"grim and gritty"?

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Why? Why can't Superman ever be in darker stories? Batman doesn't have such a limitation, and that's why he's enjoying more success.

Actually, that is true. Batman is far more malleable than Superman. Thematically, Superman is a very rich character but he only really works in a particular mode. The world around him can be grim (at least in theory - practically, I'm generally less sure) but then he has to be shown to be even more heroic, even more of an inspiration. Man of Steel failed at that quite badly.

Batman, on the other hand, you can do pretty much anything with, which is why he is more popular than Superman. And I say that as someone who prefers Superman.

[Powerboy]

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

I hate it because it makes me feel like I've got something stuck in my teeth.

Grim/ Dark/ Gritty is relative. A lot of people who call MoS dark and gritty don't seem to perceive, say, the Iron-Man movies that way. But by the standards of decades ago, the IM movies would be very grim.

It's also character based. People who are perfectly good with Batman being dark may not want a Superman movie to be dark and may interpret everything in a Superman movie that seems less than happy joy as dark.

Yeah it's also age-based to some degree. People lock onto a certain era that was their favorite. It may not be their childhood or even their teenage years. But somewhere along the way, they lock onto an era that resonates with them. But don't worry, this will never happen to you.

But it truly is relative. Heck, for my parents' generation, the Christopher Reeve Superman movies are too raunchy. Don't ask.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I wouldn't say that MoS is "grim and gritty". It's more joyless and cynical than anything else.

I think I would rather be Grim and Gritty than Joyless and Cynical. Goes to show, one man's treasure...

[Powerboy]

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.

Agreed. I'm 57 years old myself and I'm not some Silver Age fanboy who wants Batmite back (except in a reprint). I even liked MoS. Like you, I find it irritating when "dark" and "good" or "dark" and "realistic" are used as if they are always the same thing.

On the other hand, as I said, I liked MoS. Now it had flaws and I don't want to get into a blow by blow analysis yet again. But I liked that it seems to be the first superhero movie to take on the challenge of how people would react when such a being shows up in the world for the first time. I mean, deals with it realistically, how people would really react. I think there's an irony we sometimes miss and that's that Superman is once again the first. In this case, while Tony Stark is wisecracking and making 14 year old come-ons and the Avengers were reliving the Wonder Years, Superman was once again breaking new ground. Now that's not really a shot at IM or Avengers because I loved them. But I found MoS to be the far more innovative risk-taking venture and I found myself responding strangely to it.

At the end of it, I found myself feeling inspired by this version of Superman because he was trying to be the symbol of hope as most versions of Superman would do. But he was trying in a world setting where the entire world was not going to turn into four colors and bend over frontwards and backwards to accommodate him. People were going to react realistically but he was a guy doing the best he could do to be what he believed the world needed him to be. Somehow, that just struck me and inspired me more than a more two-dimensional world where everyone just genuflects and accepts him and never asks the questions or thinks the things people would really think.

So it is sort of six of one/ half a dozen of the other for me. I get that the last guy you want to see go the dark route is Superman. On the other hand, this is one instance where I think that instead of always equating dark with realistic, it may be a case of some people always equating realistic with dark. In other words, it is a world where people have realistic reactions when we are more used to a world where Superman's being an alien and unstoppably powerful just seems some sort of minor concern rather than the earth-shattering cause for fear and mistrust it would probably really be.

[superduperman]

To be fair, Constantine, had an awful timeslot. That was the best superhero show on television (IMO) and LEAGUES ahead of green arrow and flash, one of which I cannot stand (Hint: its the flash).

I do agree about the time slot. Still like Arrow and Flash though.

[superduperman]

Why? Why can't Superman ever be in darker stories? Batman doesn't have such a limitation, and that's why he's enjoying more success.

It's not that he can't be "darker" or more realistic but there is a proper way to do anything. Dark for the sake of dark serves no purpose. I think there is a way to do more realistic Superman stories but that's not what they did. Giving him a darker costume and having him kill his enemy at the end of the movie isn't really a story development. I pointed this out in another thread: In Dark Knight, Batman went out of his way not to stoop to the Joker's level and avoided killing him. Superman kills Zod at the end of MOS. That's not a difference between Superman and Batman, that's just wanting to make Superman "darker" for the sake of making him darker.

