Fine like wine: how well have superhero films aged?

[Octoberist]

perhaps, Affleck is just a better director than actor. Can we all agree on that?

 

[The Morningstar]

There is nothing wooden about his performance in DD, he's pretty good in the film, if some of the more popular actors had given the same kind of performance, more people would be raving about it. I think there is a personal prejudice against Affleck amongst the public, and at the time of this film, it was due to his being in all the tabloids due to his relationship with Jennifer Lopez. Some people were tired of hearing about him, and didn't want to take him seriously.

Pretty much. For a long time i could never find real criticisms of Daredevil. It all usually amounted to "Affleck sucks!" or "Farrell sucks!" And yea you're right, I think the whole "J.Lo" thing clouded peoples perceptions of Affleck.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Pretty much. For a long time i could never find real criticisms of Daredevil. It all usually amounted to "Affleck sucks!" or "Farrell sucks!" And yea you're right, I think the whole "J.Lo" thing clouded peoples perceptions of Affleck.

There were also a number of plotholes thanks to the guts of the film being ripped out by Fox executives, but that got cleaned up with the release of the Director's Cut which is a much more complete film.

As for the DC, most of the criticism seems to be focused around not liking Ben Affleck (which is probably largely a backlash to the tabloids) and the playground fight scene. Personally, I think the Director's Cut of Daredevil is one of the best superhero films.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

Pretty much. For a long time i could never find real criticisms of Daredevil. It all usually amounted to "Affleck sucks!" or "Farrell sucks!" And yea you're right, I think the whole "J.Lo" thing clouded peoples perceptions of Affleck.

My biggest problem with the film, apart from the casting was the pacing. I felt like they tried to cram in to much, and really kind of missed the ball on building the characters. Daredevil has a really great backstory, and he is constantly overshadowed by many other marvel and DC personalities. He deserves to have his story told without rushing. Thats really what the whole movie felt like to me, a rush job.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea i agree. I would have preferred if they completely dropped the romance sub plot, even though, playground scene aside, it was one of the better superhero movie romances.

Should have had more focus on him training, maybe have Stick involved. Show him as a younger Daredevil learning the ropes.

One thing i think really stands out as great is the score. One of the best superhero movie scores imo.

 

[Art_of_Crime]

Yea i agree. I would have preferred if they completely dropped the romance sub plot, even though, playground scene aside, it was one of the better superhero movie romances.

Should have had more focus on him training, maybe have Stick involved. Show him as a younger Daredevil learning the ropes.

One thing i think really stands out as great is the score. One of the best superhero movie scores imo.

I agree. Unfortunately it tends to be forgotten. I did like the DD costume. It looks like it would be a sweaty mess in the summer, and cold and stiff in the winter, but it looks damn cool on screen.

 

[I am Batman]

I agree. Unfortunately it tends to be forgotten. I did like the DD costume. It looks like it would be a sweaty mess in the summer, and cold and stiff in the winter, but it looks damn cool on screen.

The only thing i really liked from the costume was the mask. It had a good scowl and made lenses work unlike Nolan.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree about Affleck in DD. He was good.

 

[Thundarr]

I find several of the older superhero movies tend to age better than many of the newer ones. Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Batman '89, Batman Returns, all have aged very well. Why? Because they used practical effects. They had good writers, good directors, and good actors, all of whom cared more about making a good movie than milking a cash cow.


Of the newer movies, X-Men, X2, Spiderman, Spiderman 2, Dare Devil (director's cut), and Blade have all aged the best. While they do use CGI, they don't over use it to the point of looking like giant video games. Thus they've aged better than the sequels.

Neither Hulk film aged very well due to their over abundant use of CGI. Likewise with X3, Wolverine, Spiderman 3, etc.

As for movies like Superman "looking too 70's" or TMNT "looking too 80's"? Superman was filmed in 1977. It was set in 1977. It came out in 1978. What did you expect the clothes, cars, and technology to look like? The year 2020? Sure, the bellbottoms and the giant lapels are cringeworthy (two fashion faux pas that I hope stay buried forever), but that doesn't exactly mean it hasn't aged well. It just means the fashions and technologies are outdated. Those are two very different things.

