Hollywood has only produced exceptions by accident
May 24, 2015 4:58 PM   Subscribe

 
Except "Superman" and "Batman" weren't bad. They were good.
posted by goatdog at 5:23 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah he lost me on that. Donner's Superman is close to my vision of the canonical superhero film and while I have some issues with Burton's Batman it's still a such a unique and personal vision that I can forgive them.
posted by octothorpe at 5:33 PM on May 24, 2015 [4 favorites]


I don't think I know anyone who considers the '78 Superman to be a genuinely good film without having a deep-seated childhood nostalgia for it. And, I mean, I'm not saying that to be contrary; I have some intense love for movies I know aren't that great because of how I felt about them the fast time I saw them, but I've never read or seen a cogent defense of that Superman movie that didn't somehow funnel down to "it made me feel good as a kid."
posted by griphus at 5:36 PM on May 24, 2015 [5 favorites]


It seems like the thesis of the two articles is that comic book movies are only good when they have a level of character complexity in both heroes and villains that speaks to adult viewers. So ... basically the problem with superhero movies is that they're mostly aimed at kids? That's not necessarily a bad point to start criticism from but it seems like the beginning of a discussion, one that involves the financial incentives of the current studio system and the demographics that the films are aimed at (males 18-25 or whatever the field is), and not the end of one.
posted by immlass at 5:44 PM on May 24, 2015


I don't think I know anyone who considers the '78 Superman to be a genuinely good film without having a deep-seated childhood nostalgia for it. And, I mean, I'm not saying that to be contrary; I have some intense love for movies I know aren't that great because of how I felt about them the fast time I saw them, but I've never read or seen a cogent defense of that Superman movie that didn't somehow funnel down to "it made me feel good as a kid."

I saw it in the theater as a small kid and loved it, but I saw part of it a couple of years ago and it hadn't aged well -- or maybe it would still be a great kids movie, but it definitely lacks complexity and depth.

The article seemed to be coming from a place of affection and sympathy for comics and comic book movies, but I can relate to finding comic book movies to be simplistic and terribly unsatisfying, compared both to better movies and to the source material.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:50 PM on May 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's really depressing to be reminded how little money the great movies made, or maybe it's depressing that forgettable trash was making more money. Business is sad.
posted by idiopath at 6:15 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Unbreakable is the best superhero origin movie yet made. I will brook no disagreement.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:08 PM on May 24, 2015 [11 favorites]


I don't think I know anyone who considers the '78 Superman to be a genuinely good film without having a deep-seated childhood nostalgia for it. And, I mean, I'm not saying that to be contrary; I have some intense love for movies I know aren't that great because of how I felt about them the fast time I saw them, but I've never read or seen a cogent defense of that Superman movie that didn't somehow funnel down to "it made me feel good as a kid."

I have no idea if Superman is a good movie in any absolute sense. I wasn't alive when it was in theater, but my parents had a copy on Super 8 film of all things that I watched several times growing up in the 80s. So, I can't get around the nostalgia and give anything like an honest evaluation. But check out Ebert's review from 1978. He was 36 years old at the time and had already won a Pulitzer for Criticism. He gave it four stars (out of four). Maybe he was nostalgic for something else, but his evaluation of the film cannot be put down to "it made me feel good as a kid."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 7:10 PM on May 24, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't think I know anyone who considers the '78 Superman to be a genuinely good film without having a deep-seated childhood nostalgia for it.

Yeah. I saw it not long ago and was just gob-smacked at how creaky it was.
posted by yoink at 7:14 PM on May 24, 2015


If you could mix the time-reversal scene from Superman 1 and the drunk peanut / junkyard brawl scene from Superman III into an otherwise intact Superman II, I'd be really happy. Let me know when you are finished.
posted by SharkParty at 7:39 PM on May 24, 2015


It's weird to pick on the original Superman movie; in my mind it was a bright spot for superhero films preceded by lackluster made-for-TV movies and followed by ... Superman III and IV. (Although if you asked 7-year-old me, I liked Flash Gordon and Popeye too)

I really can't see it being much different given the constraints of 70s audiences and PG-rated filmmaking. The criticism that it wasn't true to the more recent comic books -- eh. I mean, are people going to want to keep track of parallel worlds and a dozen different colors of kryptonite? Really, the best we could hope for is for him to save Lois a few times and some witty banter between Lex and his henchpeople. (Otisburg?!?)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:52 PM on May 24, 2015


It's interesting considering how much overlap there is in the storytelling and visual language of movies and comics that they don't successfully translate -- TV might be better, considering the more anthology, wandering nature of the big comic stories fits it better -- and comic's more literary ability to wander off and follow other characters and story lines that movies kinda of can't do as well.
posted by The Whelk at 7:59 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


I disagree with the premise that a story has to be complex and morally challenging to be good. Sometimes things can be good without being difficult to watch. There is plenty of room within "good" for stories that are fun, uplifting, gentle, or just plain pleasant. Totoro comes to mind as an example, and also some of the better ST:TNG episodes, like "The Inner Light," the opening to Up and yes, Superman (except for the shoehorned earthquake and time travel conflict/climax, which is kind of my point)*

There are good stories that are darker and edgier or more. Recently there have been a lot of them. But being darker or edgier or more complex isn't what makes things good. It's just a popular trend, based on some widespread anxiety and the mistaken beliefs that tragedy is more realistic than comedy and that "conflict" is the only way to create interest. But it will change. There have been good lighter and softer works in the past and I for one will continue to defend them. And when our culture is ready for optimism again, "good" lighter and softer works will rise once more.

