can overcome in the third, but in a Superman movie, the main goal should be establishing that Superman is a savior powerful enough to save everyone from impossible odds.

Except today, the people who write this crap seem to think that if we don't see several thousand people get brutally murdered and at least one city get destroyed, we somehow won't take it seriously.

[Zmeoaice]

Can you guys make a separate thread for discussing the quality of MoS


This Aquaman looks darker. Possibly some grit, hard to avoid when you're covered in salt water and standing on a beach.

http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2015/02/20/aquaman.jpg


Yeah, this is the nonsense the OP was talking about. "Dark and Gritty" Aquaman looks comically horrible. If they try to make him gritty, I won't see the movie. Well, if BvS is a crap movie, I probably won't see any DCCU films anyways.

[Tal_Akaan]

Leverage. A great, fun, and lighthearted show. I have re-watched that show 3-4 times and it's good every time.

I've also been watching The Librarians, it's a good time, but certainly not the highest quality TV out there.

[Tyrant]

Did you even watch it? Because I distinctly remember the two and a half hours of my life spent keeping myself from yelling at the screen. The scene I'm referring to is when Superman stands with the military and they are literally making the plan, watching the ship separate, watch one half go to the other side of the world to uninhabited waters, and decide that the military and Lois should take care of the one that's actually destroying Metropolis.
Your imagining things. I have the movie on DVD and checked it before I bothered to reply. So yes I did, while you are apparently hallucinating. The ship landed before Superman showed up with the pod and gave them the low down. He also took off about a minute later. The military folks are watching the ship separate in the control room, cuts to landing scene, machine turns on, cuts back to command room where Dr. Hamilton tells them what's happening, then they get a call that Superman is coming in. That call would've been pointless had he been in the room.

Even then, it makes no sense for Superman to do anything but immediately stop the half of the doomsday device that is destroying Metropolis and committing mass murder by the thousands every second, instead of the one on the other side of the world literally just making splashes in the water.
We don't know what destroying the half in Metropolis would accomplish. Jor El wasn't keen on elaborating on that point. We have to assume that since he didn't do that that the other half had to be destroyed. The other half was the world engine and according to Hamilton it was doing something to the atmosphere (remember Krypton's air sucked).

What's the point of a superhero movie where the superhero doesn't save anybody? This isn't Watchmen where the bad guy smugly activated the device 30 minutes ago. This is Superman. Basic superhero formula, or multiple genre of movies: bad guy threatens to do damage, hero finds way to stop damage from being done. Maybe in the sequel you have some dark ending that the hero can overcome in the third, but in a Superman movie, the main goal should be establishing that Superman is a savior powerful enough to save everyone from impossible odds.
So saving the whole planet from genocidal mad men with super powers means he saved didn't save anybody? Is it really all or nothing? Didn't the Kryptonians in Superman II kill some people? I guess that's a bad movie because Superman didn't magically save them. Burton's Batman is a bad movie because the Joker actually kills a number of people while Batman does something else. Again, this is the ridiculous double standard. I can understand an argument against scale, but don't act like the villains don't kill people in other superhero movies without those movies being endlessly ridiculed for it. Even going beyond superhero movies, the villains generally kill people. Is Die Hard a bad movie because Gruber (pick one) kills some people before McClane kills him? Rinse and repeat.

As for the main goal, no that shouldn't be the main goal. That is boring as hell. The main goal should be Superman becoming a symbol of hope (which I do believe Man of Steel failed to deliver) and showing people that they can be better via his personal example that shows that even as powerful as he is he chooses to use that power for good. Not being so powerful that nothing can possibly threaten him. That's Silver Age nonsense.

Except today, the people who write this crap seem to think that if we don't see several thousand people get brutally murdered and at least one city get destroyed, we somehow won't take it seriously.
I saw about 5 people get crushed by falling out of the shot. I'm not sure at this point what you saw. The destruction was turned to 11, to be sure. But, if this were trying to be even remotely realistic (a word I hate for these discussions) with displaying the effect of these beings and the scope of their impact, the scenes make sense. Does it make any sense when we hear something can destroy the world and at best a building or two get scuffed up? No, it doesn't. I understand if you don't want to see that, but I don't believe it's a valid criticism of the movie to show the scope of damage.

[Man on Fire]

Can you guys make a separate thread for discussing the quality of MoS



Yeah, this is the nonsense the OP was talking about. "Dark and Gritty" Aquaman looks comically horrible. If they try to make him gritty, I won't see the movie. Well, if BvS is a crap movie, I probably won't see any DCCU films anyways.

Actually, Aquaman had many well-regarded darker pieroids. Sure, there is Brave and Bolt Aquaman, but there is still Aquaman from Justice League & JLU, who literally cut his own hand to save his son. There are well liked comics qith darker Aquaman, like Sword of Atlantis, which is basically underwater Conan, or Geoff Johns run. Besides, they guy's arch-enemy, Black Manta, is one of sickest murderers in DC Universe, he murdered his wife and son once. Besides, public opinion of Aquaman is that he is lame, he is one character for whom grim and gritty works to show he is not the joke from superfriends.

[Flickerdart]

Besides, public opinion of Aquaman is that he is lame, he is one character for whom grim and gritty works to show he is not the joke from superfriends.
Is it, though? Nobody outside of a very specific generation remembers or cares about Super Friends. Teenagers will remember Aquaman from JL(U) if anything at all.

[Man on Fire]

Is it, though? Nobody outside of a very specific generation remembers or cares about Super Friends. Teenagers will remember Aquaman from JL(U) if anything at all.

But that specific generation still spreads the word. Even many comics fans who are not hardcore enough to actually read Aquaman really think he is lame. Even if you don't know Superfriends, you probably know it from internet, memes and jokes. Same with how most people didn't read Silver Age Superman but even on this very forum they know his owerpowerness and super*ickery. Even on this very forum people still think he can blow up galaxies with hsi breath and casually travel in time. JL(U) and Brave and Bolt helped showing him as walkign awesome but it's not enough to save him. Grim and Gritty movie can finish renevueating him in the public eyes.

[Flickerdart]

I think you are vastly overestimating how much people who are not your peers care about your peers' opinions on stuff.

[Man on Fire]

I think you are vastly overestimating how much people who are not your peers care about your peers' opinions on stuff.

I don't think I get you. Could you elaborate?

[Zmeoaice]

Actually, Aquaman had many well-regarded darker pieroids. Sure, there is Brave and Bolt Aquaman, but there is still Aquaman from Justice League & JLU, who literally cut his own hand to save his son. There are well liked comics qith darker Aquaman, like Sword of Atlantis, which is basically underwater Conan, or Geoff Johns run. Besides, they guy's arch-enemy, Black Manta, is one of sickest murderers in DC Universe, he murdered his wife and son once. Besides, public opinion of Aquaman is that he is lame, he is one character for whom grim and gritty works to show he is not the joke from superfriends.

