I think this Yahoo! News item by Drew McWeeny shows just how far behind the times DC Comics and Warner are. Sadly, they seriously do not get the back-forth joky banter that Marvel was known for and which has been included in the movies.
Oh, and there are now rumours of some delays in filming "because of certain properties" -and I have no idea what the hell that is about.
"No jokes."
One thing you'd have to grant "Green Lantern," whatever your feelings
about it as a movie, is that they've got lots of jokes in that movie.
They are resolutely unafraid to make jokes. Green Lantern/Hal
Jordan/Ryan Reynolds (there is no discernible difference between these
three identities) makes jokes throughout the film, and the trailer
featured plenty of them. There is a wise-ass attitude to a good chunk of
the film that is very much on purpose. Every one of the guys they
looked at to play the lead in the film had to be as well-liked as a
comic performer as an action star. That's not a long list, but it seems
like the exact sweet spot that studios are constantly searching for.
Look at the reaction to Chris Pratt now that he's made the jump to a
lead in the biggest film of the summer. He's the guy studios dream of
when they dream of new young movie stars. A sense of humor seems like an
essential club to have in the golf bag, right?
Not according to Warner/DC. Not after "Green Lantern."
Now, to be fair, no one has directly connected those dots for me. But something has caused this shift in the overall editorial voice of the DC superhero movies. There's got to be a point behind an edict as broad and as specific as that.
Here's why I have trouble believing any studio would do that. Even in the most serious of mainstream movies, some of the most memorable moments are those points where they let off steam, where a laugh is used to punctuate. In adventure movies especially, a laugh can make the difference between a movie people like and a movie people love. The right laugh can make a movie a classic. Think of that beat in "Raiders" where Indy shoots the swordsman. That laugh is not just a huge rush of relief in the middle of a harrowing and thrilling action set piece, but it's also a character-defining moment for Indiana Jones. George Lucas may have his qualms about whether or not Han Solo shot first, but Indy's no dummy; of course he's going to shoot first. That's why Indiana Jones is still alive.
Laughter also allows audiences to swallow some of the more ridiculous things that they're asked to buy into with modern event films. Suspension of disbelief is always a sort of a magic trick if you're dealing with aliens or superheroes, but you add a talking raccoon with a fetish for giant guns and a talking tree creature that is meant to be the emotional heart of the film, and you'd better figure out exactly how to embrace that absurdity, make the jokes that win the audience over, and use that humor to smuggle in the sentiment. If you've got an audience laughing, you've got them willing to accept things.
But if "No Jokes" is a reaction to "Green Lantern," an edict that
comes from a desire to simply do things differently from Marvel, it
could really paint DC's movies into a corner, and I would imagine that
it's giving some filmmakers pause in considering whether or not they'd
want to make a DC movie.
While I thought there were some gentle pokes at genre fans in "Man Of Steel," there's nothing in that film that I'd call a joke. There were set-ups and punch-lines in the Nolan Batman films, but I wouldn't really describe those movies as "funny" in any significant way. "Green Lantern" is the one film where they really gave a character permission to talk shit in the Tony Stark manner, fast and funny and self-aware, and where audiences seemed to love it when Robert Downey Jr. did it, they did not seem as smitten with Reynolds.
Parallax is, for lack of an easier visual description, a cloud made
of poop and mouths. It is a singularly unpleasant visual bad guy, and
when he transforms Peter Sarsgaard, he makes him into a repellent
big-headed horror movie bad guy. Considering how light some of the
sequences are, like when Hal uses his powers to make a giant green race
track to save someone, the villains feel ill-considered, like they're
from another film.
Consistency is key. You can make jokes, and in films about Superman and Batman and Green Lantern, it seems perfectly okay to make jokes because these are giant cultural icons. We have complicated relationships with these characters because of the ways we are exposed to them and which versions we read or watch or see first, and nobody has the exact same checklist of what makes Superman Superman or what makes Batman Batman. Trying to hold everyone making films for the studio to one somewhat rigid, joyless tone would be creative suicide.
So I'm going to put the question out there, and as we all talk to Zack Snyder or David Goyer or any of the actors working on these characters, I'd love to hear an answer, a firm denial. Is it true? Is DC really so gun-shy that they've laid this rule down for all of their films?
Is it really a "No Jokes" future we have to look forward to?
And if so, do you think Marvel feels like they've already won in terms of audience sympathy if this is really how things are supposed to move forward?
Oh, and there are now rumours of some delays in filming "because of certain properties" -and I have no idea what the hell that is about.
Why Superman and Batman may lose the war to Marvel before they even begin
Last week was about the fifth
time I've heard that there is a mandate at Warner Bros. regarding any of
the DC superhero films in development, and it's very simple and direct
and to the point.
"No jokes."
It would seem like a crazy rule
to set for an entire series of films. How can you know what the tone is
for every story you'll be telling in a series before you've even started
telling it? The thing is, DC has taken a few stabs at establishing this
larger universe on film, and they've gotten smacked down for everything
that hasn't had Batman in it. "Man Of Steel" made money, and I'm
certainly not the only person to like the film. I may be one of its more
ardent defenders, but I'm not alone. I think you'd have a far harder
time finding someone to defend "Green Lantern," the studio's other big
attempt at launching one of the core Justice League characters with a
film franchise of his own.