 

[Donnie Darko]

I can't believe no one has mentioned The Rocketeer. I watched that for the first time in forever not long ago, and I swear that movie felt more fun and "magical" than it did when I saw it as a kid 20 years ago. Such a good movie.

 

[DACrowe]

All age with effects and fashion/technology trends. They also may not seem as impressive as you get older. For example, the dialogue in SM1 and CGI date that movie quite a bit. The black leather Matrix-y trends and under-budget effects/small-scale look of X1 date that a bit. Daredevil was dated about three months after its release ( ). I flipped by Hulk'03 the other day on the TV and watched five minutes of it for the first time in as many years. The effects were ponderously awful.

But some movies in the genre, even if the effects age and the cell phones look quaint, are still quite impressive as either popcorn films or more.

I'd say Spider-Man 2, X2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Tim Burton's intentionally time/style-melding Batman films still work as the years pass.

 

[Thundarr]

All age with effects and fashion/technology trends. They also may not seem as impressive as you get older. For example, the dialogue in SM1 and CGI date that movie quite a bit. The black leather Matrix-y trends and under-budget effects/small-scale look of X1 date that a bit. Daredevil was dated about three months after its release ( ). I flipped by Hulk'03 the other day on the TV and watched five minutes of it for the first time in as many years. The effects were ponderously awful.

But some movies in the genre, even if the effects age and the cell phones look quaint, are still quite impressive as either popcorn films or more.

I'd say Spider-Man 2, X2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Tim Burton's intentionally time/style-melding Batman films still work as the years pass.

I guess it all depends on your point of view. Personally, I don't consider movies that are set in a certain time period to have aged badly. A good movie that was made in the 70's or 80's is still a good movie 20 or 30 years later. Fashion trends and technology may make it look "dated" to some people, but if it doesn't take away from the quality of the film then I personally could care less.

The film making techniques, on the other hand, can and often do "date" a film. And can date it quite badly, depending on the technique being used.

Again, I'll use Superman: The Movie as an example. The effects used to make Christopher Reeve appear to fly were very effective, and still look good to this day. The clothing and technology used in the film (like the rediculously large hidden radio the detective Luthor kills earlier in the movie was using as he followed Otus) sets the time for which the movie was made, but doesn't exactly detract from the quality of the film. The dialogue in the film isn't that different from how people talked at the time the movie was made, with the exception of Clark who had a very "old fashioned" way of speaking.

Lois: So Clark, haw was your first day at The Daily Planet?

Clark: Gosh, Lois, it was just swell.

Lois: Swell? Clark, no one says "swell" anymore.

Clark: Really? It sounds kinda natural to me.

So, by my POV, Superman: The Movie has aged really well.

On the other hand, Blade II hasn't aged very well at all. I don't think technology, dress, or dialogue has anything to do with how well it aged, as there have been very few, if any, noticable changes in any of that over the past 10 years (at least in terms of what's seen in the movie). The vampires and the uber-vamps, however, were badly done. They may have seemed cutting edge in their day, but today the CGI is so glaringly obvious it dates the film terribly.

That's my opinion of what dates a superhero movie. Other people have their own standards, but these are mine.

 

[CConn]

What truly aged horribly for Superman: The Movie was Lex Luthor.

Everything about him - from his actual plan for world domination, to his hide out, to Otis and Ms. Treshmacher - was just too hokey and childish to even resemble a legitimate thread.

In ths day and age we KNOW it's not possible for three yahoos to steal a missile without any more advanced - or intelligent - help, that right there - not having a truly threatening villain - ages the movie terribly, IMO.

Plus - and this is just a personal preference - I ****ing hated that blurry cinematography that was all the rage in the 70s. I feel like I need to see my optometrist every time I watch the movie.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Looks like many pick on Spider-Man and yeah I think it more has to do with the dialogue which tries to be hip and some moments that are downright awkward and cliche.

- Mary Jane making dorky reactions in the science lab as Peter is taking pictures.
- the awkward look Peter and MJ give when he saves her at the school cafeteria
- the New York citizens tossing things at Green Goblin at the bridge "Yo mess wid New Yark, yo mess wid all of ahs"

 

[CConn]

Tobey Maguire was just painfully awkward in general.