And superman had a lot of dark story lines but here you are complaining your butt off at MOS for not being bright and happy.

BaTB already showed us that Aquaman didn't need to be dark and gritty to not be taken as a joke.

In all honesty the new Aquaman looks like crap and his movie will also likely be crap as well.

[Man on Fire]

And superman had a lot of dark story lines but here you are complaining your butt off at MOS for not being bright and happy.

BaTB already showed us that Aquaman didn't need to be dark and gritty to not be taken as a joke.

In all honesty the new Aquaman looks like crap and his movie will also likely be crap as well.

The difference is that Aquaman works well in dark and gritty and has many popular darker stories. Besides I actually preffer JL(U) Aquaman to BaTB Aquaman.
And I think Jason Momooa loks awesome as Aquaman and his movie is important for more people of color in superhero movies, so giving up on it because it's not going to be fluffly kittens and rainbows is going over the line.

[Zmeoaice]

The difference is that Aquaman works well in dark and gritty and has many popular darker stories. Besides I actually preffer JL(U) Aquaman to BaTB Aquaman.
And I think Jason Momooa loks awesome as Aquaman and his movie is important for more people of color in superhero movies, so giving up on it because it's not going to be fluffly kittens and rainbows is going over the line.

DCAU Aquaman didn't look like a BDSM hobo. (Although it's been a while since I've seen any of those shows)

Also just because bad things happen doesn't mean a work is "Dark and Gritty". Aquaman is about a superhero king with water bending powers who speak with sea creatures. His story should be fantastic, not gritty.

[stcfg]

Can't a story be both gritty and fantastic?

[t209]

I like to show you this pic.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Aquaman17_(1996).jpg
That is all.

[Knaight]

Can't a story be both gritty and fantastic?

Absolutely. There are a number of very good stories which are both, in which grim and tragic things happen but there's also a fair amount of the fantastic. There is overt fantastic magic and there are feats of amazing skill in The Lions of Al-Rassan; there's also a scene where two friends are thrust onto opposite sides of a war neither of them agrees with by forces much bigger than either of them, and the two of them end up in a duel to the death where somebody is killing his best friend. I'd call that pretty dark, personally.

[Zmeoaice]

Can't a story be both gritty and fantastic?

Eh, by fantastic, I don't just mean unrealistic situations, but also fun, although I should have specified. A movie can be gritty and unrealistic, but it's harder to pull off. I think the X-Men films did a pretty good job, although they weren't as gritty as the films people have in mind.

[Alent]

Eh, by fantastic, I don't just mean unrealistic situations, but also fun, although I should have specified. A movie can be gritty and unrealistic, but it's harder to pull off. I think the X-Men films did a pretty good job, although they weren't as gritty as the films people have in mind.

Keep in mind that Grit, properly used, is like a negative space visualization. It can make the fantastic things look even more fantastic, but you have to know how to use it or you end up like all those companies that ended up underpaying a graphic designer and getting a logo that looks like a phallus.

Abuse and poor use of Gritty detail goes hand in hand with the whole "dark and gritty 90's antihero" cliche that's burned us all out on dark stories in the first place.

[Man on Fire]

DCAU Aquaman didn't look like a BDSM hobo. (Although it's been a while since I've seen any of those shows)

You are throwing buzzwords. Momoa's Aquaman looks fine, just like a person in regular Aquaman gear, only with bad light. Besides, the movie has an importance in that, unless Spider-Man movie will be about Miles Morales, this will be the first big superhero movie starring person of color. If I have to choose between standing against grim and gritty superhero movies and superhero movies being more white than milk, give me my grimdark.


Also just because bad things happen doesn't mean a work is "Dark and Gritty". Aquaman is about a superhero king with water bending powers who speak with sea creatures. His story should be fantastic, not gritty.

A lot of people would consider a man being pulled in situation where he has to cut his own hand to save his son from certain death and it's milked for all the drama you can get to be pretty grim and gritty. Remember also that Aquaman is a king of his own nation struggling in political conflicts with rest of the world. Remember that JLU episode with Deadman, where Wonder Woman gives a speech at United Nations and OPENLY THREATENS ENTIRE WORLD WITH AMAZON INVASION?! That was originally written for Aquaman but executives forced him out of the episode, so they gave his role to Diana. Because yes, threatening entire world with open war is what he would do. Among Aquaman's enemies are evil necormancer and Black Manta - a guy who rivals Joker in how twisted and depraved in his obsession over the hero he is. He once murdered Aquaman's wife and son. There is a lot of potential for Dark and Gritty in Aquaman, mroe than in Flash or Superman. If any of these movies has a chance to work as dark movie, it's either Aquaman or Wonder Woman.

[Zmeoaice]

You are throwing buzzwords. Momoa's Aquaman looks fine, just like a person in regular Aquaman gear, only with bad light. Besides, the movie has an importance in that, unless Spider-Man movie will be about Miles Morales, this will be the first big superhero movie starring person of color. If I have to choose between standing against grim and gritty superhero movies and superhero movies being more white than milk, give me my grimdark.


He has messy hair and a beard, and is covered in black leathery stuff and metal. My buzzwords are accurate.

Also Blade came out 20 years ago, so no its not. And I'll take films with content I care about over irrelevant aspects like whether the lead is less than half white.



A lot of people would consider a man being pulled in situation where he has to cut his own hand to save his son from certain death and it's milked for all the drama you can get to be pretty grim and gritty.


Well Superman's planet blew up. So Superman is the grittier hero :V


Among Aquaman's enemies are evil necormancer and Black Manta - a guy who rivals Joker in how twisted and depraved in his obsession over the hero he is. He once murdered Aquaman's wife and son. There is a lot of potential for Dark and Gritty in Aquaman, more than in Flash or Superman. If any of these movies has a chance to work as dark movie, it's either Aquaman or Wonder Woman.

All superheroes have their share of gritty storylines. Carnage and Professor Zoom probably could give Manta a run for his money. And just because he has more potential than other characters doesn't mean the movie has no choice but to make it gritty. Aquaman wasn't intended to be gritty for decades and his first film should reflect that.

[Man on Fire]

Also Blade came out 20 years ago, so no its not. And I'll take films with content I care about over irrelevant aspects like whether the lead is less than half white.

I meant in current wave of superhero mega-franciches. If Aquaman, Wonder Woman ,Captain Marvel and Black Panther bombs, we will have nothing but more and more movies about white men. If you are okay with that as long as you can have your stupid crusade against "gritty", it's your right, but I find it very petty.

[Drascin]

All superheroes have their share of gritty storylines. Carnage and Professor Zoom probably could give Manta a run for his money. And just because he has more potential than other characters doesn't mean the movie has no choice but to make it gritty. Aquaman wasn't intended to be gritty for decades and his first film should reflect that.