Not according to Warner/DC. Not after "Green Lantern."
Now, to be fair, no one has directly connected those dots for me. But something has caused this shift in the overall editorial voice of the DC superhero movies. There's got to be a point behind an edict as broad and as specific as that.
Here's why I have trouble believing any studio would do that. Even in the most serious of mainstream movies, some of the most memorable moments are those points where they let off steam, where a laugh is used to punctuate. In adventure movies especially, a laugh can make the difference between a movie people like and a movie people love. The right laugh can make a movie a classic. Think of that beat in "Raiders" where Indy shoots the swordsman. That laugh is not just a huge rush of relief in the middle of a harrowing and thrilling action set piece, but it's also a character-defining moment for Indiana Jones. George Lucas may have his qualms about whether or not Han Solo shot first, but Indy's no dummy; of course he's going to shoot first. That's why Indiana Jones is still alive.
Laughter also allows audiences to swallow some of the more ridiculous things that they're asked to buy into with modern event films. Suspension of disbelief is always a sort of a magic trick if you're dealing with aliens or superheroes, but you add a talking raccoon with a fetish for giant guns and a talking tree creature that is meant to be the emotional heart of the film, and you'd better figure out exactly how to embrace that absurdity, make the jokes that win the audience over, and use that humor to smuggle in the sentiment. If you've got an audience laughing, you've got them willing to accept things.
DC is going to try for some big
characters with Batman and Wonder Woman and The Flash and Cyborg and
Aquaman, and one thing that's always seemed true to me of DC comics
versus Marvel is tone. DC treats their superhero characters more like
gods, fighting battles that we simply can't comprehend or participate in
because of our natures. Even Batman, who has no superpowers, is treated
like he is a legend, an icon that he's nurtured as a symbol of fear.
Marvel characters are more flawed, more human, struggling to live human
lives while still dealing with their powers and their responsibility to
the world. And if DC finds a way to try to play their films on this
larger, operatic, hero-as-myth level storytelling, I'd be excited to see
that. I'd want to see that.
While I thought there were some gentle pokes at genre fans in "Man Of Steel," there's nothing in that film that I'd call a joke. There were set-ups and punch-lines in the Nolan Batman films, but I wouldn't really describe those movies as "funny" in any significant way. "Green Lantern" is the one film where they really gave a character permission to talk shit in the Tony Stark manner, fast and funny and self-aware, and where audiences seemed to love it when Robert Downey Jr. did it, they did not seem as smitten with Reynolds.
Instead of worrying about
something as drastic as "No Jokes," the studio should look at how
important it is to get a consistent sense of tone in one of these
movies. The reason "Guardians" manages to get away with some of its more
outrageous moments is because it tells us right up front, during that
great opening title sequence, that this is going to be fun, and it's
going to be irreverent, and it's not going to take everything deadly
serious. There are serious moments in the film, heartfelt moments, sad
moments, ridiculous moments, and big action mayhem moments. The film
does all sorts of different things, but it always seems ready to wink
and dance away, and that's what we expect from it. "Green Lantern"
didn't fail because it was funny; it failed because it had no idea what
kind of film it was. Martin Campbell goes for big broad comedy in some
scenes, and he's got a decent visual wit. He stages some of the training
stuff well, and he tries to give Oa a sense of wonder. There are images
in the film that I feel like he comes very close to pulling off, but
when he fumbles it, he really fumbles it, and the bad guy in the movie
is a disaster.
Consistency is key. You can make jokes, and in films about Superman and Batman and Green Lantern, it seems perfectly okay to make jokes because these are giant cultural icons. We have complicated relationships with these characters because of the ways we are exposed to them and which versions we read or watch or see first, and nobody has the exact same checklist of what makes Superman Superman or what makes Batman Batman. Trying to hold everyone making films for the studio to one somewhat rigid, joyless tone would be creative suicide.
So I'm going to put the question out there, and as we all talk to Zack Snyder or David Goyer or any of the actors working on these characters, I'd love to hear an answer, a firm denial. Is it true? Is DC really so gun-shy that they've laid this rule down for all of their films?
Is it really a "No Jokes" future we have to look forward to?
And if so, do you think Marvel feels like they've already won in terms of audience sympathy if this is really how things are supposed to move forward?
Man, I'm curious to get a look at "Batman vs Superman: Dawn Of Justice" on March 25, 2016.
Now, if all that sounds bad you need to read McWeeny's other great piece to see just how up their own arses these people are creatively:
Warner pits writers of 'Gangster Squad' and '300' against each other on 'Aquaman'
Warner pits writers of 'Gangster Squad' and '300' against each other on 'Aquaman'
Yeah, and you wonder why Aquaman ain't no happy sea horse!
Yes - that is the big question - just what kind of movies do they want them to be ? A movie with no humour is just a pompous mess, a movie with too much humour is just a series of in-jokes with no purpose. Getting the balance right... there's the trick.
ReplyDelete