Salon columnist slams the superhero genre

[Axl Van Sixx]

From Salon.com:

Superheroes suck!

From Spidey to Batman to Iron Man, comic-book movies are Hollywood's most bankrupt genre. And I say that as a fan

Just wondering what you guys thought of this article. Personally, I think the author is out to lunch. While he makes some interesting and perhaps valid points, I think he's being WAY too harsh on superhero films and gives way too much praise to these stupid zombie movies. He seems to be forgetting that superheroes are themselves somewhat formulaic, so what are you supposed to do if you're adapting them to the screen? Filmmakers like Favreau and Nolan have done interesting things with a formulaic genre and this article seems to be me to be an example of seeing the glass half-empty, pure and simple.

Also...what can you say about this guy when his two favourite superhero films appear to be Ang Lee's Hulk and Superman Returns?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Well, Ang Lee also tried to do something unique with the genre. Hulk 2003 is one of my favorite comic flicks.

I agree about the dark Knight having too much exposition (much less than begins though). But visually sloppy ? LOL LOL.

 

[Bad Superman]

From Salon.com:



Just wondering what you guys thought of this article. Personally, I think the author is out to lunch. While he makes some interesting and perhaps valid points, I think he's being WAY too harsh on superhero films and gives way too much praise to these stupid zombie movies. He seems to be forgetting that superheroes are themselves somewhat formulaic, so what are you supposed to do if you're adapting them to the screen? Personally, I think filmmakers like Favreau and Nolan have done interesting things with a formulaic genre and this article seems to be me to be an example of seeing the glass half-empty, pure and simple.

Also...what can you say about this guy when his two favourite superhero films appear to be Ang Lee's Hulk and Superman Returns?

That says it all right there. . . .

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I agree about Ang's Hulk. I prefer it to the video game new one. Still like TIH though. Superman Returns was a 200 million dollar snoozefest though. My mouth was watering at the thought of a modern, mega budget Superman film. What we got was just plain boring, if the story and characterization and all that was great you could maybe excuse the crappy action... but the story and character moments were not good either.

As for the article? I think superhero/comic book film burnout is inevitable. I don't think it will happen yet though, as long as they keep making good superhero/comic book films.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

As for the article? I think superhero/comic book film burnout is inevitable. I don't think it will happen yet though, as long as they keep making good superhero/comic book films.

I've always thought that The Avengers will mark the turning point for comic book movies. On the one hand, it will be the biggest superhero extravaganza ever seen on film, an unprecedented translation of the Marvel universe onto the silver screen. But on the other hand, there's a good chance that seeing so many heroes together will contribute to a sense of audience burnout. After all, summer 2011 will see four superhero movies - Thor, X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern and Captain America - which is even more than we saw in 2008 with Iron Man, Hulk and Batman. By the time Avengers rolls around, I think audience anticipation will be high because of the hype generated by the movies that built up to it, and the Avengers film will be successful as a result. But after that, people will probably say "enough is enough" and begin to want something different. After all, we're now 10 years into the superhero movie boom that started with X-Men in 2000. Of course, I could be wrong; if GL, Thor and Cap are successful enough to warrant their own sequels, that could keep things rolling along for a few more years. But I still believe Avengers will represent the endgame for the current Golden Age of superhero movies.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I've always thought that The Avengers will mark the turning point for comic book movies. On the one hand, it will be the biggest superhero extravaganza ever seen on film, an unprecedented translation of the Marvel universe onto the silver screen. But on the other hand, there's a good chance that seeing so many heroes together will contribute to a sense of audience burnout. After all, summer 2011 will see four superhero movies - Thor, X-Men: First Class, Green Lantern and Captain America - which is even more than we saw in 2008 with Iron Man, Hulk and Batman. By the time Avengers rolls around, I think audience anticipation will be high because of the hype generated by the movies that built up to it, and the Avengers film will be successful as a result. But after that, people will probably say "enough is enough" and begin to want something different. After all, we're now 10 years into the superhero movie boom that started with X-Men in 2000. Of course, I could be wrong; if GL, Thor and Cap are successful enough to warrant their own sequels, that could keep things rolling along for a few more years. But I still believe Avengers will represent the endgame for the current Golden Age of superhero movies.

Well said and agreed

 

[BlackLantern]

I half agree with the column, he does make a good point about the perception of super hero films....about them being seen as a commodity first and a film second

 

[Kevin Roegele]

To a certain degree, I agree with the article.

Superhero movies are a confection. The essential problem is that they are transferred from another medium, and it's only with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight that someone has finally stopped seeing the medium - comicbook - and seeing purely the story contained within.