Axl Van Sixx
Comrade
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
- Reaction score
- 511
- Points
- 73
After the one-two punch of Superman Returns and Spider-Man 3, I'm readily convinced at this point of the dangers in paying TOO much attention to romance in a superhero film. First of all - who are we kidding? Superhero movies are about wish fulfillment. Everyone wants to be the amazing superhero, kick the villain's ass, get the girl, etc. Who among us ever got into comic books or superheroes for romance? Precisely no one. It's all about the various component elements - cool costume, superpowers/gadgets, villains, action, love interest - working together as a whole to create a winning fantasy vehicle. This is the basis for every successful initial superhero film.
Secondly, where does the established superhero mythology go from there? You have to incorporate all the disparate parts into a movie that tells a gripping and intriguing story, and (especially for movie #1) puts them together into a film based on what people like about superhero stories in the first place. We have established that romance, while beneficial as a component of the overall picture, is not one of those things. Therefore, why make a superhero movie that is primarily predicated on romance? It doesn't add up, and I hereby damn Bryan Singer for his unholy prophecy of 2006: "I want to make a love story". DAMN YOU SINGER!!!
No, I've basically come to terms with Superman Returns by now -I was really looking forward to it, it was a disappointment, and that's at least partially due to the fact that it spends way, way, way too much time on soap opera romance and unnecessary burdens to the Superman mythos, such as Jason, that Singer decided to include in there. It's a niche thing - love stories can be good icing for a superhero movie, but should never be the cake. Spider-Man 3 was also disappointing, although not to the extent of Supes - it was just uneven in comparison to the previous movies. There was definitely too much emphasis on romance, and this made for too many drawn-out scenes between Peter and Mary Jane. That said, it was used to great effect at some times. I thought that the scene in the coffee shop between Harry and Peter was a great twist on the typical superhero-supervillain duel; being more subtle, emotional, realistic, and human in nature.
I also want to address another raison d'etre behind the romance in superhero films - they provide a needed female presence in a sea of testosterone. Superhero movies don't need to have love interests, but if you're going to throw in an attractive actress with the rest of the lot, who am I to object? The female crowd supposedly gets drawn in if there's attention paid to romance, and that's all well and good if they like it (and bad if they don't). But for me, as a 21-year-old male, if they're going to throw in a love story, I mostly demand two things: 1) Call me shallow if you will, but given that this whole superhero thing is essentially a teen male fantasy anyway, aren't I justified in wanting the lead actress to be pretty hot? 2) Interesting persona of some sort - a PRESENCE created by the actor's performance, even if this is based on an idealized archetype, which these love interest roles generally are. Beyond these, I don't really need the love story overshadowing the rest of the movie.
Going back to the archetypes:
Cute girl next door. Kirsten Dunst as MJ was perfect in this regard. That kiss in the rain in the first movie is legendary. Third movie pushed it a little too much.
Female reporter. Lois Lane being the original, although she's never worked that great on film in my opinion. I was fine with Margot Kidder because she played a great plucky Lois, but I really didn't like Whats-her-face in SR. She was not hot at all (bony), looked way too young for the role, and she also didn't act particularly well.
Kim Basinger, as Vicki Vale in Batman '89, is a first-class take on a stock character, but that's entirely down to Kim's talents. Any other takes on the female reporter - GR - are obviously not worth remembering.
Superheroine/villainess. Great idea when used with a major character (Catwoman), because it puts a strong female presence with real dramatic heft into the film. Catwoman is the perfect example, since she is such a singular character - always floating between love and hate, ally and enemy. It illustrates how this archetype is most capable of transcending the standard love interest roles for women in movies like this.
Other. Nicole Kidman was amazing in Batman Forever. Gorgeous, and I couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was onscreen. Being an Oscar-caliber perfomer doesn't hurt.
As for Rachel Dawes, I didn't like her at all in Begins, but then I don't find Katie Holmes either attractive or a good actress. Yet I like the idea of including her in the sequel now that she's going to be played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I enthusiastically find to be both those things.
Secondly, where does the established superhero mythology go from there? You have to incorporate all the disparate parts into a movie that tells a gripping and intriguing story, and (especially for movie #1) puts them together into a film based on what people like about superhero stories in the first place. We have established that romance, while beneficial as a component of the overall picture, is not one of those things. Therefore, why make a superhero movie that is primarily predicated on romance? It doesn't add up, and I hereby damn Bryan Singer for his unholy prophecy of 2006: "I want to make a love story". DAMN YOU SINGER!!!
No, I've basically come to terms with Superman Returns by now -I was really looking forward to it, it was a disappointment, and that's at least partially due to the fact that it spends way, way, way too much time on soap opera romance and unnecessary burdens to the Superman mythos, such as Jason, that Singer decided to include in there. It's a niche thing - love stories can be good icing for a superhero movie, but should never be the cake. Spider-Man 3 was also disappointing, although not to the extent of Supes - it was just uneven in comparison to the previous movies. There was definitely too much emphasis on romance, and this made for too many drawn-out scenes between Peter and Mary Jane. That said, it was used to great effect at some times. I thought that the scene in the coffee shop between Harry and Peter was a great twist on the typical superhero-supervillain duel; being more subtle, emotional, realistic, and human in nature.
I also want to address another raison d'etre behind the romance in superhero films - they provide a needed female presence in a sea of testosterone. Superhero movies don't need to have love interests, but if you're going to throw in an attractive actress with the rest of the lot, who am I to object? The female crowd supposedly gets drawn in if there's attention paid to romance, and that's all well and good if they like it (and bad if they don't). But for me, as a 21-year-old male, if they're going to throw in a love story, I mostly demand two things: 1) Call me shallow if you will, but given that this whole superhero thing is essentially a teen male fantasy anyway, aren't I justified in wanting the lead actress to be pretty hot? 2) Interesting persona of some sort - a PRESENCE created by the actor's performance, even if this is based on an idealized archetype, which these love interest roles generally are. Beyond these, I don't really need the love story overshadowing the rest of the movie.
Going back to the archetypes:
Cute girl next door. Kirsten Dunst as MJ was perfect in this regard. That kiss in the rain in the first movie is legendary. Third movie pushed it a little too much.
Female reporter. Lois Lane being the original, although she's never worked that great on film in my opinion. I was fine with Margot Kidder because she played a great plucky Lois, but I really didn't like Whats-her-face in SR. She was not hot at all (bony), looked way too young for the role, and she also didn't act particularly well.
Kim Basinger, as Vicki Vale in Batman '89, is a first-class take on a stock character, but that's entirely down to Kim's talents. Any other takes on the female reporter - GR - are obviously not worth remembering.
Superheroine/villainess. Great idea when used with a major character (Catwoman), because it puts a strong female presence with real dramatic heft into the film. Catwoman is the perfect example, since she is such a singular character - always floating between love and hate, ally and enemy. It illustrates how this archetype is most capable of transcending the standard love interest roles for women in movies like this.
Other. Nicole Kidman was amazing in Batman Forever. Gorgeous, and I couldn't take my eyes off her whenever she was onscreen. Being an Oscar-caliber perfomer doesn't hurt.
As for Rachel Dawes, I didn't like her at all in Begins, but then I don't find Katie Holmes either attractive or a good actress. Yet I like the idea of including her in the sequel now that she's going to be played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I enthusiastically find to be both those things.
