Every Superhero Film Ever

[OverratedSanity]

Zorax is turning into low rent Burgey. What a wannabe.

 

[zorax]

Don't you man-children have to go watch some movie about spiderpig or something

 

[Shri]

No ****. Go watch a Star War.

 

[honestbharani]

Superheroes are for kids

The fact that a bunch of adults decided to not grow up past it, and instead decided to flesh it out and add depth and nuance, doesn't change the fact that they're still messing with a genre invited for pre-teens.

They're ****ing superheroes. Men and women in funny costumes with inhuman powers fighting far-fetched villains with inexpiable technology and alien civilizations and time travelling and all sort of ****.

You can have nuance and depth and fleshed out storylines and still be based in reality. You don't need to obsess yourself with fake universes and imaginary characters

The greatest hypocrisy to me is a fan of superheroes who is also an atheist. Like seriously man? You don't see what you're doing there?

I go to Sabarimala every year.

 

[Athlai]

Are you interested in animated ones How? Mask of the Phantasm was a pretty significant one.

 

[Daemon]

I never said Superhero movies don't have depth and all that good ****. It just shits me that people aren't sick of them yet. I think it's that same hatred that a lot of non GoT fans have with the show. There are obviously other choices out there and I can just ignore it, but it's just constantly being shoved in my face.

I want more of something real like Fences and I, Daniel Blake because I'm super hipster

 

[Uppercut]

Rise-fall-redemption is just an incredibly powerful formula. It clicks with the human brain in the same way that verse-chorus-verse-chorus-breakdown-chorus clicks. Getting people to pay £8 to see predictable shite is at the lower end of its power. Like Vimes alludes to it's basically the entire basis of Christianity. Countries pretty frequently go to war because the population envisage themselves between fall and redemption.

I don't think I respond to it that strongly. I think superhero movies are absolute turd. I always happily lap up the latest formulaic pop banger though.

 

[MW1304]

Rise-fall-redemption is just an incredibly powerful formula. It clicks with the human brain in the same way that verse-chorus-verse-chorus-breakdown-chorus clicks. Getting people to pay £8 to see predictable shite is at the lower end of its power. Like Vimes alludes to it's basically the entire basis of Christianity. Countries pretty frequently go to war because the population envisage themselves between fall and redemption.

I don't think I respond to it that strongly. I think superhero movies are absolute turd. I always happily lap up the latest formulaic pop banger though.

It's essentially a more rigid, formulaic approach to the typical three-act structure of most Western cinema. The inciting incident is often one of gaining/realising some kind of power; then the crisis point will involve a villain who provides a moral/philosophical opposition to the code of the superhero and/or some kind of personal failure; and the denouement will be overcoming that crisis, usually by defeating the villain.

People love a story that follows this path, whether it's superhero or not, and whether they actually know it's happening or not. Superhero films tend to follow this structure in a particularly clear, definable way, which is part of the reason why people respond to them. It doesn't have to be exceptional, it just has to be executed effectively, which is why it can feel a little soulless.

Then you have the notable IP, the potential for action on different scales, the supremely well-defined nature of some of these characters, the sheer money that's poured into it filtered through high-class actors and creative types and is it any wonder people lap these films up? It has definitely gotten to a point where the actual conversation about these films is too all-encompassing though. Marvel do not make deep films and I just can't get involved in discussing them on an individual level any more.

 

[Uppercut]

It's essentially a more rigid, formulaic approach to the typical three-act structure of most Western cinema. The inciting incident is often one of gaining/realising some kind of power; then the crisis point will involve a villain who provides a moral/philosophical opposition to the code of the superhero and/or some kind of personal failure; and the denouement will be overcoming that crisis, usually by defeating the villain.

People love a story that follows this path, whether it's superhero or not, and whether they actually know it's happening or not. Superhero films tend to follow this structure in a particularly clear, definable way, which is part of the reason why people respond to them. It doesn't have to be exceptional, it just has to be executed effectively, which is why it can feel a little soulless.

Then you have the notable IP, the potential for action on different scales, the supremely well-defined nature of some of these characters, the sheer money that's poured into it filtered through high-class actors and creative types and is it any wonder people lap these films up? It has definitely gotten to a point where the actual conversation about these films is too all-encompassing though. Marvel do not make deep films and I just can't get involved in discussing them on an individual level any more.

Yeah you're spot on with all of this.

