Superheroes in movies are selfish...

[SuperFerret]

They are. I've boggled my mind trying to think of this, but I can't name a single superhero movie that's out that the hero and villain do not have a personal vendetta against each other. Is it so hard for the general public to understand that a superhero would go after a supervillain because he's a bad guy, not just because "he (killed/kidnapped/attacked/covered in mayonaisse) my (uncle/parents/girlfriend/dog)"?

 

[JackBauer]

THANK YOU!!!

seriously, it's like you read my mind. I was thinking exactly that while I rolled my eyes at that "Sandman killed uncle Ben" crap.

moreover, why is it necessary that they humanize the goddamn villain? I know they run a risk of getting a terrible 2D character like movie-Doom, but only if they don't do it properly. drop Ms. Octavius and Sandman's family dammit, because some people on the planet just aren't nice. they don't have to make us care about a psychotic killer, y'know.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This seems like a whinning thread for a movie people haven't seen yet.

 

[CConn]

This seems like a whinning thread for a movie people haven't seen yet.

Well, that's certainly summarizes JackBauer's post, at least.

In any case, I think the reason it's always made a personal struggle with heroes and villain (in most good/bad guy movies, actually) is because it works the best in a two hour time frame. Firstly, almost no one cares about a villain who's not at all connected to the hero. In any form of media. Do people read Batman or Spider-Man to see them beat up random thugs? No, they don't. They read it to watch them fight The Joker, and Doc Ock, and all of those guys. For whatever reason, people like personal struggles. That's made even more evident by the fact that all of the most famous villains, are the ones who have done the most damage to the hero's personal life (The Joker, Green Goblin, etc.).

The difference, however, between comics and film is, in comics, you have a lot more time to build relationships and characterization and, well, hatred between characters. The Joker killing Robin and crippling Batgirl - not to mention the killing of hundreds of innocents - that's all done over a rather long period of time. As are the Green Goblin's crimes against Spider-Man. In a film, when you only have 2-some hours to tell the whole story of the struggle between hero and villain, you need to cement that mutual hatred quickly and effectively. And the easiest way to do that is doing what Burton did with the Joker in B89, or what they're doing with Sandman now in SM3.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well, that's certainly summarizes JackBauer's post, at least.

In any case, I think the reason it's always made a personal struggle with heroes and villain (in most good/bad guy movies, actually) is because it works the best in a two hour time frame. Firstly, almost no one cares about a villain who's not at all connected to the hero. In any form of media. Do people read Batman or Spider-Man to see them beat up random thugs? No, they don't. They read it to watch them fight The Joker, and Doc Ock, and all of those guys. For whatever reason, people like personal struggles. That's made even more evident by the fact that all of the most famous villains, are the ones who have done the most damage to the hero's personal life (The Joker, Green Goblin, etc.).

The difference, however, between comics and film is, in comics, you have a lot more time to build relationships and characterization and, well, hatred between characters. The Joker killing Robin and crippling Batgirl - not to mention the killing of hundreds of innocents - that's all done over a rather long period of time. As are the Green Goblin's crimes against Spider-Man. In a film, when you only have 2-some hours to tell the whole story of the struggle between hero and villain, you need to cement that mutual hatred quickly and effectively. And the easiest way to do that is doing what Burton did with the Joker in B89, or what they're doing with Sandman now in SM3.

I certainly agree with you. But I want to be clear, I am not a big fan of the Sandman killed Ben thing...as a matter of fact the more I think about it the less I like it. I hope it comes off better in the movie than it does in my mind.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Most heroes/villains in comics have personal vendettas or connections with eachother. Magneto, Green Goblin, Kingpin, Bullseye, Joker, Lex Luthor, Baron Zemo, Sinestro, Mr. Sinister, Apocalypse, and several others were all [eventually] given or started out having personal grudges against those they fought (or vice versa). Sure the heroes fight random thugs, we've even seen that in Spider-Man already. However there are very few rogues who get famous by being random. Somewhere down the line they typically became intertwined personally with the greater story of the comic and it's protagonist.

However as CConn points out often these "relationships" in comics take longer to build.

 

[Max J Power]

This seems like a whinning thread for a movie people haven't seen yet.

I bet it stays that way.

 

[SuperFerret]

It's not a whining thread, but it was brought on by the whole "Sandman killed Ben" thing.

I just don't understand why the hero NEEDS to hate the villain in every comic movie, can't the HERO be altruistic and save people from someone they don't hate but is still a huge threat.

