Open Forum Friday: Do You Prefer Your Comic Book Movies Serious or Funny?

With the release of new trailers this week for both Green Lantern and The Green Hornet, the door has been re-opened on a long-standing debate over whether or not comic book movies can or should have a sense of humour. For many years, comic book fans had to put up with campy interpretations of their favourite heroes, and it was only in the late ’80s and early ’90s with Tim Burton’s Batman that we started to see the more dark and serious takes on some of these characters. This led to a couple of decades of overly melodramatic superhero adaptations, and a fanboy culture that would not permit anything even remotely resembling a joke in their high brow masterpieces. A couple of years ago, however, Jon Favreau was able to inject a lot of humour in Iron Man, and the result was a massive box office hit. Is it time we put the funny back in the funnybooks?

I think the obvious stance here is that it really depends on the movie and the character, and clearly there are adult graphic novel adaptations that were never meant to be goofy or fun. But when it comes to the traditional superhero flicks, even franchises that would have seemed appropriate for a more comedic take (ie. Fantastic Four) still ended up getting slammed for indulging in it. On the other hand, as great as Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies have been, their humourlessness can also be pretty oppressive at times. Personally, I think just about any major blockbuster (particularly a summer blockbuster) can be improved with some well-placed comic relief. Steven Spielberg is a master of this, and I am always open to it, as long as it is well written. What do you think? Do most comic book movies work best when they take themselves seriously, or are comics an inherently funny medium? Which superhero movies have successfully found a balance between the two? Are Green Lantern and The Green Hornet simply trying too hard to make us laugh? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Jeff

    Personally, I found the dark tone of “Archie: To Riverdale and Back Again” to be quite off-putting.

  • antho42

    Neither, I like comic book films that genre bending or unorthodox. elements.
    See:
    Battle Royal
    Scott Pilgrim
    Oldboy
    Ichi the Killer

    Although it really does depend on the source material. A serious Batman film is promising; a funny Sandman is a bad thing.

  • Armand S.

    I think it depends on the source material, but I often like my comic characters to be a bit dark. Often we see the actors playing the superheroes riffing on their own real-life character or style, such as Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man – and subsequently now, with Ryan Reynolds and Seth Rogen in their upcoming projects. Downey Jr.’s portrayal of Tony Stark worked well since there was a certain arrogance needed to start with to give it all a sense of humour, but also Downey’s skills as an actor came into play when things turned darker and more dramatic in the second half of the movie. Unfortunately, Reynolds humorous personality overtook his character in another comic franchise, in Blade III, taking away from what could’ve been a truly awesome character – though, granted, the script sucked too. Still, del Toro found the perfect balance between heroics, humour and horror in Blade II, I think.

    When Batman went DARK with Burton and then Nolan, it was the best thing that could’ve happened to the character. When we see Bruce Willis in Shyamalan’s dark, moody and existential superhero tale, “Unbreakable”, then the tone makes sense. (Oh, but if only M. Night had realized where he could’ve taken that character/superhero, then he might’ve given Nolan and Batman a run for their money).

    And so…one can only wait in anticipation to see what a director like Aronofsky does with The Wolverine!

    I’ve said this before, but I just don’t know how Frank Miller messed up (and I’m forcing myself to be polite here) the character and world of Will Eisner’s The Spirit. There was certainly a sense of humour in those comics, but also a grittiness and darkness that Miller tossed aside to seemingly to just see Scarlet Johansson and other ladies in Nazi/fetish gear prance around the set. How the creator of 300 and Sin City got it so wrong is beyond me…but then, so do many people in Hollywood when they randomly pick out a superhero comic and think they can do justice to it, or make a decent buck out of it. Whether serious or funny, sometimes just using a comic book as a movie source is bound to be as wise as wearing a cape near a running jet plane motor…you may initially look cool, but for how long?

  • Cassandra

    I love both in their own unique ways but whether it be dark or funny it needs to be done right in order to be good in either category.

  • kyri

    I like all of them mate..

    All the joys of life..

  • I agree with everyone else, it depends on the source material. We don’t need a Green Hornet film that is a comedy, and something that should be funny turned into a comedy. There are a few that should be a mix, as an example, Spider-Man.

  • Drewsifer

    I’d like to see the What If comics adapted, they’re funny takes on established comics, best of both worlds, and it still leaves room for the serious adaptions.

  • damndirtyape

    I don’t think it matters as long as it doesn’t pander or speak down to the audience.

    If the movie treats the script/story with some integrity and respect I try to be open to both serious and comedic treatments.

  • Niklas

    I like the darker comic book movies better so I’d say dark but aside from Ironman, has there been a great comic book movie that was goofy?

