>>212729246
And I'm telling you, they were not. There was exactly one film out that matched your version of things, The Avengers, 2012. A turning point, yes, but not an overnight realignment. That's not how things work. The early 2010s was inundated with Nolan-chasing grimdark takes, looking for that sweet sweet TDK money. That it was The Avengers that not only got that TDK money, but far surpassed it, was a SURPRISE to many people in 2012. You're totally ignoring history here.. A lot of people dismissed the Avengers film as an inevitable folly by Marvel Studios. "No one knows the Avengers team, they know the Justice League", "No X-Men or Spider-Man, it's doomed with audiences". Doubts about Joss Whedon being chosen as writer and director. Doubts that a comic book crossover universe could even work, doubts that the tones of the different heroes could mix. Thor and Captain America 1 didn't light the box office on fire, they both did "fine". Broke even. Captain America had to be called The First Avenger in some markets because they feared those wouldn't react well to a hero called "Captain America". The Incredible Hulk didn't even do that, it flopped. The only actual success was Iron Man, and even then, the sequel while a success got complaints about the Avengers setup aspects (in hindsight it's like two scenes, quite overblown, the film has other more pressing issues) supposedly dominating it.
That the Avengers film not only got good reviews for working as a teamup introduction and as a fun summer blockbuster, but smashed records all over the place and turned out audiences in droves, was a huge shock to the system in Hollywood, it was a big gamble and it paid off. Dismissing all that as "oh the audience were in QUIP MODE" because Man of Steel had a mixed reception is disingenuous at best.
Hell, even in Marvel, Daredevil was very much dark and gritty, and that was a big hit with audiences because it was quality. That's 2015, well after The Avengers and Man of Steel.