Moreover (and this goes for some comics too), how come nobody has noticed that all these villains are connected to one person aside from the hero they fight?

 

[Muze]

It's not a whining thread, but it was brought on by the whole "Sandman killed Ben" thing.

I just don't understand why the hero NEEDS to hate the villain in every comic movie, can't the HERO be altruistic and save people from someone they don't hate but is still a huge threat.

Moreover (and this goes for some comics too), how come nobody has noticed that all these villains are connected to one person aside from the hero they fight?

Peter didn't hate Otto Octavius.

 

[CConn]

It's not a whining thread, but it was brought on by the whole "Sandman killed Ben" thing.

I just don't understand why the hero NEEDS to hate the villain in every comic movie, can't the HERO be altruistic and save people from someone they don't hate but is still a huge threat.

Moreover (and this goes for some comics too), how come nobody has noticed that all these villains are connected to one person aside from the hero they fight?

I already sorta answered that question in my first post; people enjoy personal struggles much, much more than just pure unconnected altruism. And that, unfortunately, leads to some rather nonsensical things like all of the villains being tied to "one person aside from the hero".

Now why do they enjoy it more? I haven't a clue.

 

[SuperFerret]

Peter didn't hate Otto Octavius.

No, he didn't. In fact, it's rare in superhero movies that the hero out and out hates the villain(s), but there was still a personal connection there.

 

[The Joker]

I agree about the hero/villain connection thing. Especially regarding Spider-Man. We've now hit SM-3, and every super powered foe he's faced, he has some personal connections to.

I really thought Sandman would be a break from that. I couldn't think of how they could make him and Peter have a personal connection. So in a true Hollywood contrived fashion, they make him the killer of Uncle Ben.

One thing I was thankful for regarding Ock, is that he didn't blame Spider-Man for the death of his wife, and his failed experiment. That would have been a real cliche. And it would have been so easy for them to do.

 

[The Question]

Okay, I just looked into it, and it's only been said that he'll be accused of killing Uncle Ben. It's not saying that he actually did it. Since the guy who killed Uncle Ben in the first movie looked completely different and died, I think it's safe to say that it's a false accusation.

 

[SuperFerret]

Okay, I just looked into it, and it's only been said that he'll be accused of killing Uncle Ben. It's not saying that he actually did it. Since the guy who killed Uncle Ben in the first movie looked completely different and died, I think it's safe to say that it's a false accusation.

That's pretty much obvious.

 

[Delusive]

So far, Batman in Batman Begins hasn't been in it for himself as far as facing a villain. It's been more of "justice" than "revenge."

The last villain he ends up facing has a personal connection with him but he already thought he was gone and he was trying to stop Gotham from being taken over - I guess he had a personal connection with saving Gotham...

 

[The Kid]

Comicbook movies have generally adhered to the idea that no one is absolutely evil if they're human. They're flawed and corrupt ideals drive them to do evil but they're not animals. They have some redemptive quality or some such thing.

And I agree with that. i think everyone is redeemable in some way. What irks me is that like you say every villain has to be connected to the hero. They have to be the hero's gardner, or the hero's best friend, or the hero's old classmate (Austin Power's Goldmember).

Why?

 

[Dope Nose]

Superman went after Luthor in the '78 film simply because he was a bad guy. prior to Luthor claiming to have a poison gas pellet the two hadn't even met.

 

[The Question]

So far, Batman in Batman Begins hasn't been in it for himself as far as facing a villain. It's been more of "justice" than "revenge."

The last villain he ends up facing has a personal connection with him but he already thought he was gone and he was trying to stop Gotham from being taken over - I guess he had a personal connection with saving Gotham...

He didn't have a personal connection with Ra's besides the fact that he had faced him before.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

They are. I've boggled my mind trying to think of this, but I can't name a single superhero movie that's out that the hero and villain do not have a personal vendetta against each other. Is it so hard for the general public to understand that a superhero would go after a supervillain because he's a bad guy, not just because "he (killed/kidnapped/attacked/covered in mayonaisse) my (uncle/parents/girlfriend/dog)"?

Your point spreads to all fiction.

Look at James Bond films - 007 never had a personal connection to any of the villains (except when Blofeld killed his wife) until Licence to Kill, and from the on it's always been personal.

 

[CConn]

He didn't have a personal connection with Ra's besides the fact that he had faced him before.

Ra's was Bruce's mentor, and an instrumental part in the creation of Batman, and Ra's was trying to destroy "Bruce's city", and Ra's was responsible for the economic slump that inadvertantly resulted in Bruce's parents' death. If it wasn't personal, Nolan and Goyer tried pretty damn hard to make it look that way.

