A Schedule of Superhero Movies Through 2020

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/10/16/a-schedule-of-superhero-movies-through-2020/

I see many, many dollar signs in the futures of DC and Marvel.

This is a U.S. conspiracy to keep me out of the cinema.

I hate these films, but they show no sign of dying so I need to reach some kind of accommodation or understanding if I'm to visit a multiplex again. That or grow a fine distracting pair of tits.

It's not just that superhero films are simplistic yet expensive firework shows, it's also that they're non-verbal when I like words. I get it though - explosions appeal to kiddies and teenagers, and translate into any language.

Perhaps my main objection is more fundamental. I don't believe in heroes, particularly weedy sand-kicked-in-their-faces aspergic heroes. I had the same problem with the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo books. Seems to me these are all pathetic fantasies in which right triumphs over might when history, experience and common sense proves just the opposite. Plus you need to believe in a black and white moral universe to buy into this stuff when in the end it's like the wise men said:

What compelled you to see GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY?

It's interesting how these films are taken so seriously. I can understand why the writers and directors take them seriously, because they're banking millions and millions on these flicks. By why do critics and fan boys hold these films in such high regard? Especially trash like MAN OF STEEL and XMEN: FIRST CLASS. Don't they discredit the comics and characters that you enjoy?

I enjoyed CAPTAIN AMERICA because it didn't take itself seriously. It was fun how they played around with the past and present and injected a little bit of subtext. The ending wasn't particularly happy, either, with Captain America never being able to see that woman again. I didn't feel that I wasted my money on it, although I'm not sure if I'll ever bother watching it again.

I know we have a lot of comic fans here and I'm not busting your balls. Are any of you concerned about quality when DC and Marvel are pumping out 30 spinoffs and sequels in five years?

Control wrote:

What compelled you to see GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY?

A fine distracting pair of tits.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Control wrote:

What compelled you to see GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY?

A fine distracting pair of tits.

Of course. I'd sit through two hours of space battles and talking raccoons for that, as well.

Quote :

By why do critics and fan boys hold these films in such high regard? Especially trash like MAN OF STEEL and XMEN: FIRST CLASS.

The thing is, most fanboys and critics hated MAN OF STEEL. There was a small minority of audiences (like me) who enjoyed it. I liked its humanist ethos and lack of cynicism, plus the campy Krautrock Kryptonians.

I enjoy this genre as spectacles, but I wouldn't call most of them "cinema at its peak" like many fanboys do. The closest I think the genre ever got to something that transcended from "great superhero flick" to "great film" is probably SUPERMAN and THE DARK KNIGHT. The Marvel films have been enjoyable popcorn flicks, but that's the highest compliment I can give them.

Problem with The Dark Knight is that it attempts to combine noir and superhero genres and they're not compatible. One is life as it is and the other is wishful thinking.

I found Nolan's Batman trilogy vastly overrated. Only the first one has a structure that actually works. I don't much care for the two sequels. The second one is massively overrated for being Ledger's last movie. I generally agree with the notion that it's pointless to try and make a more realistic super hero movie, as the universe they inhabit will be unrealistic by definition.

Salomé wrote:

it's pointless to try and make a more realistic super hero movie, as the universe they inhabit will be unrealistic by definition.

The late Roger Ebert made that point after Burton's 'Batman Returns' and spent the rest of his life getting shit from fanboys.

I've been reading comics ever since I was a kid so I'm happy to have all (most) of these movies brought to the big screen. It's way to escape back to being a kid again really. And I've never had a problem with films that just present good and evil and let them duke it out.

I adore LOTR. While there may be no such thing as a true "hero" in the real world, I'm still enough of a romantic to think that there's good in the world, which is what the better comic book movies convey in popcorn-shoving handfuls.

That being said, THE DARK KNIGHT is overrated. I have never understood why fans want a "realistic" superhero movie when the character they are reading about dresses up as a fucking bat. BATMAN BEGINS I liked the most out of the series, it was at least a Batman movie. THE DARK KNIGHT, however, was a generic action crime thriller that happened to have Batman and a dead Heath Ledger's Joker in it, pushing it to elite status. Never understood the undying praise. I still like the movie, because I'm easy to please, but I don't see why it is considered the pinnacle of comic book films.

So I don't know about this DC thing. Seems like most people like Marvel considerably more nowadays (a lot of youtube comments, tweets and so on) which is a disappointment. I think maybe they're rushing a bit trying to throw together their universe to match Marvel's winning formula.

I'm not complaining though. As I said, I like comics, I like superheroes. I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Last year's MAN OF STEEL was fantastic. I'm one of the few who really enjoyed it as well, LS.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

it's pointless to try and make a more realistic super hero movie, as the universe they inhabit will be unrealistic by definition.