Carnage isn't playing even in the same galaxy as Zoom and Black Manta, man, never mind league. The sheer fixation and lengths that Zoom and Manta can go to in order to screw with their nemeses is plain nuts.

[HandofShadows]

Carnage isn't playing even in the same galaxy as Zoom and Black Manta, man, never mind league. The sheer fixation and lengths that Zoom and Manta can go to in order to screw with their nemeses is plain nuts.

No, Carnage just likes going and killing lots and lots of people just for fun. That makes him much crazier than Zoom or Manta. At least they have goals and motivations. Carnage kills because he can and likes doing it. In the end Zoom and Manta aren't in the same galaxy as Carnage is not the other way around.

[Zmeoaice]

They're all sick and twisted in their special ways.


I meant in current wave of superhero mega-franciches. If Aquaman, Wonder Woman ,Captain Marvel and Black Panther bombs, we will have nothing but more and more movies about white men. If you are okay with that as long as you can have your stupid crusade against "gritty", it's your right, but I find it very petty.

I find the fact that you care about the race of the actors to be a lot more petty.

[Knaight]

I find the fact that you care about the race of the actors to be a lot more petty.

You do realize that hiring practices in Hollywood are biased as all heck, right? I really can't see how trying to counteract that to some degree is petty.

[Airea]

There is nothing "petty" about hating gritty crap. Noir can be done well, I adore the crime films of the 30's and 40's, but now it is not done to fit a theme, accent an actor or define a genre - it is simply done. Done to appease petty, self centered, spoiled young Americans who think they know what hardship is and need an outlet for how much "suffering" they've had to "survive". They pulled the same thing in the 90's with grunge and it was no less pointless and laughable.

I have a Nigerian teacher, he's celebrating today because with the election he believes won't have to loose anymore relatives to ISIS, and I pray he is right. That's suffering, that's loss. The middle class, movie going, been told they are oh so "special" american teen does not know suffering. Which is why they think it's sexy. I see my professor again tuesday. I'll ask him how sexy it is to know he has cousins that might not be alive anymore, or if they are might actually be better off not. He'll tell me how awesome and entertaining the "dark and gritty" really is. If you like I can tell him hating that is "petty" and damaging to minorities.

The world is gritty enough. I need superman, the one that wears his underware on the outside and jumps buildings in a single bound. There is too much darkness already.

[Hiro Protagonest]

No, tell us what you really think.

[Man on Fire]

There is nothing "petty" about hating gritty crap.

I think that when you are prioritizing it over actual opportunity to have racially diverse superhero movies on a big scale, it is petty. You just said your priority is get movies of the tone you enjoy, over letting people who are not white men, be able to see themselves as superheroes and not just supporting characters that stand behind and let white guy named Chris handle things.

[DiscipleofBob]

I think that when you are prioritizing it over actual opportunity to have racially diverse superhero movies on a big scale, it is petty. You just said your priority is get movies of the tone you enjoy, over letting people who are not white men, be able to see themselves as superheroes and not just supporting characters that stand behind and let white guy named Chris handle things.

The race/gender/whatever of whoever's the most recent movie superhero is largely irrelevant. There's no reason to ignore decent writing or the fact that a superhero movie should actually be uplifting with a few rare appropriate exceptions, not the other way around. What's petty is ignoring one person's concerns with the destruction of an entire genre over casting decisions.

[Lethologica]

Okay, we get it, everyone's petty and no one's petty at the same time. Bleak DC movies are reaching into people's childhoods and burning their comics, POC are literally being erased from the streets of Hollywood, the apocalypse is nigh, and I think I just broke a nail. Truly, these are dark and gritty times, and only the shining miracle of upbeat movies can save us. :smallsigh:

Look, we can probably agree that it's cool, or at least not terrible, for Aquaman to be someone other than white guy du jour. It's irrelevant to the tone of the movie. It's probably not the case that people who would like to see more representation in movies are callous towards suffering in Africa and hate fun, and it's probably not the case that people who would like to see more upbeat movies hate minorities in movies and can't handle heroes that aren't Boy Scouts. Okay? Maybe?

[Man on Fire]

The race/gender/whatever of whoever's the most recent movie superhero is largely irrelevant. There's no reason to ignore decent writing or the fact that a superhero movie should actually be uplifting with a few rare appropriate exceptions, not the other way around. What's petty is ignoring one person's concerns with the destruction of an entire genre over casting decisions.

Race and gender are relevant. Sorry, but right now that is a bigger problem that your concerns. The fact that movies might aim at tone that is not your personal prefference is not a problem. And yes, it's just a matter of prefferences, gritty doesn't mean bad any less than lighthearthed does. Allowing movies to continue as current MCU, where every movie is horribly white and people of color are only in lame supporting roles, if they aren't painet in CGI to look like aliens, where when Avengers were expanding a roster, they added two white people and a robot before Jim Rhodes or Sam Wilson, every team movie has only one woman in obligatory latex and when fans are demanding giving roles of Doctor Strange or Spider-Man to people of color, Marvel still goes for white people.
And uplifting is a subjective topic. Because grittiest movie might be pretty uplifting for people who are underrepresented in mass media, because they finally get to see hero who looks like them. But no, you are going to ruin it for them and those of white folks who are tired of every superhero movie being the same white men festival, because you succumb to a lie every dark story is automatically bad and declare making dark movie about character who actually has critically acclaimed, fan-favorite dark stories a "destruction of entire genre".
Personally, I'd rather watch gritty Awuaman movie with Momoa, than happy, uplifting Aquaman movie with another white guy named Chris. I'm sick and tired of superhero movies about white guys named Chris.

[Kitten Champion]

Okay, we get it, everyone's petty and no one's petty at the same time. Bleak DC movies are reaching into people's childhoods and burning their comics, POC are literally being erased from the streets of Hollywood, the apocalypse is nigh, and I think I just broke a nail. Truly, these are dark and gritty times, and only the shining miracle of upbeat movies can save us. :smallsigh:

Look, we can probably agree that it's cool, or at least not terrible, for Aquaman to be someone other than white guy du jour. It's irrelevant to the tone of the movie. It's probably not the case that people who would like to see more representation in movies are callous towards suffering in Africa and hate fun, and it's probably not the case that people who would like to see more upbeat movies hate minorities in movies and can't handle heroes that aren't Boy Scouts. Okay? Maybe?

Don't be silly, we only think in black & white absolutes 'round these parts.

[Drascin]

No, Carnage just likes going and killing lots and lots of people just for fun. That makes him much crazier than Zoom or Manta. At least they have goals and motivations. Carnage kills because he can and likes doing it. In the end Zoom and Manta aren't in the same galaxy as Carnage is not the other way around.