 

[Chris Wallace]

They are. I've boggled my mind trying to think of this, but I can't name a single superhero movie that's out that the hero and villain do not have a personal vendetta against each other. Is it so hard for the general public to understand that a superhero would go after a supervillain because he's a bad guy, not just because "he (killed/kidnapped/attacked/covered in mayonaisse) my (uncle/parents/girlfriend/dog)"?

You're exaggerating. There are plenty of cases where the hero goes after the villain simply b/c he needs to be stopped. And even the ones where there IS a personal motivation involved, often are developed after the conflict has already begun. You make it sound like the movie heroes would just let the bad guy get away if their personal lives weren't affected.
Batman Begins-Bats didn't care about Scarecrow personally, & he didn't know Crane was working for Ra's at first.
Blade-he was out to wipe out ALL vamps. The fact that Forst just happened to be the one who bit Vanessa was just a happy accident.
Superman never has any particular reason to battle a bad guy, just as they have no real reason to try to eliminate him.
The only reason Daredevil didn't take down Kingpin sooner is b/c he didn't know who he was.
Spider-Man-he didn't care about GG or Doc Ock personally. They dreamed up vendettas against him. (Admittedly his chief motivation for going after Ock toward the end was to save MJ, but his unselfish acts outweigh this.) And in all fairness, since Spider-Man's venture into heroism was motivated by personal loss, you gotta be a little more understanding.
As for Sandman, he would go after him regardless. This just makes it more intense. Sandman was always just a petty thug & relatively unimportant, so I don't mind this change.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

You're exaggerating. There are plenty of cases where the hero goes after the villain simply b/c he needs to be stopped. And even the ones where there IS a personal motivation involved, often are developed after the conflict has already begun. You make it sound like the movie heroes would just let the bad guy get away if their personal lives weren't affected.
Batman Begins-Bats didn't care about Scarecrow personally, & he didn't know Crane was working for Ra's at first.
Blade-he was out to wipe out ALL vamps. The fact that Forst just happened to be the one who bit Vanessa was just a happy accident.
Superman never has any particular reason to battle a bad guy, just as they have no real reason to try to eliminate him.
The only reason Daredevil didn't take down Kingpin sooner is b/c he didn't know who he was.
Spider-Man-he didn't care about GG or Doc Ock personally. They dreamed up vendettas against him. (Admittedly his chief motivation for going after Ock toward the end was to save MJ, but his unselfish acts outweigh this.) And in all fairness, since Spider-Man's venture into heroism was motivated by personal loss, you gotta be a little more understanding.
As for Sandman, he would go after him regardless. This just makes it more intense. Sandman was always just a petty thug & relatively unimportant, so I don't mind this change.

Well I think there are still connections regardless if they are later realized it sort of has become a cliche.

1. Batman went after Scarecrow because of a another huge cliche in superhero films *drumroll* the love interest aka damsel in distress...Rachel. I am kind of getting sick of the mandatory love interest who gets caught up in trouble. It is forced into the story and I wish these movies would be a little more original.

2. The whole reason Blade existed was because of Deacon Frost. That is a huge connection.

3. Kingpin was responsible for his father's death therefore creating Daredevil. Gee a lot of these sound familar. t:

4. Peter Parker did care about them. He looked up to them as mentors. And both of them happened to attack MJ and Aunt May.

There are too many cliche personal connections. I was really hoping for Sandman to be a straight up bad guy that Spider-Man needs to stop but I guess Raimi had to throw in the this is personal angle again. It won't ruin the movie for me though I am personally able to look past it. It is just disappointing how cliche these movies are being.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I'm not denying the connections; I'm saying that the connections were not their primary motivations, as evidenced by the fact that in many of these cases, it was unkown to the hero.

 

[November Rain]

yeah revenge motivates villains and heroes alike, two sides of the same coin.

without this hollywood makes us think they would be normal citizens like you and i

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Well I think there are still connections regardless if they are later realized it sort of has become a cliche.

1. Batman went after Scarecrow because of a another huge cliche in superhero films *drumroll* the love interest aka damsel in distress...Rachel. I am kind of getting sick of the mandatory love interest who gets caught up in trouble. It is forced into the story and I wish these movies would be a little more original.

You must have noticed how nearly every story you've ever heard has a romantic interest who must be won somehow, whether through defeating a rival for her affections or saving her from some threat. It's not a cliche, it's an essential part of the universal story.