Dark And Moody Heroes?

Here, one comic book and movie fan feels that these films should adopt a much lighter tone, a la the 1960s batman movie. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, not most of it a least. I do think Nolan's take on batman was fantastic. It was dark and broody, but it hit the core of Bruce Wayne. The movie itself was almost an analogy to Wayne's own self. It took itself seriously, but for batman, that works. Sure, it's called the tumbler, but so what? This author focused on small things. I don't want to see batman holding a bomb running down a boardwalk, 1960s style. I prefer my heroes, for the most part, to have a struggle, to really have odds both personal and superhuman to overcome.

Should superman be dark and brooding? No. That's not the character. Superman and Captain America are like the extreme on the good spectrum. Tough but fair, you watch them because they embody the qualities of an ideal story hero. Iron Man, Batman, Hulk.... these guys aren't perfect, they have baggage (alcoholism, death, and anger respectively), but their flaws are what make them enticing.

As for spidey, I don't think the Sam Raimi films grounded him in reality. Actually, it felt the most true to a real life comic book. This author is confusing comic book with camp. Sure, the older Batman film was funny, but it's not the type of hero we need, but it's the one that author deserves.

Look at the comics. Our stories have matured with the times. If you read the first avengers comic, it's a struggle to truly enjoy. There's little motivation behind the villains, the heroes are so heroic it's kinda nauseating, and I never really felt a connection to them. Contrast to those same characters now, where they're more nuanced and complex.



I guess it's a personal choice. I like the movies the way they are now. Yes, "thor" was grounded in reality, and a lot of time was spent on earth. But don't we need to see why he cares this much about midgard? If he's going to leave his own world to defend ours with his life, we need to know why. And we got a lot of time on asgard. And his criticism that the bifrost should've been called the rainbow bridge? Bifrost was the term from Norse mythology, and why does it matter? Frost giants, powerful hammers, huge destroying machines, and illusions aren't fantastical enough?



And he says captain america was considered boring because he never changed. Honestly, that's sorta true, but that's who he is. A man who sticks to his morals. That's the movie you should see about him, not something dark and Nolan-esque. We need all types of heroes and villains. Extreme good (captain america, superman), flawed good (stark, wayne), flawed bad (magneto, ra's al ghul, loki) and pure bad (red skull, venom). That's what makes the world of comics so diverse.



I feel like that guys just trying to pick at something that's not that bad. Some superhero movies definitely are, but his argument of PG-style nearly flawless heroes over nuanced ones is a losing one, to me.