Differences between what Iron Man and Batman movies led to

Plugged In tells about the history of the Marvel and DC movies that first debuted over 15 years ago, and their differences:

Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, was released in 2008, the same year that Marvel’s Iron Man rolled out. Both transformed the cinematic superhero genre in their own ways. Iron Man, of course, set the table for the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, a franchise that has now earned nearly $30 billion worldwide. (And come to think of it, Iron Man’s worth a Plugged In Rewind of its own.)

The Dark Knight didn’t launch a sprawling franchise: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy (including 2005’s Batman Begins and 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises) is pretty self-contained. But it did push the boundaries of what a superhero film could be. It took the superhero out of the comics and put him into a gritty, real-world environment. It set the grim tone for many a DC superhero movie to come. It even helped change the Oscars. After it failed to get a Best Picture nomination, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences opted to include as many as 10 movies in the category. Oh, and it just happened to be the biggest blockbuster that year.

If it matters, I suspect the reason Dark Knight wasn't nominated for any specific Oscar category was because any political allegories were considered too conservative-style. Also note that Bane was originally created by conservative-leaning Chuck Dixon in the early 90s. All the same, it's very dismaying how by this point, Batman's bleak vision has not only become the norm for entertainment at the expense of Superman's brighter vision, it's even spawned only so many pointless spinoffs like the recent Joker films, and now we have a problem with villany being glamorized. That's one more reason why the obsession with darkness isn't healthy. I also blame filmmaker Zack Snyder in part for where we've wound up. And the Marvel film franchise is slipping now too.

As for putting a superhero into a gritty environment, unfortunately, that seems to be the widespread belief it's the only valid way to explore the products of a surreal concept, and it sure hasn't helped comicdom in the long run. It's also vital to consider that much of the problem dates back to the mid-90s when Emerald Twilight and Zero Hour were published. At this point, based on the how things have ended up under corporate influence, it's clear the problem will not be solved while creations owned by conglomerates remain under their ownership.

I suppose the reason Nolan's take on Batman works as well as it does is because when he filmed his takes, the levels of PC weren't what they've since become, which has affected Batman as much as many other such franchises. Even so, it's still a terrible shame nobody would try to do for Superman from an optimistic angle at the time what Nolan did for Batman. And today, the chances such a Superman movie could be made that could be viewed as favorable to concepts conservatives support are next to nothing. Even Iron Man stands no chance of being made as a film with a viewpoint favorable to capitalist metaphors these days.