Just killing because is honestly... not all that, as far as antagonists go. Zoom will go to absolutely absurd lengths to ruin your life, up to an including making sure you never achieve anything in your entire life by going back in time and destroying anything and anyone good that ever happened to you.

Carnage will just stab you in the face with a murder spike. Three seconds, tops.

[Coidzor]

Besides I actually preffer JL(U) Aquaman to BaTB Aquaman.

Then I am very, very sorry.


And I think Jason Momooa loks awesome as Aquaman and his movie is important for more people of color in superhero movies

Jason Momoa looks like Jason Momoa. He's handsome and mansome. He also seems to potentially ended up typecast as being an angry man of ambiguous racial background other than clearly being "foreign to White Americans."


I meant in current wave of superhero mega-franciches. If Aquaman, Wonder Woman ,Captain Marvel and Black Panther bombs, we will have nothing but more and more movies about white men. If you are okay with that as long as you can have your stupid crusade against "gritty", it's your right, but I find it very petty.

That's rather perverse to blame those of us who don't want gritty, crappy movies for Hollywood's problems with racial representation.

[HandofShadows]

Just killing because is honestly... not all that, as far as antagonists go. Zoom will go to absolutely absurd lengths to ruin your life, up to an including making sure you never achieve anything in your entire life by going back in time and destroying anything and anyone good that ever happened to you.

Carnage will just stab you in the face with a murder spike. Three seconds, tops.

Carnage is a different type of crazy than Zoom, but still as crazy.

[Kris Strife]

Besides, the movie has an importance in that, unless Spider-Man movie will be about Miles Morales, this will be the first big superhero movie starring person of color.

Shaq doesn't count? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAWWmLfkWo) :smallbiggrin:

[Man on Fire]

You are missing the point. Zoom has a reason for what he does. Even if he goes to absurd lengths about it. Carnage does not need a real reason to kill or torture someone. That is MUCH crazier than someone who just goes way overboard in their plot for revenge. At least revenge is a reason.

But Carnage is also boring, bland and uninteresting, he has no real motivation beyond "I'm a jerk", he is a gimmick that only works because he can serve as a villain to Venom, who IS a gritty character, letting him be heroic in face of a monster he could become. But for Spider-Man? Unless he is called between the two...Carnage sucks as his opponent. Hell, as recently comics have proven, he is both better villain to Scarlet Spider or Deadpool or even a superhero than a Spider-Man opponent.


Jason Momoa looks like Jason Momoa. He's handsome and mansome. He also seems to potentially ended up typecast as being an angry man of ambiguous racial background other than clearly being "foreign to White Americans."

On the other hand, he sees it in a different light (http://screenrant.com/aquaman-movie-jason-momoa-justice-league-diversity/) - he believes it's cool "king of the oceans" will be represented by Kanaka Maoli, not a white guy. And is happy he will finally have a work he can show to his kids on the resume.


That's rather perverse to blame those of us who don't want gritty, crappy movies for Hollywood's problems with racial representation.

Again, you are making a false equation between gritty and crappy, even through one does not automatically mean the other. And I am not blaming people who dislike gritty movie for Hollywood all-white casting. I am calling you people on your unwillingness to support movies that might change that because of your personal prefferences. Do you think that if Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel or Black Panther bombs, anyone in Hollywood will say "Well, I guess people don't like gritty movies"? No, they're going to say "And so this proves what we knew all along, nobody wants to wath superhero movie starring a chick or non-white guy".

[DiscipleofBob]

Race and gender are relevant. Sorry, but right now that is a bigger problem that your concerns.

It's a separate issue, one that you keep bringing up as an excuse not to address the decline of an entire genre. It won't matter if we get more superheroes of different ethnicities, genders, etc. if the entire genre is killed by movies, tv, comics, etc. refusing to be anything but dark and depressing.


The fact that movies might aim at tone that is not your personal prefference is not a problem. And yes, it's just a matter of prefferences, gritty doesn't mean bad any less than lighthearthed does. Allowing movies to continue as current MCU, where every movie is horribly white and people of color are only in lame supporting roles, if they aren't painet in CGI to look like aliens, where when Avengers were expanding a roster, they added two white people and a robot before Jim Rhodes or Sam Wilson, every team movie has only one woman in obligatory latex and when fans are demanding giving roles of Doctor Strange or Spider-Man to people of color, Marvel still goes for white people.

Because Spider-Man and Doctor Strange are white, unless you're talking about one of the other side characters who've occasionally taken up the name like Miles Morales or Jericho Drumm. And while we've had enough Peter Parker that I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a Miles Morales at this point. But changing around the race/ethnicities of characters without any regards to how it would affect the character is just pandering.


And uplifting is a subjective topic. Because grittiest movie might be pretty uplifting for people who are underrepresented in mass media, because they finally get to see hero who looks like them. But no, you are going to ruin it for them and those of white folks who are tired of every superhero movie being the same white men festival, because you succumb to a lie every dark story is automatically bad and declare making dark movie about character who actually has critically acclaimed, fan-favorite dark stories a "destruction of entire genre".

Dark has its place. Batman Begins, the Dark Knight, the new Daredevil, those can be good dark stories. But these days, EVERYTHING is dark. Green Arrow, who's supposed to be the guy with a goatee who quips and makes jokes despite terrible things happening to him, now with Arrow he really is just a poor man's Batman. Superman is supposed to be about hope, truth, justice, etc. Instead we get a movie about Superman angsting and being unable to stop an entire city from being leveled or the villain from mass murdering people by the thousands at least. EVERY DC movie is going the extreme dark and gritty route. Finding any comic in the New 52 line that isn't similarly depressing is nearly impossible. And the animation studio is being mandated to only do New 52 stories right now. So yes, that's the destruction of an entire genre. We can't even get a real Superman story. Aquaman and Wonder Woman movies will probably be terrible as well because that's the entire direction of DC.

The "lie" is one that you're succumbing to, that making a movie dark and gritty is a substitute for making a movie actually good.


Personally, I'd rather watch gritty Awuaman movie with Momoa, than happy, uplifting Aquaman movie with another white guy named Chris. I'm sick and tired of superhero movies about white guys named Chris.

Well that's your misguided problem. Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt all make wonderful heroes in their movies despite being white and named Chris. And those movies can still have dramatic tension without making everything a depressing slogfest. I'm sure Captain Marvel and Black Panther will be awesome as well. I would rather watch white Chris movies than watch Shaq play Steel, because race has no bearing on the ability of the actor and the quality of a movie. I wouldn't care about Johnny Storm being made black in the new F4 if they didn't rewrite his entire family history just to avoid making his sister also black. Instead it looks like they're making Human Torch black because he's the cocky hotheaded one, and forcing a black actor just to play to stereotype is far worse racism. I don't care what race Momoa is and frankly, just from the Aquaman poster, I thought he was just a white guy in a bad Pirates of the Caribbean costume. Unless DC makes a radical shift in the tone of their movies, which doesn't seem to be the case, ALL of their movies will be the same depressing gray drab.

