Misunderstood mythology of superheroes by Bea
I am not privy to WB executives’ way of reasoning and assessment, but I think two points can be made – one concerns studio integrity and is quite obvious. The other one concerns target audiences for DCEU movies, and is more of a speculation. It is clear now that WB executives have treated Justice League movie as a consumer product that can be altered just to fit expectations, not the work of art. In 2016 and 2017 WB had my enormous respect for allowing directors to follow their visions with MoS, BvS and Suicide Squad (even if there was some meddling with Suicide Squad). For the first time in my life, I actively and purposefully supported the big film studio (even watching more movies produced by WB than I initially intended) – for their integrity, devotion to art, and taking risks. It was so rare and precious in the world where money is the only goal that big studios want to achieve. I feel like a fool now and there is little consolation in the fact that I wasn’t the only person who was fooled.
WB prides itself to be a filmmaker-driven studio and managed to attain a great reputation. As Jude Brennan pointed out in her article for Forbes:
““As custodian of the DC Comics universe and the champion of the filmmakers they have supported over the years, the WB is known as a haven for the edgily creative, a home for maverick talent and above all a place where risks can be taken despite all odds against box office success,” noted Paul Dergarabedian, Senior Media Analyst for the boxoffice tracking firm comScore. “As far as DC Comics, there seems to be a social media fueled backlash against the studio by some of the fanboys and fangirls, who rather than praising the studio for swinging for the fences, throws barbs and offers Monday morning quarterbacking to make the movies less dark, less dour and more light-hearted.”” (19).
When J. Brennan’s article was published (Aug 10, 2016) the Ultimate Cut of BvS was released and Suicide Squad hit theatres. She mentioned: “But consider how sly the W.B is – yes it listened, appeased its base with some changes and then released Snyder’s three-hour, R-rated director’s cut [….] Its play spoke volumes. Strikes for critics vs. results from targeted audience: 2.” (ibidem). At the time it seemed that WB was following the rules of a filmmaker-driven studio and was targeting a specific audience instead of making family-friendly products with a wide appeal.
““Warner Bros., like every other studio has to be true to its roots, its specific point of view and most importantly, its long term legacy,” notes Dergarabedian. “There is an unflinching devotion to the craft of moviemaking at Warner Bros. that has been a part of their filmed division’s DNA since the very beginning of its storied history as the edgy purveyor of gangster movies, the studio of James Cagney and later the supportive home to many great directors including Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Ridley Scott and the home base for some of the biggest film franchises of all-time like Dirty Harry, The Lord Of The Rings, Harry Potter & Lethal Weapon. To be fair, some of the criticisms are valid and should be given respectful consideration, but at the end of the day it’s always better to be authentic rather than imitative, genuine rather than trendy and above all, loyal to the filmmakers that have produced the body of work over the years that have given the studio its true identity.” He’s right. Studio legacies are important [….] Warner Bros.? Dark and brooding bad boys who usually turned out to be the most interesting and challenging super heroes, unforgettable anti-heroes and most definitely, relatable reluctant heroes. Maybe that’s why it brandishes a shield for a template. May it remember to use it now to deflect the blows and remain true to itself, the WB we know. Otherwise it risks becoming a second-rate everybody else.” (ibidem).
Jude Brennan’s words are like prophecy now, because WB compromised their integrity and long-standing legacy of producing risky, unique movies that had great impact on cinema. It doesn’t matter that many people would dismiss it as “just a capeshit”, because it’s a betrayal of people who put their love and effort to make this movie as well as fans all over the world. It’s more than just fun and entertainment, but an eighty year old legacy that is important for many people. It isn’t humanly possible to satisfy everybody with the portrayals of these iconic characters – there are too many versions and preconceived notions that would always create backlash (especially for Superman) (20). It’s inevitable, but bold choices are necessary in order to re-invigorate and re-define the character for a new generation, with the old versions losing their relevance and appeal. DCEU doesn’t need studio executives or a producer who assure that every movie has the same tone and structure or force filmmakers to fulfill their expectations. It needs unique voices of directors and variety of approaches. There could be funny action comedies for pure entertainment, sci-fi and fantasy, but also dramas exploring important, also philosophical, themes.
We have come to the crux of the matter – the main reason, in my opinion, of the specific perspective adopted by so many critics and audiences. It’s evident from the examples I’ve provided that too many critics are convinced that superheroes are ridiculous, and the DCEU movies should be just a bright diverting entertainment, loose with a side of self-knowing wit, even a joke delivery system that plays to the cheap seats, following a winning combination of the “golden standard of superhero movies” and delivering geeky fun to twelve-year-old boys (in theory, the target audience). This target audience means directors should adapt a standard of a man falling on a woman’s chest at least once, and jokes like the one about a god who created penises, because that’s what entertains twelve-year-old boys and makes them laugh. Of course, it doesn’t have the same impact on the twelve-year-old girls – I know that my daughter cringes and rolls her eyes watching such events, but admits that her classmates (boys) find them funny and entertaining.