Why does DC invite controversy?

Let's just get this out the way: I'm not talking about the comics. Argument could be made Marvel and DC are equally as bad in that respect, so we're not talking about those. No, what we're talking about today is their Cinematic Universe. I trust we can all guess what brought this on: The Joker reveal. And don't get me wrong: I'm neutral about the Joker's design. I want to see what he does before I judge. The 'Damaged' tat is the only thing that really throws me. But it got me thinking: Why does DC invite controversy?

It's not a matter of them simply BEING controversial, as in you can't do their movies WITHOUT being controversial, you can't do what they're doing without stirring up controversy, you can. But they aren't. They're never (or at least rarely) taking the easy route, the obvious decision, the fan pleaser. Instead, they do quite the opposite, as evidence, I'll present a comparison on the respective controversies of the two big competitors: DC and Marvel. Note these are not representative of my opinions, simply what I've observed. The list may be incomplete or omit things as a result of that.

DC

• Man of Steel (All of it, not going into detail over each little thing that caused controversy)
• Batman v. Superman (Before Man of Steel 2 or a new Batman movie)
• The Justice League in Batman v. Superman
• Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman
• Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor
• Khal Drogo as Aquaman
• Ben Affleck as Batman
• Will Smith as Deadshot
• Suicide Squad before Justice League
• Tattooed Joker
• General Tone

Marvel

• The Mandarin
• Tony Stark making Ultron
• Hank Pym not being Antman
• Ultron saying 'Omelettes'
• General Tone

Marvel's had some controversy, but rarely anything as early as casting announcements. And generally when they show off a character, reaction tends to be favorable. Yet with DC, every step they make seems to generate waves of controversy. Arguments, fights, what have you, it seems they can barely mutter a word without being told they're wrong. So the question is: Are they doing this on purpose? Are they INTENTIONALLY going out of their way to stir s*** up? And if so, for what reason? Just to generate press and get news out there? To differentiate themselves from the comic-on-camera style of Marvel?

Or is this all completely by accident? Are they just trying to make good movies and all of this completely takes them by surprise?

Why does DC invite controversy?

Because they can.

They don't. People will just complain no matter what.

I honestly think it's because DC's movie are coming after Marvel's, so everything they do is so heavily criticized. DC is obviously taking a much different approach, and are trying to create something different from what we've seen before. For some reason, people hate that and just want to insult every piece of news they read. I, on the other hand, am always welcome to new ideas, and don't judge things before I see the final product.

DC just takes more risks with their movies. It's a good thing.

The Joker having tattoos is like the least controversial thing ever

controversy sells

DC/WB are a bit more willing to take more liberties than Marvel. But people will always complain with DC no matter.

Controversy creates cash. The new joker does suck though. I'm not sure why DC makes half the decisions they do.

DC > Marvel.

After seeing Marvel stuff over and over people have mentality of comparing them and that's where the controversy comes...DC is not trying to go page by page comic book stuff like Marvel (minus the jokes)...DC just taking the character and some of the story arcs and trying put it in a real world scenario...that causes some tension....Also seeing Marvel do their thing people want some change see some DC stuff and there is huge expectation from the characters so anything slightly below it causes internet blowout...even for a pic...I like DC's take more....But there are no movie out there about which everybody unanimously praised...u can't please everyone....

Agreed. A lot of what the MCU did was take their characters and just plop them in a live-action setting. What the DCCU seems to be doing is simply taking elements from the characters and going in a different route with a lot of other things.

For example, they take the iconic green hair, pale skin, and whatnot, but then they twist everything else we think we know about Joker so we're not really sure what we're getting. We knew what we were getting with Loki and from pretty much the outset. (Not that either approach is bad. I like Loki (he's actually my favorite Thor character, and arguably favorite MCU character.)

Or take Deadshot. Not trying to cause a racial thing, but that's what it was. They offered us something nobody was expecting and it drew some ire at first. It's died down, since then. I'm not sure if Thor got this kind of treatment when I saw they were going to have an African-American playing Heimdall, but I digress.

I'm thinking people were just expecting "OK, we'll get "this" version of Superman from the comics," and DC didn't do that. They gave us a Superman who was unsure of himself, was hiding from people, arguably had no idea what he was doing and in the span of about a day he's a global phenomena. Thrust into the spotlight, in a sense, with his pants (Metropolis) down.

The fan pleaser thing? That's so subjective, I can't even address that, because a fan please for me would have been far different than another person. (Hypothetically,) I want John Cena as Guy Gardner for a Green/Red Lantern movie, someone else wants Aziz Ansari as Simon Baz in Green/Red Lantern movie. So...who do you go with? (And yes, I know Aziz and Simon are not of the same race, but again, hypothetically.)

DC isn't playing it safe. Some would say they can't afford to. Me? I'm just waiting to see where all this has us by 2020.

@jonsmith: What about Ezra Miller as Flash? That kinda made me upset...

I honestly don't care about fan reaction to anything outside of the movies. However, based on MoS and the BvS trailer, WBDC definitely isn't afraid of making controversial decisions. Say what you will about it, but MoS was a gutsy movie to present a non-traditional interpretation of Superman.

Marvel is playing pretty safe with their universe: backtracking on killing major characters, avoiding Tony's alcoholism, not using Hank Pym because of the character's association with wife-beating. Hell, they made a WWII movie set in Europe without showing a swastica

Because it gets people talking.

The other(except for WW who has a small part)Justice league member will have small cameo appearance in BvS so people keep whining that they don't enough time for everyone make me laugh

Because they think they know what the audience wants better than the audience does.

This.

Because Dc wants to make their universe distinguishable from the MCU as well as venture out into new territories with their characters and mythos, this could lead to interesting results but the process could be nerve racking for some.

Because if it's not my way, it's wrong, damn it.

I never really had too much of a problem with their casting until they didn't cast Bryan Cranston as Lex Luthor. He even said he was interested in the role and would have accepted it if offered IIRC. Instead they chose Eisenberg over freakin' Heisenberg. Cranston is an amazing actor to say the least, certainly looks the part, and even liked the character and I mean honestly he's getting up there in age so we may never get this opportunity again. I felt like this was like someone knocking on a person's door to offer them a million dollars only for that person to slam the door in their face. I like Jesse Eisenberg as an actor but still, c'mon.