We’ve written about the problem of tone in superhero properties before. Ironically, the issue seems reversed on TV where DC’s association with the CW has meant its well-received shows have mostly been a sight sunnier and more family-friendly than their recent live-action cinematic output, while Marvel’s partnership with Netflix has led to an increasingly blandly dour formulation, as if they have to scratch their “dark n gritty” itch there, just because they can. Whatever the case, on the big screen the gunmetal look and register has rapidly become as associated with the DCEU as a Tony Stark putdown is with the MCU. It’s as though this is the only way that anyone’s going to know one from the other, at a glance.
But hang on a second. Why is it so desperately important that each artifact from these two rival universes be immediately identifiable as coming from its parent company? The reason there was so much surprise around the Whedon “Batgirl” news was not just that a guy with ties to one corporation was going to go work for another. It’s Whedon’s style, his brand of movie making, the signature flourishes he brings that feel so fundamentally at odds with the grim-face, constipated tone that DC have consciously espoused. Either Whedon is going to turn in the least Whedon-y film ever–in which case why hire him–or he’s going to make the least Snyderverse DC movie to date. The fact that “Batgirl” is already being billed as “standalone,” and indeed the fact that canny operator Whedon has been burned by lack of creative control before, and would presumably not be moving ahead here if there were not some sort of creative freedom agreement in place, suggests the latter.
Fortunes yoyo, and the only constant in the blockbuster movie business is change. Indeed it’s possible that the Whedon hire is only the most dramatic development to have occurred as a result of the DCEU’s own internal change that happened in the middle of last year. Geoff Johns took over the co-pilot seat for the WB/DC collaboration, as so many of the other projects he’ll be stewarding were already set up by then. Maybe this is his big shot across the bows, his bid for DC to steal some thunder from Marvel by being the first of either to work in some tonal variety to their output—in a manner that has proved so successful for other universes. Take the separate, though Marvel-spawned “X-Men” universe which has recently stretched its IP format to include the crude, meta, hyperjokey “Deadpool” and the ferocious, melancholic death growl that was “Logan“—both of which have been hugely successful despite hardly being on waving terms with respect to the stories they tell. Or take the other big Cinematic Universe in town, ‘Star Wars,’ and note how tonally and narratively different last December’s billion-dollar spin-off “Rogue One” was from the previous year’s main-brand ‘The Force Awakens.‘
Variety within cinematic universes is an idea whose time has come and it seems to us it can only be a good thing. Contrary to popular opinion–which probably sees us as a bunch of paid Marvel shills or whatever (there’s a whole ‘nother universe of parallels between our current climate of political partisanship and the increasing polarization of many of our culture wars)–it would be a real pleasure to be able to cheer on a DCEU property. If only due to the creeping feeling we have that whenever we engage in a Marvel vs DC battle (ie whenever we mention either entity), we’re actually doing The Man a favor. Because each time we rise to that bait, we’re being distracted from the actual enemies — bad film-making, cynical decision making, risk-averse judgement-by-committee etc — and giving fuel to the impression that this massive commercial, corporate smackdown is the only show in town.