"grim and gritty"?

[Kanon the Sea Dragon]

After read for 1.000.000 time the "grim and gritty" complain about the DCCU (with one film so far). I still dont get it
First, people use that word without content. They dont bother to explain why the thing they target its "grim and gritty".
Second, the "its grim, then its bad " doesnt work for me. Something can be dark, ligthearted, or any tone and be good , anyway.
At the end, i think people just follow a trend

[Darth Kal-el]

The Nolan trilogy was grim and since the threat was so high in MOS some say it was grim. But I didn't feel Superman was. He was the light threw the darkness of the threat. And he was just learning so I expect his light to grow no matter the threat. Kinda like the line they will join you in the sun. People are worried for little reason all DC movies will be dark because of Batman but I don't see that especially with Superman and the JL. The threat may be grim but the superheroes will guide us to the light. It's always been like that with DC heroes. Look at one example Blackest Night. It was dark but the light prevailed

[Kanon the Sea Dragon]

I agree with you. Im all for the heroes finally bringing the light to a dark world. Works more for me that they saying jokes in a world ending scenario (not offense...XD)

[Stone Cold]

There is nothing wrong with "grim and gritty". MoS was financial success and it was very good movie. The people who hated it aren't worth catering to, they are very few and old.


Truth is general audience liked MoS and they are going to fall in love with Dawn of justice and suicide squad.

[Mahzian]

"grim and gritty" is a popular crutch for fans from a bygone era, it's not the version they grew up with so they try to bring it down in an attempt to bring "their" version back

[SmokeMonster]

Yeah, it's a little annoying.

I feel the same way about people calling The New 52 as a whole grim and gritty. Maybe I just didn't pick these grim and gritty books up, whichever they were, because I never got that vibe at all, at least for characters where it'd be considered out of place.

[Prisoner 6655321]

I agree. If anything some books (Constantine) haven't been grim and gritty enough. I could understand the outrage if Superman was out killing for fun or something like that but I can't really think of many incidents in modern DC history where this is something I've seen as an issue.

[Wandacrystal22]

I HATE the word gritty now due to it being used alot.

[JBatmanFan05]

Well, DC recognized there was a problem, because now they're preaching "diversity in tone."

Whether in the comics or on screen, DC has gone too dark in certain areas, to pander, and people do their defending for them..."why it's just setting up the lighter world (which we'll never see because they'll stop with the movies before we got whole movies about that lighter world)" or etc

[Ilan Preskovsky]

As one of those old farts (33 years old) I might as well defend this particular criticism. First, yes, it is a shorthand for a number of different problems and I understand hating the term, but there are, I think, legitimate criticisms in it.

The first is a question of tone. Dark, gritty Batman or Punisher stories work on the whole because it is a tone that actually fits with the character. Aside for the occasional Elseworlds, however, it is a tone that is absolutely at odds with most superheroes. Characters like Superman and the Flash, for example, were created as symbols of hope and aspiration. and dragging them down into the mud does nothing but dilutes their power. And, sorry, but Man of Steel was not a "very good movie", it was at best a mediocre one. But as a Superman story, it was so contrary to all the things that make Superman great that it makes Superman Returns look like Superman: The Movie (well, more than it already does). Also, I really don't care how good its box office numbers were - Transformers 4 did blockbusters at the box office and only the biggest of fanboys would claim that to be a genuinely good movie. Just because millions of people see something, doesn't mean millions of people liked that thing.

The second big flaw with "grim and gritty" is that there's this idea that "dark" equals "adult". The problem I've had with so many superhero comics from the last few years is that they seem to think that by being dreary and humourless (hello, Blackest Night!) they're somehow more "mature". This is crap. Not only are these comics (and, yes, movie) tonally out of whack but they're also incredibly shallow and seem to be stuck in a state of perpetual adolescence; lacking both the innocent fun of earlier superhero titles and any real, genuine depth. Man of Steel is a million times darker and more "adult-looking" than the goofy Silver Age trappings of All Star Superman but it has absolutely none of the sophisticated storytelling, depth and soulfulness of Morrison's masterwork.

And, to be clear, I'm no Silver Age fanboy. I grew up reading superhero comics of the '80s and the '90s - that's right, the '90s! - and it's especially disheartening to see DC now repeating the mistakes of the '90s that it actually managed to avoid the first time round with comics like Waid's Flash, Morrison's JLA and Robinson's Starman (to name just a few). Except, of course, that the '90s excesses of crap like most of Image and Marvel's stable at the time and some of DC's more questionable books (Extreme Justice, anyone?) were at least noteworthy for their lame attempts to be edgy, most of the New 52 was just horribly dull.

All this said, of course, though DC still has loads wrong with its comics line, it does at long last seem to be course-correcting with a bunch of potentially interesting - and, yes, often "light" - titles coming our way. Also, while its cinematic universe looks pretty dire, at least we have top notch, tone-appropriate stuff like The Flash TV show to keep things on the up and up. And, yes, the very fact that there's finally some real diversity at DC, specifically in terms of tone and target audiences, is a good thing and offsets any remaining "grim and grittiness".

I mean, I don't actually plan to buy any of them as I'm far happier spending my money on the wonderful stuff coming from Image, but at least it looks like DC might actually have some more stuff that's actually worth reading and, perhaps even more importantly, might finally have dropped the editorial interference, which was most probably the cause of the whole mess in the first place.

[dancj]

The problem with MoS wasn't it being "grim" or "gritty". It was that it was more than a little boring. Paticularly that fight at the end where they just took turns punching each other through buildings.

Personally I have no problem with "grim and gritty" books or films. I'm happy to have that for any character including Superman - but existing alongside other books that are lighter.

