Jared Leto's Joker... I don't hate it

Let me be perfectly honest with you all: when they release publicity stills of a halfway decent Harley Quinn for this Suicide Squad film only then will I permit myself to hope. I have been burned too many times by DC's film publicity looking good.

And this certainly looks good. Its an interesting twist on the Joker, even if I think the “damaged” tattoo across his forehead is a bit on the nose. Truth be told, I want to like it because it is different from the usual portrayals of the Joker and DC doesn't tend to go in for innovation with their films when there's perfectly dreadful Frank Miller interpretations to copy (though the publicity still does go for the next worst thing: referencing Brian Bolland's cover for The Killing Joke).

Also, its not like Leto was ever going to get a fair hearing from a lot of quarters, taking over the role from the practically sainted Heath Ledger is the definition of a lose-lose scenario: Leto could play it like Ledger and be judged an inferior tribute act or he could turn in a new interpretation that would inevitably be compared to Ledger anyway, probably negatively.

And I just plain want these films to be good. I don't like this constant expectation I have that the DC Cinematic Universe will suck forever. Green Lantern had way too much clunky exposition and spent all its money in all the wrong places but it wasn't disastrous. The Chris Nolan Batman films were all entertaining the first time round even if none of them really stand up to repeat viewings. Man Of Steel was an absolute disaster on almost every conceivable level but it had visual spectacle to spare.

At the end of the day, though, the DC Cinematic Universe has only had one movie (two if Green Lantern turns out to be canon) and Nolan has left the building. There really isn't much to judge this project by. What there is to judge it by is a complete trainwreck that its hard to fathom how it got made, I admit, but the point stands.

Well, and the Batman v. Superman trailer of grimness.

And the fact DC have commissioned Frank Miller to write The Dark Knight 3 as a practical tie-in.

And that oh so very 90s Aquaman design they released to the press.

This is going to suck forever, isn't it?

Batman v Superman v Frank Miller

The Batman v Superman trailer, then...

No, just no. Dismal and dark and “Can you bleed? You will.”, oh dear. Its not like I was expecting anything else, this is DC Warner we're talking about, but there was the slightest glimmer of hope in my mind that Chris Nolan's departure might have changed things a little.

Nope. The closest thing to levity in this trailer was the fact that Ben Affleck seems to be wearing the Batman costume from The Lego Movie...

And all of this because The Dark Knight Returns is, for some bloody reason, still the touchstone for writing Batman. Can we just get over this, please? It isn't that The Dark Knight Returns is bad, as such, though it isn't to my tastes. Rather, its that it has this horrible gravity in the minds of Warner Bros. where it seems to be seen as the “real” Batman from which all other interpretations are just deviations unworthy of discussion. And of course the most flashy component of the Frank Miller Batman is his apparent total philosophical opposition to Superman instead of their being friends who disagree on methods, which is the far more common interpretation in the source material.

It's not like I'm hoping for the Adam West interpretation to make a comeback but I was hoping for some sign of influence from, say, Batman: The Animated Series where Batman was dark and grim but functionally human and capable of smiling.

But everyone likes Frank Miller because his version of Batman appeals to that oh so Nineties desire to make comics dark and mature, which in the minds of far too many are the same thing and... can we just get over it? The culture war here is kind of won and we nerds don't need our nerd media to pretend at maturity to pursue a vague sense of cultural acceptance because we have the cultural acceptance already.

What's truly baffling about this all is DC are actively trying to imitate Marvel's interlinked film continuity without imitating the things that made people want to watch the individual films. Marvel's films, whilst often having dark themes and subplots, are always pitched as fun films. People go to see the fun films and like them so much that they'll invest the time and money to follow them as a serial. DC are just offering the serial without the fun.

Maybe the logic is that DC doesn't want to “just” imitate Marvel and this dark, washed out aesthetic is an attempt to be different. Or maybe, as SallyP pointed out to me in comments when I talking about “sinking” Marvel Studios last week, DC Warner are just plain embarrassed by the fact that they're making films about superheroes. I know it sounds strange when you first say it but it makes sense to me, after all why inject grimdark into Superman of all characters except to lessen the embarrassment of something as “immature” as a wish fulfillment figure in red pants?

Even in this they could learn lessons from Marvel. Marvel don't usually make “superhero” films, really. Captain America was a straight war film that happened to feature a superhero, the Iron Man films were techno thrillers, The Winter Soldier was a conspiracy thriller and so on.