  • Ian

    Good topic. I just commented on my podcast during a review of the new “Sherlock” show that I enjoy just about every incarnation of Batman (possibly exceptions being the last 2 newer animated versions, though I’m sure there is nothing wrong with them per se). Really, if the themes, characters, and general formula is there then if it’s played for laughs or for some kind of dead serious reality it can still be fun. In the end it’s all about the competence of execution. In the modern world with the ironic component to “bad/good” movies I’m sure this has gotten way more complicated but I think that really the reason most of those trying to be bad to be ironically good movies just end up being bad is because they are bad.

  • rob

    personally i dont see “comic book movies” as a genre
    so comical comic book films are completely different films to action/dark ones, their source material is the only thing that ties them together

  • Ben

    @Rob. You hit the nail on the head. “Comic book movie” is not a genre. Just like “book movie” or “biographical movie” aren’t genres.

    Is history of Violence really the same genre as Iron Man? Seriously? People are dumb.

  • Comment #12—I agree, also when it comes to other arguments regarding films based on comics. You hear the “Ugh, ANOTHER movie based on a comic? When are they going to stop?” complaint a lot, but never “Ugh, ANOTHER movie based on a bestselling novel? When are they going to stop?”. Even if one does want to bunch all films based on comics into one genre, where are the people crying for the end of romantic comedies or slasher flicks, or other films of other genres that seem to recycle plots from other similar films more often?

  • GfC

    Comic Book movies can never really be that serious to work. That’s why i love The Hellboy movies. The only serious Superhero movie that has worked (and that still with big issues accepting the fact of a millionaire wearing bat-suit saving lifes) is The Dark Knight. Everything other has sucked.
    When i think about it, Hellboy 2 and The Dark Knight are the only Superhero that i have liked. The rest is nothing but garbage in my opinion.

  • GfC

    I kinda mixed comic book with superhero, but i mean what i said. I was aiming more at the comic books involving supernatural characters and worlds. Because comic books in general are not just the same old piss that you find in the stores in the US. Katza and Persepolis are examples of serious comic-books.

  • Duke Togo

    How about serious and funny in the same film? I think Sin City achieved this during Marv’s scenes. The Judge Dredd comic has quite a bit of humorous parts, well it is satire and hopefully will make it into the film. Repomen could have used a bit more humor.

  • Kurei

    Depends on the source material and which era it was adapted from. Superheros change over time.

    If youre talking about Batman, I would prefer dark gritty detective film noir Batman. But I do like my Spidermen funny. Lets hope in the new Spiderman movie he fights duckbilled men in tights, squares off against their leader, Professor Moster and calls in his trusty 60 foot mech, Leoparden.

  • marc

    Hmmm. I don’t think it matters just as long as it’s executed well.

  • Werner

    I like my movies to have the whole range of human emotions. Dark Knight was quite serious but also had its (dark) funny moments (i.e. pencil in the head).

    the better the mix the better the movie – one tone movies get boring quick

  • Maopheus

    I’d rather less humourous simply because usually when see them trying to inject humour into the movie it usually comes off groaningly bad with punch lines that you can see coming a mile, bad puns, and overall just not funny. Remember that even “Batman Begins” had more jokes in it than “The Dark Knight”. Like, “Can you drive stick?” and Gordon saying “I gotta get me one of those” when he sees the Batmobile. It seemed like someone in the WB brass told Nolan he had to throw some jokes in so he did. I think if he had his druthers he wouldn’t have put those jokes in, the movie didn’t need them.

  • I prefer a a serious one, but can have a some kind of inteligent humor like it was in TDK. A Comic Book Movie can be funny, but can’t be a joke. I think so.

  • xego

    Are there really that many comic book readers- enough to drive an entire industry? Don’t get me wrong I enjoy them like everyone else but I am just wondering what it is they aren’t making in order to pour a 100 mil into the next one. I would rather see 10 ten million dollar movies instead.

  • Comment #22—What are you asking there? I don’t quite understand. Actual comic sales don’t account for much nowadays really. Amazing Spider-Man could be canceled tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference to the mainstream all that much, as it’s all about brand recognition and merchandising. There are still the toys, t-shirts, cartoons, video games, etc., all of which make more than the comics, most of which are probably purchased by people that have never actually read a Spider-Man comic in their life. The bigger characters tend to get more money (and effort) poured into their films, because those movies have better earning potential based on name recognition, and even books with big sales don’t necessarily have that. A lot of the most iconic characters out there have spent a good part of the last couple of decades being outsold by books that would and SHOULD never become Hollywood properties. Examples: Nearly any T&A book in the early-to-mid-90’s, anything Rob Liefeld ever “created” during that same time, and any other book that was hot for 6 months before it dropped off of the face of the Earth. No matter how stuck in development hell it is, we’ll still see a Justice League movie before we EVER see Lady Death or Danger Girl.

  • Hugh

    I agree with other posters that the key is the source material.

    I keenly await a big screen adaptation of Sandman and perhaps this would work well as an out and out animation. This would allow elements of the humour, albeit very subtle and dark to be faithfully realised on the big screen.