It's interesting that Howe loves them, because he's massively into cultural deconstruction too. It's sort of funny how much people love art that tears down other art that they love. Game of Thrones does so well out of that. I love it because it tears apart the usual linear, black+white fantasy structure that I hate. But lots of people love it for tearing that structure apart while still loving that structure- tonnes of LOTR fans like GOT. So it ends up with this fandom of people who both love and hate fantasy.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Couldn't be less interested in the MCU and don't think I've watched a single superhero movie (other than Deadpool) since the first X-Men move at the turn of the millenium. I've tried here and there to watch them and I wanna jump off a bridge out of boredom about 30 minutes in every time.

 

[honestbharani]

It's essentially a more rigid, formulaic approach to the typical three-act structure of most Western cinema. The inciting incident is often one of gaining/realising some kind of power; then the crisis point will involve a villain who provides a moral/philosophical opposition to the code of the superhero and/or some kind of personal failure; and the denouement will be overcoming that crisis, usually by defeating the villain.

People love a story that follows this path, whether it's superhero or not, and whether they actually know it's happening or not. Superhero films tend to follow this structure in a particularly clear, definable way, which is part of the reason why people respond to them. It doesn't have to be exceptional, it just has to be executed effectively, which is why it can feel a little soulless.

Then you have the notable IP, the potential for action on different scales, the supremely well-defined nature of some of these characters, the sheer money that's poured into it filtered through high-class actors and creative types and is it any wonder people lap these films up? It has definitely gotten to a point where the actual conversation about these films is too all-encompassing though. Marvel do not make deep films and I just can't get involved in discussing them on an individual level any more.

Its a relative scale. And movies going deep does not mean they are good.

 

[Howe_zat]

It's interesting that Howe loves them, because he's massively into cultural deconstruction too.

What makes you say that?

As for GOT, I reckon that while it might have started life has having a lot of deconstructive bits in it, it's pretty much straight fantasy now. So those of us with the Hobbiton holiday pictures (no laughing at the back) are probably still enjoying it for that reason.

 

[MW1304]

Its a relative scale. And movies going deep does not mean they are good.

Sure but it's an issue when you make two or three films in the same universe every year. There needs to be something more than the formula. Don't get me wrong they've made plenty of perfectly fine films but there isn't much to say about them anymore.

 

[honestbharani]

Of course its escapist cinema, and perfectly fine is the best you can do there. I am definitely over the phase of my life when I wanted to see movies with depth, realism etc. FWIW, I believe any actor who ever plays a convincing superhero is by default putting in a better performance than any other actor in any role in any of these movies with "realism and depth".

 

[OverratedSanity]

FWIW, I believe any actor who ever plays a convincing superhero is by default putting in a better performance than any other actor in any role in any of these movies with "realism and depth".

Wait by default? Why?

 

[honestbharani]

Coz to be convincing in a role that no one can relate to is the hardest. You probably see tamil movies, look at how many lead actors try (and fail miserably) to play roles like Rajini. This is not by accident coz Rajini was hardly the first one to do such roles. It takes very real acting chops to pull off those roles. Its just forgotten coz its considered "uncool" and "uncultured" for someone to praise such performances.

 

[Daemon]

Wat

 

[OverratedSanity]

 

[Athlai]

I think it'd be fair to say that dramatic film actors are overly praised in comparison to blockbuster actors, but they tend to get a lot of recognition from fans and $$$ so who really cares. I don't think a lot of people can really offer a lot on their opinion of acting beyond whether they liked a person or not.

So while I disagree on the earlier slightly trolling undermining of any analysis on superhero blockbusters being a waste of time, I definitely think that most of the public opinion on acting and whether it's "good" or not is pretty much worthless. Theres a **** load of phenomenal performances out there that don't get an iota of acknowledgement because of where the film was produced, the genre of the film or a host of other things. HB's arbitrary guide there is as good as pretty much anyones IMO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think it'd be fair to say that dramatic film actors are overly praised in comparison to blockbuster actors, but they tend to get a lot of recognition from fans and $$$ so who really cares. I don't think a lot of people can really offer a lot on their opinion of acting beyond whether they liked a person or not.

So while I disagree on the earlier slightly trolling undermining of any analysis on superhero blockbusters being a waste of time, I definitely think that most of the public opinion on acting and whether it's "good" or not is pretty much worthless. Theres a **** load of phenomenal performances out there that don't get an iota of acknowledgement because of where the film was produced, the genre of the film or a host of other things. HB's arbitrary guide there is as good as pretty much anyones IMO.

Sure, I'm just balking at:

I believe any actor who ever plays a convincing superhero is by default putting in a better performance than any other actor in any role in any of these movies with "realism and depth"

That is taking what you said to an absurd extreme.