*Yes, all my examples are for kids, and that too is part of my point. "Adult" material isn't inherently better than childlike material. Real adults recognize the need for good material targeting children and recognize its worth.
posted by yeolcoatl at 8:42 PM on May 24, 2015 [6 favorites]


It's dumb to think you can evaluate a movie with a single thumb, up or down. The plot and dialogue of Superman aren't very good, but Christopher Reeves's performance is fantastic. The physical comedy he does with Clark Kent is great and his ability to make Superman's goodness charming and inspiring rather than insufferable really nails what many people love about the character. (Chris Evans's Captain America owes a lot to Reeves's Superman.)

The flying special effects were amazing at the time and the theme from John Williams is everything you could want when watching Superman fly through the air.

Superman doesn't do well many of the things people enjoy in other movies, but it captures a whole lot of what people want from a superhero movie.
posted by straight at 9:50 PM on May 24, 2015 [7 favorites]


I have no idea if Superman is a good movie in any absolute sense. I wasn't alive when it was in theater, but my parents had a copy on Super 8 film of all things that I watched several times growing up in the 80s. So, I can't get around the nostalgia and give anything like an honest evaluation. But check out Ebert's review from 1978. He was 36 years old at the time and had already won a Pulitzer for Criticism. He gave it four stars (out of four). Maybe he was nostalgic for something else, but his evaluation of the film cannot be put down to "it made me feel good as a kid."

he also gave Phantom Menace three and a half stars, incontrovertibly proving that he, too, was subject to human error
posted by DoctorFedora at 10:12 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Wow. '78 Superman is a classic of American cinema. When did people stop liking it? Perhaps it's old enough that people can no longer 'grok' it culturally?
posted by jabah at 10:16 PM on May 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Chris Sims has a good argument against it, and prefers the one with Richard Pryor.
I'm worried superhero movies are making people confuse elaborate back stories for characterization and over-elaborate plotting for 'story'.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 2:20 AM on May 25, 2015


Wow. '78 Superman is a classic of American cinema. When did people stop liking it?

When they put it in their Netflix queues and rewatch it? That's what happened to me. I saw it when it came out and remembered it with immense fondness. Then I watched it again. Boy was that a mistake. It's unbelievably slow (Reeve is fabulous, but it takes forever for him to appear on screen), the plot makes no sense, Hackman's Luthor is more cartoonishly silly than your average Adam West Batman villain etc. etc. It's just a surprisingly bad film.
posted by yoink at 6:47 AM on May 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


While I somewhat agree with most of his points, I'm a little lost in how he's dividing things up -- "comic book movie" is one things, "superhero movie" is another, and he switches depending on the point he wants to make. Towards the end he mentions American Splendor, a good film but not a blockbuster, but there's other good films that are technically "comic book movies" the same as American Splendor -- A History of Violence, Road to Perdition, Men In Black, Ghost World -- it's like complaining that Norbit isn't as funny as Anchorman:The Legend of Ron Burgundy by blaming "Former Saturday Night Live Comedian Movies" as a genre. I guess people do that, too, but i don't know how fair it is when you can't just only release perfect films; you have to fill out the calendar with average, cheap films sometimes.
posted by AzraelBrown at 6:57 AM on May 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


Not everyone loved '78 Superman, I thought it was childish and simplistic. But hey, I don't get to decide what movie becomes a hit.

(Actually, I kinda liked Superman 2 better because the villains were more interesting. Is that the one where General Zod gets pissed off at Superman and throws a bus at him? Because that was cool.)
posted by ovvl at 10:51 AM on May 25, 2015


'78 Superman was not a good film, but it had a John Williams score, which keeps me from thinking of it with anything but fondness.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 12:46 PM on May 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


It's interesting considering how much overlap there is in the storytelling and visual language of movies and comics that they don't successfully translate -- TV might be better, considering the more anthology, wandering nature of the big comic stories fits it better -- and comic's more literary ability to wander off and follow other characters and story lines that movies kinda of can't do as well.
The Whelk

Alan Moore has said this repeatedly with regard to not wanting his works adapted for film. He and his co-creators created their works within the comic medium specifically for that medium, and that they don't necessarily transfer well or as intended to another medium.
posted by Sangermaine at 9:48 AM on May 26, 2015


« Older "In 22 seconds, he dribbled 57 times."   |   It’s better to die than to live without killing. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments