That worries me a little...
Quoted for Truth. The industry needs to divorce itself from the idea that dark = serious or quality, so do many viewers and audiences. Those qualities do not have to go hand in hand. It may have worked for some films, but every film and franchise is different and should be treated differently. I've been saying this for a long while now, but even a little bit camp can make a movie great, fun, and memorable. If comedy needs a straight man for the jokes to have impact, the same can be said in reverse. If a mostly serious movie has a little bit of camp, then suddenly the seriousness has some weight to it.
Think Digimon Adventure vs. Digimon Tri. In the Adventure franchise , they're just children and they don't comprehend the full scale of the fresh hell that could happen if things go to hell, but by Tri, they've gotten more grown up and as a result, are reserved and terrified at what the implications of their actions will affect on the world. Then there's Green With Evil, and that shatters it a little bit, but Lord Zedd's arc utterly erodes the sense of childhood they all had. They realize they're in a full scale galactic war that if they completely screw up, it's curtains for the entire human race. Do or not do, there's no try. This isn't saying that teenagers are dumb or anything, but as a teenager and many of them, they perceive themselves as immortal and indestructible while also kind of dumb and melodramatic. Having that blanket stripped away, and see how the Rangers handle it and basically use the idea of Power Rangers as a metaphor for growing up. Although I believe I'd probably drop out and get a succeeding director after the third to carry on the universe, because my ideas after that are just entirely rough and dark for the sake of being dark, unless I return back to it.
As a teenager, I really loved darker stories and to this day, I still do, I feel that both can be used when it works the best for that specific character. When I see something that's darker than its source, it just cries to me that it's lazy and bereft of actual creative vision. Hell, movies have gotten so dark that the director of Suicide Squad had to go to therapy on the side while making the film. Mind you I've enjoyed works from authors such as Hideaki Anno who created things as a result from their depression, while many creatives are fueled by such states, it's another for an entire crew to be depressed by the production. And maybe the director's cut is superior to the theatrical, I don't know.
The point is that's what's wrong about modern film-making in my opinion. While I know there's been many reasons why studios hindered or watered down directors' and crews' visions for movies to fit an age group, I feel that in some ways, it's actually a great id. For example, the original story for Jorge Gutierrez's "The Book of Life" was according to the director, a Rated R story that had a depressing and darker end. Many Toku in the same vein started out as very dark stories, if we look towards Kamen Rider being based from Skull-Man, or Ultra-Man around the mystery series Ultra Q and Redman. I'm not sure if I'm particularly this exactly how I intend to, but all of these stories were pared down not only by studios but by their own creators, which allowed us to have the many thing we enjoy. While that the inherent grim-darkness might sound great on paper, in execution, it can sound as childish if there are no balancing between a few comedic elements as you've mentioned yourself.
Like developing an immunity to chili peppers, darkness is just typical and doesn't have the flavor because it's not the darkness that is the best part of these films, much like the spiciness of foods is why Latin or Indian cuisine are rich. It's the fact that they got engaging characters, arcs and plots that you care about in them that made them great. While I was the aforementioned teenager that did write darker material, it's because I was starting out and I equivocated it to that because of age and because it seemed cooler. Relying on only one formula to interpret every kind of movie in such a way is quite dumb. Just to point the ludicrousness of this fad, I can only imagine a grimdark remake of My Little Pony or Kimba the White Lion that are basically Watership Down. I believe audiences are tired of these movies as they are of reboots, but Hollywood is usually a year or two behind.
While darkness is inherent in many stories, and I don't mind those elements being explored by movies, books or anywhere else for that matter, you can actually find the story that needs to be told when it has more layers and given a place, when restrained. Many of my favorite television series, animated and live action alike, are dark or have elements of dark in them, but what keeps them from becoming mediocre is that they come from a place where the characters feel genuine, there's mystery, there's lighter comedic elements that also humanize and make us feel attached to the characters. Feel for them. Let's look at what Batman v. Superman did wrong. Tonally they wanted it to be as dark as the Nolan Batman films, but then the characters themselves feel either like childish caricatures, or there are off moments where cartoonish elements such as the Batmobile chase which aren't meant to balance anything, only feel off or a separate movie entirely. Most of the movie honestly is a caricature of what I incredibly dislike about the larger DC universe, aside from Batman. None of the characters make you concerned for their safety, nor do they inspire anything or impart. Apparently you can't have Superman stand for freedom , justice and the American Way because his parents have to be sociopaths that drilled it in his mind that he should let people die, kill people, and not even try to find a better solution for problems and help the world. So as a result, he has to float in front of vulnerable people who are on top of their flooded homes like some jerk.. He's like Light Yagami from Death Note , but with superpowers and isn't a completely murderous, self righteous jerk. Batman doesn't fare much better, and yet again,I have to point out on the completely moronic idea of ditching the entire Nolan trilogy's universe. Basically everything that revolves around Batman or his acid trip hallucinations is off in my opinion, like the conflict in between the two.
There's no conflict or reason why I should even care about them as characters. Why should I root for a hero, who has far more resources and intel than a reporter at the Daily Planet, that can't put it together that Superman is Clark Kent, but Lois can? Why should I care for a moronic Batman who kills people for no good reason, to not be killed by Superman? There's no way to be invested in these characters, and its depressing when the villains are far more interesting, dynamic and can feel their stakes, than the heroes we SHOULD be rooting for. This is why I immensely dislike origin stories,especially for characters the public knows at large about. While it depends on execution, it's just become an utter crutch. There's nothing telling why Superman's a hero when they get into the best DBZ fight ever, destroy all those buildings and whatnot, and it being his origin story on top of that? That would be like making a Power Rangers movie about the origins of the Rangers while they're fighting Lord Zedd. It's too rushed, the characters don't get enough time to breathe and you wind up mindlessly watching destruction porn that amounts to nothing in the narrative.
Doing too many things at once is not the wisest thing to do when making a movie franchise, which I can give credit to the Power Rangers crew for not tacking the Green Ranger into the plot, or dismissing the idea of cameos for this initial film. While the latter is more about this film standing on its own two feet, the former is just plot balance. Maybe it could be handled like that, but we didn't get Harry Osborn become the Hob Goblin in the Raimi Trilogy so quickly. Harry had to evolve into the character, and be around the main cast and be friends with them, while creating a double life where he wanted to kill Spider-Man to avenge his father. Actually, Franco's Harry is basically how Tommy should be in a reboot. While also good to have him transfer there, Tommy being a close friend to some of the Rangers early on would frame the double life and confrontation with more emotional turmoil than the show was able to tackle. It's very easy for a teenager to fear that their best friend might be talking behind their back or betray them. Now find out that your best friend wanting to kill you and take your powers, and there's nothing you can do about it without revealing your secret in a post 9/11 world where at least one of the parents sees their son as a disappointment? Imagine the other discovering your "screw-up" of a son is actually fighting aliens invading the planet with his friends, and now having to fear the fact that he might die any day, alongside the reality of alien invaders over the horizon if he and his friends fail? I wonder if they'll talk about the American government being involved during or after in sequels, because Green With Evil's story done like this will probably one-up this upcoming movie, assuming this one is financially successful and good.
Then again, Green with Evil was one of the better stories of MMPR to begin with.
If I wanted edgy, I'd go back and read some emo poetry or go to Hot Topic circa 2005 before they went scene. It's quite telling there hasn't been a Paul Verhoeven-esque figure that deconstructs and ridicules dark edgelord adaptations of superheroes that doesn't sound as puerile as the Power/Rangers short.
P.S. Also check out the Passion of the Nerd. His Buffy commentaries are just amazing.