Its sad to think, though, that DC are embarrassed by their own properties especially considering there's no need to be. They own some of the most recognisable superheroes on the planet and, unlike Marvel, they own all their own film rights but they only really do Batman because Batman can be done grim and dark and “adult”. Marvel is at peace with its silliness and the artefacts of its past. Marvel will make a film with a talking raccoon and his talking tree sidekick or aliens who are really the Norse gods, they even did Captain America with a total lack of irony.

DC, meanwhile, have such trouble with getting an angle on Superman that they've had to bring Batman (and several other characters) into the second film to save the series. Its sad, really. 

What can sink Marvel Studios?

This past week the director of DC's upcoming (we hope) Wonder Woman movie quit. The official reason was “creative differences”. The unofficial reason, of course, is that this project is fucking cursed and we will never see this movie happen. At least, that was my initial reaction.

It may not be completely irrational but I do tend to assume disaster on the part of DC's film offerings. True, they have a very long history of not being able to make anything other than Batman work on film but it isn't entirely fair to assume failure for everything they do.

The converse, of course, is Marvel Studios who seem almost incapable of critical failure. So I reach the assumption that losing a director on a legendarily hard prospect of a film might sink the film, if not seriously dent DC's Justice League masterplan but what could sink Marvel's efforts, in theory?

Because one of the odd things about Marvel Studios is that its an absolute machine. The machine is run by talented individuals but seems to have enough redundancy that it can survive losing them. Edgar Wright quit Ant-Man in a way pretty similar to this Wonder Woman situation yet the new director's trailer has character and humaour to spare. Yes, its a trailer and will have most of the best bits cherrypicked for it but there were at least enough good parts to make a cool trailer. Its not like the bedevilled by rewrites and reshoots mess that Fox's recent Fantastic Four represented.

So what else is there?

They've long passed the point of relying on any name recognition beyond “Marvel Studios”. They made a success out of Guardians Of The Galaxy and, in partnership with Pixar, Big Hero Six. These are comics a lot of comic fans hadn't heard of, let alone the general public who could be relied up on to know who the Hulk or Captain America were.

Actors quitting? The Iron Man, Thor and Captain America films are all ending after the third instalment with Marvel's post-Age Of Ultron slate designed to introduce new properties. Even when Thor: The Dark World was impacted by poor actor availability it was entertaining and I'm saying this about what I consider the weakest Marvel film. True, they lost Natalie Portman to dissatisfaction after Dark World but we'll see how that plays out in Ragnarok.

Will it be when they give up on their cherished “loyalty” to the source material? We passed that Rubicon with Guardians Of The Galaxy which massively rewrote the history of most of its main characters and even ignoring that Big Hero 6 was practically a new IP it had so little to do with the original comic. Hell, looking closely at most of their films massive liberties have been taken with almost every character they've used and the supposed loyalty is mainly cosmetic. Of all the headlining characters I'd say only Captain America is a functionally perfect replica of the comics version.

Will they spread themselves too thin? They've released eleven films and three TV shows so far with a five year plan for another twelve films and three shows on the books over the next five years.

Honestly, there's only one thing I think can actually sink Marvel and its the reason I think they have done so well and banked so much good will:

I think this ride ends when it stops being fun. Essentially, if there's a secret to Marvel's success compared to Fox, Sony and Warner its that the people working on these films want to be working on these films. I'm not claiming every Marvel film is a passion project but there's a level of enthusiasm in the finished project that's lacking in a lot of other superhero films, especially the ones made just to satisfy contracts like The Amazing Spider-Man or even the generally better X-Men films. In those stakes DC has the potential to be the worst offender, which is where the real worry about Justice League and its planned spin-offs come in.

Because ultimately its being done to beat Marvel at Marvel's game. I genuinely believe that done right and with the correct level of passion DC has the superior product. Whatever else might be true about the two companies its DC that owns the most famous superheroes in the world: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman. It absolutely baffles me its taken this long to get a Wonder Woman project off the ground (...ish) because on name recognition alone Marvel has nothing comparable. Their female headlining project? Captain Marvel. Captain chuffing Marvel!

Yeah, I like Carol Danvers fine and she's a real success story for Marvel, this is a movie that deserves to happen but Marvel has a very thin bench for female protagonists compared to DC. Carol genuinely is the best choice that isn't just a woman from a team or the female version of a more recognisable male hero (She-Hulk, otherwise, would be a better choice, in my view).

If I'm not putting this across well: I want the Wonder Woman film to happen, I want it to be good, but I do worry that Warner's historic inability to make anything beyond Batman work worries me.