The late Roger Ebert made that point after Burton's 'Batman Returns' and spent the rest of his life getting shit from fanboys.

Odd that he made that argument in relation to the Gothic fantasy that is Batman Returns.

Salomé wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

it's pointless to try and make a more realistic super hero movie, as the universe they inhabit will be unrealistic by definition.

The late Roger Ebert made that point after Burton's 'Batman Returns' and spent the rest of his life getting shit from fanboys.

Odd that he made that argument in relation to the Gothic fantasy that is Batman Returns.

BATMAN RETURNS is one of the most larger-than-life superhero movies, and probably the greatest of them all.

BATMAN RETURNS really dropped for me over the years. I find it hard to revisit because it's such a disjointed mess. Sure, it's not every day that we get a German expressionist tribute as a tentpole film. It's great to look at, for sure. I do love how it looks like an inkwell. I just don't find any enjoyment from it. The fact that Burton tries to paint the Penguin as someone to pity is lost on me, because he's so vile that there's no way for me to feel sympathetic. Burton loves his rejected freaks, but I can't go with it.

BATMAN 89 is something I've always thought was so-so, but I enjoy it a lot more because it truly is the best blending of a Batman film and a Tim Burton film. They really compliment each other in that one. RETURNS is too much Tim Burton, which means all the problems that are associated with most his films is more prominent.

The Penguin is sympathetic purely because of DeVito, he gives a humanity to the performance, despite all of the grotesquery. What makes RETURNS work is the comedy and a very sharp screenplay. Pfeiffer owns the film.

He's far more successful with Catwoman as far as rejected freaks go. What humanity does DeVito bring, aside from presenting a facade for the public to eat up? His Penguin revels in sadism from the day he was born. It's like Burton wants to go more extreme with his misunderstood monsters but goes too far for me to care, and DeVito becomes too obnoxious (a problem with the sequels having its stars want to out-Jack Jack [or in Uma Thurman's case, out-Pfeiffer Pfeiffer]).

I will say this for Burton: he is a visually more interesting director than Nolan.
I'm not entirely sure that Nolan even truly loves the medium, it's just the one he happened to choose to tell his stories.

From what I've read, I think he truly does love the medium. He accepted the Batman gig purely because it was a childhood dream of his to do a blockbuster like those he grew up watching in the 70s. Of course, just because one loves the visual medium doesn't mean one is always likely to be good at it. There's a lot of directors out there that have a passion for it, but none of the talent.

Salomé wrote:

I will say this for Burton: he is a visually more interesting director than Nolan.
I'm not entirely sure that Nolan even truly loves the medium, it's just the one he happened to choose to tell his stories.

His movies do seem to have this separation/professional coldness about them. That's the best way I can put it.

Xenia93 wrote:

Salomé wrote:

I will say this for Burton: he is a visually more interesting director than Nolan.
I'm not entirely sure that Nolan even truly loves the medium, it's just the one he happened to choose to tell his stories.

His movies do seem to have this separation/professional coldness about them. That's the best way I can put it.

That comes from having Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and David Fincher as your cinematic heroes.

Largo's Shark wrote:

That comes from having Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and David Fincher as your cinematic heroes.

Not a fan of those fellas?

Xenia93 wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

That comes from having Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and David Fincher as your cinematic heroes.

Not a fan of those fellas?

Well, I like Kubrick (and Scott's first three films), but not the Cult of Kubrick. That is directors and cinephiles who latch onto his cold, deterministic vision, without his spirituality. Post-SHINING Kubrick.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Well, I like Kubrick (and Scott's first three films), but not the Cult of Kubrick. That is directors and cinephiles who latch onto his cold, deterministic vision, without his spirituality. Post-SHINING Kubrick.

Ah right on. I'm actually not well "versed" on Kubrick. Many of his films I haven't seen. It's weird, I typically don't go for the cold/clinical style but I'm a fan of (most of) Fincher's work. I really love ZODIAC, FIGHT CLUB, and SE7EN. I'll be the first to admit though I'm not terribly hard to please.

Scott is hit and miss for me.

Gilliam on the current shitfest:

Quote :

[Hollywood] has achieved everything they've always dreamed of. The audience now seems to be very dumb, I mean they're watching the same film again and again. They pay money to watch the same film. Now, you could argue, that's because it makes them feel comfortable. When they go to a movie now, it's almost like hearing a pop song. You know the rhythms, you know when the downbeat is going to come, you know when the explosion is going to come… And so as life becomes more complex, as the economy is in trouble, people cling to what makes them comfortable, so they go again and again to see the same movie.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/terry-gilliam-talks-the-simplistic-films-of-steven-spielberg-dumbing-down-of-audiences-don-quixote-start-date-more-20140107

His ideal audience never existed, at least in America. There's a reason the more thought provoking films like VERTIGO never really hit it big beyond film aficionados. That's just how it is.