I also don't see much that's "grim and gritty" about a lot of the books people complain about. You can have any amount of arms being ripped off and angst - "grim and gritty" is more about the tone of the book. The Dark Knight Returns, Dennis O'Neil's The Question, Grell's Green Arrow are the kind of things I'd give the title to.

[mdotluci]

I personally enjoy "grim and gritty". My introduction to the current DC was the New 52 Batman series. It had a very adult feel to it and I enjoyed that aspect. I enjoy Marvel books/movies but they have a kid friendly feel to them. Sometimes I want something a little more adult and DC gives me that.

[SuperiorIronman]

Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Steel

DC practically assassinated superhero movies for a few years because of the light tone and the cartoonish choices they would be wise not to retread that ground and also tonally distance themselves from the Marvel Universe which has a more happy "We know its spandex so we will just go for it films". Also see Green Lantern. Grim and Gritty is essentially DC's go to tone that they know they can't F*** up on.

[Lee Stone]

As one of those old farts (33 years old) I might as well defend this particular criticism. First, yes, it is a shorthand for a number of different problems and I understand hating the term, but there are, I think, legitimate criticisms in it.

The first is a question of tone. Dark, gritty Batman or Punisher stories work on the whole because it is a tone that actually fits with the character. Aside for the occasional Elseworlds, however, it is a tone that is absolutely at odds with most superheroes. Characters like Superman and the Flash, for example, were created as symbols of hope and aspiration. and dragging them down into the mud does nothing but dilutes their power. And, sorry, but Man of Steel was not a "very good movie", it was at best a mediocre one. But as a Superman story, it was so contrary to all the things that make Superman great that it makes Superman Returns look like Superman: The Movie (well, more than it already does). Also, I really don't care how good its box office numbers were - Transformers 4 did blockbusters at the box office and only the biggest of fanboys would claim that to be a genuinely good movie. Just because millions of people see something, doesn't mean millions of people liked that thing.

The second big flaw with "grim and gritty" is that there's this idea that "dark" equals "adult". The problem I've had with so many superhero comics from the last few years is that they seem to think that by being dreary and humourless (hello, Blackest Night!) they're somehow more "mature". This is crap. Not only are these comics (and, yes, movie) tonally out of whack but they're also incredibly shallow and seem to be stuck in a state of perpetual adolescence; lacking both the innocent fun of earlier superhero titles and any real, genuine depth. Man of Steel is a million times darker and more "adult-looking" than the goofy Silver Age trappings of All Star Superman but it has absolutely none of the sophisticated storytelling, depth and soulfulness of Morrison's masterwork.

And, to be clear, I'm no Silver Age fanboy. I grew up reading superhero comics of the '80s and the '90s - that's right, the '90s! - and it's especially disheartening to see DC now repeating the mistakes of the '90s that it actually managed to avoid the first time round with comics like Waid's Flash, Morrison's JLA and Robinson's Starman (to name just a few). Except, of course, that the '90s excesses of crap like most of Image and Marvel's stable at the time and some of DC's more questionable books (Extreme Justice, anyone?) were at least noteworthy for their lame attempts to be edgy, most of the New 52 was just horribly dull.

All this said, of course, though DC still has loads wrong with its comics line, it does at long last seem to be course-correcting with a bunch of potentially interesting - and, yes, often "light" - titles coming our way. Also, while its cinematic universe looks pretty dire, at least we have top notch, tone-appropriate stuff like The Flash TV show to keep things on the up and up. And, yes, the very fact that there's finally some real diversity at DC, specifically in terms of tone and target audiences, is a good thing and offsets any remaining "grim and grittiness".

I mean, I don't actually plan to buy any of them as I'm far happier spending my money on the wonderful stuff coming from Image, but at least it looks like DC might actually have some more stuff that's actually worth reading and, perhaps even more importantly, might finally have dropped the editorial interference, which was most probably the cause of the whole mess in the first place.

Reminds me of how people thought Vertigo (and its titles pre-Vertigo) was popular because of the crude language and violence. Things seen to a casual glancer.
Which led to the early days of Marvel Max.
If they had actually read them, they would have seen it was the depth of storytelling and richness of characters.

Dark and gritty can be used in a good story (Watchmen or 100 Bullets, for instance), but dark and gritty for its own sake does not make a book (or film) any more "adult".
If anything, an overabundance of it can actually make something appear more juvenile.
Like romance novels that forget to include a story.

[K. Jones]

It gets thrown around a lot because it's now a catch all, but I'd argue vehemently that we're not all that opposed to "gritty", it's the "grim" that pisses us off.

Like, Star Wars is gritty. The world has grit, and dirt, and feels lived in. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is gritty. It's punk as all hell, covered in graffiti and bricks and Frank Millerish angles. But you couldn't describe either of these brilliant properties as "Grim", now could you? They're incredibly fun, fantastic adventures that have moments of shocking violence here and there (whatever media) but are typically just grand adventure and hilarious character interplay.

So yeah, "GRIM" is the culprit. Cynical, fatalistic, nihilistic B.S. with no sense of humor.

There's also the follow-up term - "Grimdark". I don't really favor its use, because something being "Dark" does not automatically make it Grim. The Crow is dark as hell - supergothic - but that comic and that film are also pretty hilarious in between the moroseness, the bleakness of the kind of gothic or noir tropes.

So essentially, both "grim & gritty" or "grimdark" are language bastardizations because people want to make the word "grim" seem more emphatic by padding it with unnecessary descriptors. But grim is a potent word, man. The internet age is an age of hyperbole and click-bait, so catch all phrases tend to reign hard and stick in the cultural lexicon.

I hate grim comics and grim adaptations. That simple. But a little grit in your diet never killed anybody.