 

[Thundarr]

What truly aged horribly for Superman: The Movie was Lex Luthor.

Everything about him - from his actual plan for world domination, to his hide out, to Otis and Ms. Tesmacher - was just too hokey and childish to even resemble a legitimate threat.

In this day and age we KNOW it's not possible for three yahoos to steal a missile without any more advanced - or intelligent - help, that right there - not having a truly threatening villain - ages the movie terribly, IMO.

Plus - and this is just a personal preference - I ****ing hated that blurry cinematography that was all the rage in the 70s. I feel like I need to see my optometrist every time I watch the movie.

I see your point about Lex Luthor. I don't 100% agree with your opinion, but I do understand where you're coming from.

Although, to be fair, the movie was made to be geared more towards children. Thus, they wouldn't have wanted a Lex Luthor who was TOO threatening. And I would like to point out that Luthor's plan wasn't for World Domination. It was to make a killing in selling real estate. He bought up a bunch of worthless desert land for pennies on the dollar, and was planning to drop most of California into the ocean by setting off nuclear explosions on the San Andreas Fault Line, creating a massive earthquake. Then he was going to sell his land, which is now beachfront property rather than worthless desert, for a huge profit. A very cartoony diabolical plan, but diabolical none-the-less.

Oh, and Luthor didn't steal the missiles. He just reprogrammed their guidance systems. Although I do agree that it probably should have been a little tougher for him to do that. But again, aimed towards kids. You can't expect that they're going to make things super complex for a target demographic who barely have the attention span necessary to sit still for 90 minutes and watch a movie.

As for the "blurry cinematography", I don't recall that at all. However I will admit it has been a long while since I've seen the film, so I may have just forgotten about it.

 

[CConn]

Well, that whole "kid factor" you're describing is kind of what I mean by not aging well. The tone and seriousness of superhero genre overall has transitioned from Howdy Doody to The Godfather, and STM is very much rooted in the old style.

You should watch it again for the blurriess. Maybe it's just me, because not a lot of other people complain about it, but I can't stand it myself.

Oh! And additionally, I'd also say, despite the effects looking very dated, I'd actually say Donner's Cut of Superman 2 holds up a lot better in my eyes purely because Zod and company were actually pretty threatening and fearsome.

 

[El Payaso]

Looks like many pick on Spider-Man and yeah I think it more has to do with the dialogue which tries to be hip and some moments that are downright awkward and cliche.

- Mary Jane making dorky reactions in the science lab as Peter is taking pictures.
- the awkward look Peter and MJ give when he saves her at the school cafeteria
- the New York citizens tossing things at Green Goblin at the bridge "Yo mess wid New Yark, yo mess wid all of ahs"

I have to agree. I never understood why MJ would ever talk to Peter. He's an ultra-awkward nerd and she's the cool chick and nothing in the movie links them. Peter wants to take pics of her. In reality, she would have said, 'take a hike, ******.' But in most of scenes she is really trying to get him to admit he loves her.

How they have been neighbours for ages and never have talked to each other before is another mistery. Suddenly they find each other throwing out the garbage. First time in 18 years.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Don't know if it's already been mentioned but Spawn just reeks of mid-90's CGI with graphics that look straight out of a video game, the whole Malebolgia evil hell army really stands out as cheap and the look of Spawn's cape never looks right.

Another thing is with Spawn having all these supernatual powers he still resorts to using machine guns which is typical of all Image comics in the 90's but I guess you could argue that in this case Spawn was remembering to his military background as Al Simmons.

 

[metaphysician]

Weird as it may sound, I have to defend Spawn on that angle. He actually has a legitimate excuse for using guns: a finite magic reserve.

( well, until that was undone, but eh )

 

[Lantern Venom]

There are only a few in the post-Batman '89 era that stick out as flops: Catwoman, Elektra, Steel, Batman & Robin. This is, of course, discounting made-for-TV/video movies like Man-Thing.

For the most part, even the less-than-stellar adaptations hold up well because the merit of comic books was respected. I'll take Ang Lee's Hulk over the crappy Hulk TV series, Batman Forever over Adam West making bad jokes, and Spawn/Blade:Trinity/Ghost Rider over all the old, vapid TV series/movies that seemed to be geared soley to 5-year-olds.