There are ways to make Superman more realistic. Make Toyman an assassin for hire who uses things like toy cars to blow people up. Make Parasite a virus carrier that he's immune to like Poison Ivy. Make Brainiac a sentient computer program that takes over the internet. Make Terra Man a militia leader that hates aliens living on Earth and has his eyes on Superman. There are ways to do these things that work in the real world that don't require removing all the color from the screen or killing anyone.

[Danileriver23]

I don't really see CW as being that young. It's hardly Nickelodeon or Hannah Montana. Lol.
I see it more as an early era Fox with 90210, Simpsons, Werewolf and 21 Jump Street.

Nevertheless, you may be right in that it's possibly too mature for CW. Maybe HBO, Showtime, AMC or one of the cable networks would be best suited for it.

I would sell my soul to any of the devils Constantine fights to get a his show on HBO or Showtime.

[SiegePerilous02]

It's not that he can't be "darker" or more realistic but there is a proper way to do anything. Dark for the sake of dark serves no purpose. I think there is a way to do more realistic Superman stories but that's not what they did. Giving him a darker costume and having him kill his enemy at the end of the movie isn't really a story development. I pointed this out in another thread: In Dark Knight, Batman went out of his way not to stoop to the Joker's level and avoided killing him. Superman kills Zod at the end of MOS. That's not a difference between Superman and Batman, that's just wanting to make Superman "darker" for the sake of making him darker.

There are ways to make Superman more realistic. Make Toyman an assassin for hire who uses things like toy cars to blow people up. Make Parasite a virus carrier that he's immune to like Poison Ivy. Make Brainiac a sentient computer program that takes over the internet. Make Terra Man a militia leader that hates aliens living on Earth and has his eyes on Superman. There are ways to do these things that work in the real world that don't require removing all the color from the screen or killing anyone.

MoS being darker just for the sake of it is kind of a matter of opinion, as is whether they did it properly. There are going to be long term character arcs and ramifications based on what happened in MoS. The BvS teaser makes that crystal clear if you examine everything closely and listen to the dialogue. There clearly is a purpose in mind with what happened. Many have speculated that being forced to kill Zod is going to push Clark to be the best he can be and never let things escalate to that point going forward. Again, if that happens? There was a purpose for the neck snap happening, and thusly it didn't happen just for the sake of it.

That Cracked article you paraphrased in an earlier post is also full of hyperbole. Because the Joker's costume in TDK? Actually...not brighter than Superman's, especially from the BvS trailer. At all.

[K. Jones]

Would you consider things like The Dark Knight Returns to be grim? I would, but it's packed full of humour at the same time.

Not at all. DKR has moments of grimness that are supposed to be grim, but it's totally over-the-top big silly action with a bit of that 70s/80s cinematic quality. Totally fun, good comics.

Year One, on the other hand ... grim as hell. And then with ASBAR Miller descended into parody, but I'm not willing to put it on his shoulders because I'm pretty sure the reason I don't like ASBAR much is entirely on Jim Lee's style.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

Agreed. I'm 57 years old myself and I'm not some Silver Age fanboy who wants Batmite back (except in a reprint). I even liked MoS. Like you, I find it irritating when "dark" and "good" or "dark" and "realistic" are used as if they are always the same thing.

On the other hand, as I said, I liked MoS. Now it had flaws and I don't want to get into a blow by blow analysis yet again. But I liked that it seems to be the first superhero movie to take on the challenge of how people would react when such a being shows up in the world for the first time. I mean, deals with it realistically, how people would really react. I think there's an irony we sometimes miss and that's that Superman is once again the first. In this case, while Tony Stark is wisecracking and making 14 year old come-ons and the Avengers were reliving the Wonder Years, Superman was once again breaking new ground. Now that's not really a shot at IM or Avengers because I loved them. But I found MoS to be the far more innovative risk-taking venture and I found myself responding strangely to it.