And your problem against white guys playing superheroes? THAT'S racism.

[Lethologica]

the decline of an entire genre
I'm not sure which genre you're talking about, because the superhero genre has been going gangbusters for over a decade. Remember when it wasn't the norm for superhero movies to dominate the summer blockbuster cycle?


movies, tv, comics, etc. refusing to be anything but dark and depressing.
Hey, quick reminder, the top-grossing superhero movie this year was Guardians of the Galaxy.


The "lie" is one that you're succumbing to, that making a movie dark and gritty is a substitute for making a movie actually good.
No, he conceded that dark and gritty can be bad, he just also believes that dark and gritty Aquaman will be good. Don't make me cite his posts for you, that's more work than I care to do for this bickering.


Well that's your misguided problem. Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt all make wonderful heroes in their movies despite being white and named Chris. And those movies can still have dramatic tension without making everything a depressing slogfest.
Thus calling into question your claim that the entire superhero genre is undergoing a decline because it refuses to be anything but dark and depressing, but never mind. It can be the case both that each white guy Chris did a fine job being a superhero and that having all these superhero movies be about white guys named Chris is tiresome, so your rejoinder is a red herring.


And your problem against white guys playing superheroes? THAT'S racism.
Holy ****, no. Leave the "I know you are but what am I?" comeback on the kindergarten playground. Noticing that, hey, it'd be pretty cool if we had superheroes named Miles and Gabriela and Fatimah and Kousuke and Chris, instead of just Chris, is not saying that Chris is an inferior option, or being racist against Chris. This is a matter of degrees, and we can talk about how Chrissy the superhero genre actually is, or how being Chrissy is a broader phenomenon and not just a superhero one, but pretending that noticing this is racist is just silly.

[Flickerdart]

New movie idea: white superheroes named Chris join forces to create a crime-fighting organization.

[Zmeoaice]

Hey MoFFy, if you care about minority superheroes su much why don't you can all your friends go buy DVDs of Catwoman, Steel, and Spawn? You'll be letting the studios know that there's an interest in minority superheros. Unless you do that don't berate me for not giving a crap about the DCCU.

[Lethologica]

Hey MoFFy, if you care about minority superheroes su much why don't you can all your friends go buy DVDs of Catwoman, Steel, and Spawn? You'll be letting the studios know that there's an interest in minority superheros. Unless you do that don't berate me for not giving a crap about the DCCU.
"If you love it so much why don'tcha marry it?" Man, we really are back on the kindergarten playground, aren't we?

(Incidentally, putting minorities in s*** movies and cynically expecting to make your money back because people will be given false hope by the casting isn't much better than excluding minorities entirely. If that's what you expect from Aquaman, fair enough, but in that case all this hostility towards diversity doesn't make sense in the first place.)

[DoctorFaust]

New movie idea: white superheroes named Chris join forces to create a crime-fighting organization.

If it was of the various Chris' (Hemsworth, Evans, etc.) playing flanderized versions of themselves, I would go see this movie in a heartbeat.

[BRC]

Again, you are making a false equation between gritty and crappy, even through one does not automatically mean the other. And I am not blaming people who dislike gritty movie for Hollywood all-white casting. I am calling you people on your unwillingness to support movies that might change that because of your personal prefferences. Do you think that if Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel or Black Panther bombs, anyone in Hollywood will say "Well, I guess people don't like gritty movies"? No, they're going to say "And so this proves what we knew all along, nobody wants to wath superhero movie starring a chick or non-white guy".

Where are we getting the idea that "Gritty" movies and "Movies Not starring a WGNC" are the same? Or even need to necessarily overlap? It seems to me like it's two different issues

One one hand, Hollywood is overly attached to white male leads. They're willing to write excellent women and people of color provided they keep them solidly in the supporting cast.

On the other hand, Hollywood is attached to making "Dark and Gritty" movies that substitute swearing for quality, dim lighting for cinematography, and the appearance of being "Edgy" for actually saying anything meaningful.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying "Watch Gritty movies you don't like, or else we'll be stuck with an endless parade of WGNC". We don't know anything about the tone of Captain Marvel and Black Panther, but if current trends continue, I don't see them being any more Gritty than the existing MCU.

[Zmeoaice]

New movie idea: white superheroes named Chris join forces to create a crime-fighting organization.

I'd see this just to tick off Moffy. :smallcool:


"If you love it so much why don'tcha marry it?"?

Moffy think it's petty when people choose not to spend money for films they won't enjoy. If ze wants to support those films, that's zer choice, but it's hypocritical to claim others are being petty if ze wouldn't support films ze doesn't like, if ze won't do the same and buy those films I mentioned.


(Incidentally, putting minorities in s*** movies and cynically expecting to make your money back because people will be given false hope by the casting isn't much better than excluding minorities entirely. If that's what you expect from Aquaman, fair enough, but in that case all this hostility towards diversity doesn't make sense in the first place.)

Nobody here is being hostile towards diversity, they're hostile to the notion that they're obligated to see films for no other reason than the race of the lead actor, and refusing to do otherwise is "petty".

I think Momoa's race is largely irrelevant to the Aquaman movie. I think they're trying to be dark and edgy because it's "cool" and made the Dark Knight trilogy successful, are trying to make Aquaman seem less lame. (From what I've heard the gist is Warner Bros don't really care about the characters and just want to make money, although I'd have to search for articles to view this in more detail).

[Lethologica]

Moffy think it's petty when people choose not to spend money for films they won't enjoy. If ze wants to support those films, that's zer choice, but it's hypocritical to claim others are being petty if ze wouldn't support films ze doesn't like, if ze won't do the same and buy those films I mentioned.

Nobody here is being hostile towards diversity, they're hostile to the notion that they're obligated to see films for no other reason than the race of the lead actor, and refusing to do otherwise is "petty".

I think Momoa's race is largely irrelevant to the Aquaman movie. I think they're trying to be dark and edgy because it's "cool" and made the Dark Knight trilogy successful, are trying to make Aquaman seem less lame. (From what I've heard the gist is Warner Bros don't really care about the characters and just want to make money, although I'd have to search for articles to view this in more detail).
I apologize for overreaching. Let me take a step back. Subtracting all the talking-past-each-other noise, the main difference between you and Man on Fire is anticipated quality of a grim Aquaman movie. He thinks it's going to be good, so of course he thinks complaining that it'll be bad just because it's grim is petty. You think it's going to be bad, so of course you think him saying it'll be good just because it has a minority lead in it is petty. And, a quick trip through the echo chamber later, we arrive at Net hostility. I think I'll back out of it.

[brionl]

Shaq doesn't count? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAWWmLfkWo) :smallbiggrin:

Hey, I liked that movie. He was also in that movie about the genie.