At the end of it, I found myself feeling inspired by this version of Superman because he was trying to be the symbol of hope as most versions of Superman would do. But he was trying in a world setting where the entire world was not going to turn into four colors and bend over frontwards and backwards to accommodate him. People were going to react realistically but he was a guy doing the best he could do to be what he believed the world needed him to be. Somehow, that just struck me and inspired me more than a more two-dimensional world where everyone just genuflects and accepts him and never asks the questions or thinks the things people would really think.

So it is sort of six of one/ half a dozen of the other for me. I get that the last guy you want to see go the dark route is Superman. On the other hand, this is one instance where I think that instead of always equating dark with realistic, it may be a case of some people always equating realistic with dark. In other words, it is a world where people have realistic reactions when we are more used to a world where Superman's being an alien and unstoppably powerful just seems some sort of minor concern rather than the earth-shattering cause for fear and mistrust it would probably really be.

See, I do actually like that aspect of Man of Steel but I don't see it as being quite as innovative as you are making it out to be (it's pretty much superhero deconstruction 101) and I do think it is overshadowed by all my many, many problems with the film. That said, it is an interesting idea to play with but it could have been an aspect of a much lighter, not to mention much better Superman film.

[Ilan Preskovsky]

MoS being darker just for the sake of it is kind of a matter of opinion, as is whether they did it properly. There are going to be long term character arcs and ramifications based on what happened in MoS. The BvS teaser makes that crystal clear if you examine everything closely and listen to the dialogue. There clearly is a purpose in mind with what happened. Many have speculated that being forced to kill Zod is going to push Clark to be the best he can be and never let things escalate to that point going forward. Again, if that happens? There was a purpose for the neck snap happening, and thusly it didn't happen just for the sake of it.

That Cracked article you paraphrased in an earlier post is also full of hyperbole. Because the Joker's costume in TDK? Actually...not brighter than Superman's, especially from the BvS trailer. At all.

Oh this is definitely the case. It doesn't make it better though as it feels like an unnecessary tragic add on to a character that really doesn't need it. It's much the same as having Barry Allen's mother murdered - there is purpose to the change but that doesn't mean that it actually adds to the character. I dare argue that it actually makes it worse.

[SiegePerilous02]

Oh this is definitely the case. It doesn't make it better though as it feels like an unnecessary tragic add on to a character that really doesn't need it. It's much the same as having Barry Allen's mother murdered - there is purpose to the change but that doesn't mean that it actually adds to the character. I dare argue that it actually makes it worse.

Superman already has some inherent tragedy in him. Depending on the continuity, he's either the very last or one of the very few surviving members of a doomed race, and will always stand a little bit apart from us. So it's not like he's always been a purely bright character with no somber elements before.
He's also killed plenty of times in past versions, so having him take a life isn't something the filmmakers grafted onto him. He even does it much less casually here than he does in the Golden Age or that one cut of Superman II. So they're already treating the situation with more of the gravity it warrants than the aforementioned examples.

I'm just really struggling to see how this Superman is so inherently bleaker and different than many past versions.

[Pharozonk]

I think I would rather be Grim and Gritty than Joyless and Cynical. Goes to show, one man's treasure...

Unfortunately, Batman vs. Superman looks like it's going to give us more of the same crap.

[superduperman]

Not at all. DKR has moments of grimness that are supposed to be grim, but it's totally over-the-top big silly action with a bit of that 70s/80s cinematic quality. Totally fun, good comics.

Year One, on the other hand ... grim as hell. And then with ASBAR Miller descended into parody, but I'm not willing to put it on his shoulders because I'm pretty sure the reason I don't like ASBAR much is entirely on Jim Lee's style.

Keep in mind the stuff that works for Batman doesn't necessarily work for Superman. Year One is far and away my favorite Bat-book. But would it work for Superman? Not at all. This is where I think the movies went off the rails.

[Guy1]

Marvel seems to have found the right balance between humor and realism. .

Balance?

Not the word I'd use.