I think some people are setting up a false dichotomy here. A movie does not have to be "grimdark" to have a non-white, non-male lead actor. Those things have nothing to do with each other. More diversity in casting should not lead to less diversity in settings.

I have no problem with the actor in those Aquaman pics. I have a big problem with the costume.

[t209]

About actors of color,
Which Nova should Marvel Cinematic Universe use?
Richard Rider (Caucasian but better known) or Sam Alexander (Half Hispanic but newcomer).
No offense to Novanauts, but I kinda like Sam better. Then again, I am kinda new to comics thing and Rich is kinda dead-ish when I learned about it. But the problem is that James Gunn hates Nova, at least the human rocket part, which means that Novacorps ended up being generic military. And movie Xandar isn't Marvel Galaxy equivalent of Minis Tirith/Cadia/TheWall/Empire's Northern Province/outnumbered-and-battered-by-monsters-state.
edit: On second thought, Marvel Universe is kinda like Warhammer 40k verse but hope and victories do exist (depending on creative teams' mood and less-so since the lead-up to Secret Wars is getting bleak). Even the most galactic empire happened to be iron-fisted at best and evil at worst. And the benevolent ones are neutral (The Watcher) or destroyed (Xandar). Not to mention that the death of planet eating monster (Galactus) means that another cosmic abomination would be released.

[Man on Fire]

Hey MoFFy, if you care about minority superheroes su much why don't you can all your friends go buy DVDs of Catwoman, Steel, and Spawn? You'll be letting the studios know that there's an interest in minority superheros. Unless you do that don't berate me for not giving a crap about the DCCU.
They are not in box office, buying them won't make Hollywood any more likely to put on more movies with diverse leads.



New movie idea: white superheroes named Chris join forces to create a crime-fighting organization.

It's already been done, it's called Avengers.



It's a separate issue, one that you keep bringing up as an excuse not to address the decline of an entire genre. It won't matter if we get more superheroes of different ethnicities, genders, etc. if the entire genre is killed by movies, tv, comics, etc. refusing to be anything but dark and depressing.

Funny thing but I see strong resurface of positive comics and cartoons over past few years. Sure, we do have grim and gritty stuff, but you are now declaring entire genre to be like that, which is far from reality.


Because Spider-Man and Doctor Strange are white, unless you're talking about one of the other side characters who've occasionally taken up the name like Miles Morales or Jericho Drumm. And while we've had enough Peter Parker that I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a Miles Morales at this point. But changing around the race/ethnicities of characters without any regards to how it would affect the character is just pandering.

Doctor Strange since his creation has been drawn with Asian features and a significant part of his fandom believes he is at least part Asian and movie could have an opportunity to use it to avoid unfortunate theme of making him "white savior". Instead not only we got white guy but there is only 1/3 of a chance his mentor, who IS Asian, will be played by Asian actor and now be whitewashed as well. And I was personally hoping for Miles Morales as Spider-Man, but we are going with Peter Parker. AGAIN!





Finding any comic in the New 52 line that isn't similarly depressing is nearly impossible.
I don't even read DC and I know that's not true. Besides, you complain about it, but have you been supporting boosk that aren't grim and gritty, like Gotham Academy? Because I have this feeling you don't and you don't care, you are content with comics being grim and gritty so you can complain about it.

Aquaman and Wonder Woman movies will probably be terrible as well because that's the entire direction of DC.

Except, as I've been saying, both Aquaman and Wonder Woman actually proven in the past they can work in dark stories.


The "lie" is one that you're succumbing to, that making a movie dark and gritty is a substitute for making a movie actually good.

You don't know much about me, othertwise you would know how much I hate that very notion. No, I do not believe making movie dark makes it good. However, I find the opposite idea, that making it dark makes it bad, equally stupid.


Well that's your misguided problem. Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt all make wonderful heroes in their movies despite being white and named Chris. And those movies can still have dramatic tension without making everything a depressing slogfest. I'm sure Captain Marvel and Black Panther will be awesome as well. I would rather watch white Chris movies than watch Shaq play Steel, because race has no bearing on the ability of the actor and the quality of a movie.

I have to disagree, I think superhero movies with Evans, Hemsworth and Pratt were, all those I've seen at all, really bad.


And your problem against white guys playing superheroes? THAT'S racism.

You cannot be racist against your own race.


Where are we getting the idea that "Gritty" movies and "Movies Not starring a WGNC" are the same? Or even need to necessarily overlap? It seems to me like it's two different issues

Never said so. But if we have only two superhero movies with POC leads comics, they BOTH need to do good if we want to see more of them, no matter what direction the studios are going with.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying "Watch Gritty movies you don't like, or else we'll be stuck with an endless parade of WGNC".

Hey, I don't like 90% of superhero movies and I'm still going to watch those, just because I know how important it is for people of color and women who do like the genre to stop plague of WGNC in them.


We don't know anything about the tone of Captain Marvel and Black Panther, but if current trends continue, I don't see them being any more Gritty than the existing MCU.

Even if they suceed their sucess alone might not be enough to pawe way for others, that's one thing. Failure of Wonder Woman and Aquaman might lead the produces and studio to drop budget and or cut marketing cost on CM and BP because they might think the market for women and poc heroes is much smaller that anticipated.

[Coidzor]

On the other hand, he sees it in a different light (http://screenrant.com/aquaman-movie-jason-momoa-justice-league-diversity/) - he believes it's cool "king of the oceans" will be represented by Kanaka Maoli, not a white guy. And is happy he will finally have a work he can show to his kids on the resume.

Hmm? He doesn't seem to address any concerns about him being typecast as a savage in that article. It's good he's excited for the role, though. At least I can only hope that'll mean he'll give a better performance than Henry Cavill did in Man of Steel.

Granted, I suspect that was more the script and director than anything on Cavill's end, since that movie was kind of abysmally put together.

Still, it would be nice if Momoa can break out, but I don't see that happening with Snyder.


Again, you are making a false equation between gritty and crappy, even through one does not automatically mean the other.

Again? Who do you think I am that you're addressing me again, here, exactly? :smallconfused:

It does to some people and when people jump onto a bandwagon and ape something else, they're typically doing so in an inferior way.


And I am not blaming people who dislike gritty movie for Hollywood all-white casting.

Yes ya did.


I am calling you people on your unwillingness to support movies that might change that because of your personal prefferences.

So you're saying that we're obligated to go see movies that we won't enjoy based upon the merits of the film itself if it contains a diverse cast if we don't want to be responsible for Hollywood's atrocious casting choices.

[BeerMug Paladin]

You know, I'm still waiting for a character in a superhero movie to exhibit signs of nerdy geekiness. The closest approximation I've ever seen comes across to me more like what a non-geek thinks of a geek. IE, pop culture references, technobabble and comically inept social graces. It would be offensive if I thought they were capable of doing better.

As a minority, I'll admit this is kind of a silly metric to consider. But that's the kind of silly non-representation I tend to notice the most easily. (This ridiculous stereotype is for YOU!) Seeing as how such a character would likely actually not engage in a direct physical confrontation, I understand why it's not really a main character option for a movie about explosions and action and stuff. (Also, I understand this is mostly just due to ineptness.)

I also think it's a bit silly that fictional characters' racial makeup and gender is so heavily weighted to white males. If I were in charge of one of these silly CU things, genders and races of mainline established characters would just be switched with no significant name changes. White maleness is not an integral part of any of these characters (as far as I undertand any of them). That particular demographic can suffer a loss to where it is only about 31% of the hero population. (That means out of 10 characters, 3 would be white men)

Anyway, I can sympathize with the people critcisizing the Chrisalanche of movies for giving no thought to diversity. It's certainly a valid critique to make about them from an artistic perspective, but since I don't consider them good or interesting (from the ones I've seen at least), I don't have much interest in saying more about them beyond that.

[Airea]

Okay. Maybe I've been spending too much time in my college courses, but this thread is about unneeded dark and gritty elements and themes in media. Which is not what it being talked about.

Race is a huge issue, and both racism an sexism (see the treatment of Laurel), are things that need to be discussed. In their own thread.

Glad to have met everyone, looking forward to seeing your "race in comics" discussion thread, but unless you're talking about dark an gritty things in media you need to go elsewhere.

[Lizard Lord]

Yes ya did.





No he didn't. See? I can do that to.

[Coidzor]

No he didn't. See? I can do that to.

The difference being one is contrarianism and the other is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of intent in communication and what was actually communicated.

[Lethologica]

The difference being one is contrarianism and the other is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of intent in communication and what was actually communicated.
He didn't, though. The tie-in to race is illogical, but it's not that particular form of illogic; you'll speed things up if you only attack the illogic actually used, as brionl did.

[BRC]

Even if they suceed their sucess alone might not be enough to pawe way for others, that's one thing. Failure of Wonder Woman and Aquaman might lead the produces and studio to drop budget and or cut marketing cost on CM and BP because they might think the market for women and poc heroes is much smaller that anticipated.
It's a possibility, but one I'm not too sure would happen, due to the oft-cited "Space Raccoon principle"
Which is to say "Marvel made a wildly successful blockbuster movie featuring a Space Raccoon, they can take whatever risks they want!".
But, GotG starred a WGNC, so it's not impossible they'll take the lesson you suggest. Hollywood is very willing to assume people only want movies starring white guys.

That said, I think the Space Raccoon Principle would win out. Marvel's brand success has been great enough that I think their confidence will remain high, trusting the Marvel Brand to bring audiences to the theaters.
If Wonder Woman flops, it will be largely due to the complaints. Man of Steel made money, but was critically derided. If Wonder Woman flops despite a good critical reception, then they might take the lesson that Female-led superhero movies, regardless of quality, don't draw audiences.

Really, the bigger thing to worry about will be Ant-Man. Probably the least anticipated Marvel Movie since the MCU went big, Ant Man could lead the studio execs to believe that their prize goose is just about out of golden eggs. If that happens, I could see them pushing everything they have towards Thor and Captain America sequels (Sure fired WGNC movies), while writing off Black Panther and Captain Marvel. However, if Ant-Man and Doctor Strange do well, I think the Space Raccoon Principle (People will watch anything Marvel makes) will hold out.

[HandofShadows]

Really, the bigger thing to worry about will be Ant-Man. Probably the least anticipated Marvel Movie since the MCU went big, Ant Man could lead the studio execs to believe that their prize goose is just about out of golden eggs. If that happens, I could see them pushing everything they have towards Thor and Captain America sequels (Sure fired WGNC movies), while writing off Black Panther and Captain Marvel. However, if Ant-Man and Doctor Strange do well, I think the Space Raccoon Principle (People will watch anything Marvel makes) will hold out.

I'm not sure I agree with this. While Ant-Man isn't highly anticipated I don't think it's supposed to be. I get the feeling it's not intended to be a big blockbuster, but a smaller film with a different set of goals than something like the Avengers or Iron Man.

[brionl]

I'm not sure I agree with this. While Ant-Man isn't highly anticipated I don't think it's supposed to be. I get the feeling it's not intended to be a big blockbuster, but a smaller film with a different set of goals than something like the Avengers or Iron Man.

I recently read a history of Marvel comics (I forget that title, otherwise I'd mention it). For some unknown reason, Stan Lee has been trying to get an Ant-Man movie made since the 70s. I'm guessing they finally said "Oh for the love of Pete. Here's your damn Ant-Man movie. Now Shut Up."

[Zmeoaice]

I want a Hank Pym Ant Man movie.

[t209]

I want a Hank Pym Ant Man movie.
Well, many people might turn off by the notorious moment with Wasp. I know he was in mental breakdown but not many people know it and might see the infamous panel (http://www.thewire.com/static/img/upload/2013/08/26/hank_pym_slap.jpg) in their online research.

[sktarq]

Too much "Dark and gritty"?

Okay how do you define dark and gritty then because looking around the TV and movies I don't see it as dominating. Sure there is a sliding scale and just because a movie has some not totally shiny does not make it dark and gritty- otherwise carebears, gummybears, and the smurfs movies would have to count.

So what don't you consider grim and dark superhero movies that have come out in, say, the last 20 years. Are you looking for an update of that Captain America movie when he had rubber wings on his head?

[Cristo Meyers]

Well, many people might turn off by the notorious moment with Wasp. I know he was in mental breakdown but not many people know it and might see the infamous panel (http://www.thewire.com/static/img/upload/2013/08/26/hank_pym_slap.jpg) in their online research.

Let's face it: it's all they'd see.

The average moviegoer that might be interested in the movie is going to be no more interested in the context there than they will be why that Morales kid is claiming to be Spiderman.

I'm all for Morales being the next Spiderman, but I just think that the average moviegoer is going to take one look at the screen and go 'who's this kid?'

[BRC]

Let's face it: it's all they'd see.

The average moviegoer that might be interested in the movie is going to be no more interested in the context there than they will be why that Morales kid is claiming to be Spiderman.

I'm all for Morales being the next Spiderman, but I just think that the average moviegoer is going to take one look at the screen and go 'who's this kid?'
I don't think we'll get Miles Morales on the big screen. That said, I think there's a decent chance we might get a non-white Peter Parker.

[Cristo Meyers]

I don't think we'll get Miles Morales on the big screen. That said, I think there's a decent chance we might get a non-white Peter Parker.

Maybe, but I just can't help but be a little (okay, okay, more than a little) cynical.

It's really easy to forget that we're not the 'average moviegoer' I referenced before. We know about Miles Morales, to continue the example, so it wouldn't be a disconnect for us. To them, though, he's an unknown and anything that's a deviation from Peter Parker as established is a question that needs addressing somehow.

Idris Elba as Heimdal, though, is a different story. It's the exact opposite.

[t209]

Maybe, but I just can't help but be a little (okay, okay, more than a little) cynical.

It's really easy to forget that we're not the 'average moviegoer' I referenced before. We know about Miles Morales, to continue the example, so it wouldn't be a disconnect for us. To them, though, he's an unknown and anything that's a deviation from Peter Parker as established is a question that needs addressing somehow.

Idris Elba as Heimdal, though, is a different story. It's the exact opposite.
I don't know but I felt like there should be both of them.
Like Peter Parker (now married with MJ and had a kid) passing his work to Miles Morales or making him his student. I don't know but we don't have a lot of adaptation of Peter Parker as married man (Technically, Spiderman Animated Series kinda count but Mary Jane was a clone and dissolved. At least it doesn't involve a devil :smallfrown:.).
Edit: oh, what about unknown hero like Nova? should it be Richard Rider (a white kid with gold helmet and later got a good story by Dan Abnett until Bendis' horrible story to revive Starlord) or Sam Alexander (The new half-latino one with black helmet but he's better in the comic, which ironically written by Jeph Loeb and later Gerry Duggan)?

[Cristo Meyers]

I don't know but I felt like there should be both of them.
Like Peter Parker (now married with MJ and had a kid) passing his work to Miles Morales or making him his student. I don't know but we don't have a lot of adaptation of Peter Parker as married man (Technically, Spiderman Animated Series kinda count but Mary Jane was a clone and dissolved. At least it doesn't involve a devil :smallfrown:.).

If they wanted to do it at all, that's probably how they'd have to. We'd get a third origin movie.


Edit: oh, what about unknown hero like Nova? should it be Richard Rider (a white kid with gold helmet and later got a good story by Dan Abnett until Bendis' horrible story to revive Starlord) or Sam Alexander (The new half-latino one with black helmet but he's better in the comic, which ironically written by Jeph Loeb and later Gerry Duggan)?

That's kinda what I was getting at with bringing up Idris Elba as Heimdal. It's easier to do those since the general public doesn't know any different: to them Heimdal is whomever is on screen. Unfortunately that leads to them being relegated to supporting roles, which obviously needs to change.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Maybe, but I just can't help but be a little (okay, okay, more than a little) cynical.

It's really easy to forget that we're not the 'average moviegoer' I referenced before. We know about Miles Morales, to continue the example, so it wouldn't be a disconnect for us. To them, though, he's an unknown and anything that's a deviation from Peter Parker as established is a question that needs addressing somehow.

Yeah, I don't know who Miles is. >.> A black Peter Parker would fit the character perfectly fine though. Actually, a black Bruce Wayne could also be kinda cool...

[BannedInSchool]

Actually, a black Bruce Wayne could also be kinda cool...
"Did you just say, 'I'm Blackman'?"
"No! Batman. Bat. Man."
"Okay, I was gonna say, even if you're saying it that would be kinda racist. My bad."

[Hytheter]

Actually, a black Bruce Wayne could also be kinda cool...

At the very least, he could save time and money by not using eye shadow :P

[Kitten Champion]

It wouldn't take long at all to introduce Miles Morales to general audiences.

Thing is, Superheroes can have immensely convoluted and stupid back-stories attached to them, but at heart they're characters which are pretty simple to convey. Miles in particularly has a rather straightforward personality and has been written fairly consistently in his relatively brief tenure as a Marvel Superhero - conveying him would actually be a great deal easier than Peter Parker judging by the dissonance between Garfield and Maguire in just a decade of film.

It's true that they're unlikely to use Miles, it's not the conservative choice and perhaps they're concerned about merchandising and the like. I just don't see it as much of a creative stumbling block for the MCU - that audiences will be confused by a different person under the Spider mask than they expected - at least for very long.

[Lethologica]

And hey--if not now, with Spiderman changing hands and moving into the MCU, then when?

[Talya]

It's true that they're unlikely to use Miles, it's not the conservative choice and perhaps they're concerned about merchandising and the like. I just don't see it as much of a creative stumbling block for the MCU - that audiences will be confused by a different person under the Spider mask than they expected - at least for very long.

I'm not entirely sure it's up to Disney...seems it would be a joint decision with Sony Pictures, however, with Disney putting some financial risk into a Black Panther movie, I don't see them taking a risk with a minority Spider-man, especially as they're interested in the familiarity aspect. Everybody knows who Peter Parker is already, which makes him easy to integrate into The Avengers.

Note that movie corporate decisions about whether to use minority or female leads, while they often seem racist/sexist, are not representing racism/sexism by the corporations. They're representing the fact that corporate decisions are about money, and while things are changing, white male leads make more money for movie studios than minority and/or female leads.

So kudos to Disney for making Black Panther and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers).

[BRC]

I recently read a history of Marvel comics (I forget that title, otherwise I'd mention it). For some unknown reason, Stan Lee has been trying to get an Ant-Man movie made since the 70s. I'm guessing they finally said "Oh for the love of Pete. Here's your damn Ant-Man movie. Now Shut Up."


I'm not entirely sure it's up to Disney...seems it would be a joint decision with Sony Pictures, however, with Disney putting some financial risk into a Black Panther movie, I don't see them taking a risk with a minority Spider-man, especially as they're interested in the familiarity aspect. Everybody knows who Peter Parker is already, which makes him easy to integrate into The Avengers.

Note that movie corporate decisions about whether to use minority or female leads, while they often seem racist/sexist, are not representing racism/sexism by the corporations. They're representing the fact that corporate decisions are about money, and while things are changing, white male leads make more money for movie studios than minority and/or female leads.

So kudos to Disney for making Black Panther and Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers).
Yes, it's a joint decision between Disney and Sony pictures.

So it's a joint decision between one of the world's largest companies, sitting on possibly the hottest franchise in hollywood right now, and sony.

So yeah, it's Disney's decision.

I think a minority spider-man is not impossible. Once you say "Peter Parker", everybody knows the character regardless of their ethnicity. Most people will be a little confused ("Isn't Peter Parker white?") but they'll go see the movie anyway. Some people will celebrate, and go see the movie. Some people will complain loudly on the internet, but if they care enough to complain loudly, they're probably STILL going to go see the movie (And then complain about it some more). All of this will cause more buzz, which is a good thing for the film.

I think the intersection of "Would go see the movie with White spider-man" and "Is offended enough to NOT see the movie with a minority spider-man" is pretty small.
Which isn't to say they're going to do it. Hollywood is pretty set in their ways, and the director may have their eye on some young heartthrob actor (Statistically, they are probably named Chris) that they think is ready to be elevated to super-stardom.