Superheroes in movies are selfish...

[Savage]

hmm...Blade, Superman, and Batman seem to be the only guys not guilty of this (well not in every movie anyway. Only Batman 1 and Blade 1 are guilty of this and even then you weren't made to feel sorry for their villains).

I honestly don't get it either. It's rather silly if you ask me. It's like they're all looking to jerk tears when the villain is defeated. "Awww. He was just misunderstoood." Bull. Where are the guys like Sabretooth who just want to kill you for sport? Or Shocker who just wants to do it for money...Even Sandman has a little girl in Spider-man 3. Come on. Just let us hate our villains already.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

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.

Lol. It isn't essential sorry. It might be for you and it definitely is for the business aspect but not for the story. I don't mind the hero having a girl but **** does every girl need to stumble into trouble??? It is ridiculous sorry because it is at the point where every movie needs the female lead just to get that female demographic period. I am not saying it ruins the movie for me but it has become a cliche mandatory thing where I just have to shrug off.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

hmm...Blade, Superman, and Batman seem to be the only guys not guilty of this (well not in every movie anyway. Only Batman 1 and Blade 1 are guilty of this and even then you weren't made to feel sorry for their villains).

I honestly don't get it either. It's rather silly if you ask me. It's like they're all looking to jerk tears when the villain is defeated. "Awww. He was just misunderstoood." Bull. Where are the guys like Sabretooth who just want to kill you for sport? Or Shocker who just wants to do it for money...Even Sandman has a little girl in Spider-man 3. Come on. Just let us hate our villains already.

Yep I agree. I was so excited for Sandman and I said it is about ****ing time Raimi a villain that will be just that...a villain. But he had to transfer even more things from another villain to make Sandman teh feel sorry guy.

 

[Ben Breeck]

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.

Actually, that isn't true.

Eliott Carver (Tomorrow Never Dies) was just annother random James Bond villain, with no more personal connection to him than would have happened if Kamanga/Mr. Big had decided to kill Solitaire the first time he suspected she was compromised.

But I will admit that Alec Trevelyan, Elektra King, and Mr. Cho were personal.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Also, I don't think that Sandman's being the killer is there to motivate Peter to go after him, but rather to give this generally good kid a dark motivation; something the symbiote can latch onto & magnify.

 

[jrpstarwars]

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)"?

More and more I am thinking these superhero movies are really, really bad films.

 

[Halcohol]

In all fairness, a superhero who has no conflict between his duty and what he wants is a pretty boring character. Especially in a major motion picture designed to draw in the biggest crowd possible.

 

[jrpstarwars]

In all fairness, a superhero who has no conflict between his duty and what he wants is a pretty boring character. Especially in a major motion picture designed to draw in the biggest crowd possible.

True, a main character has to have some sort of personal conflict but the Batman-Joker thing is too much.

 

[Chris Wallace]

In all fairness, a superhero who has no conflict between his duty and what he wants is a pretty boring character. Especially in a major motion picture designed to draw in the biggest crowd possible.

Quite true.

 

[jrpstarwars]

How do these films compare too real films recognized worldwide as 'good' films?

 

[Chris Wallace]

True, a main character has to have some sort of personal conflict but the Batman-Joker thing is too much.

I found it kind of odd that they laid out the Joker's past,his motivations & everything, but kept Batman's shrouded in mystery-which is the opposite of what the comic did.

 

[jrpstarwars]

I found it kind of odd that they laid out the Joker's past,his motivations & everything, but kept Batman's shrouded in mystery-which is the opposite of what the comic did.

Burton's movies are 'different.' He likely found the Joker character more intresting. Wow, I guess we know now which Batman movie is a real Batman movie and not a Joker movie.

 

[Red Mask]

Actually, that isn't true.

Eliott Carver (Tomorrow Never Dies) was just annother random James Bond villain, with no more personal connection to him than would have happened if Kamanga/Mr. Big had decided to kill Solitaire the first time he suspected she was compromised.

But I will admit that Alec Trevelyan, Elektra King, and Mr. Cho were personal.

The "Man with the Golden Gun" was personal because 007 was being targeted by him. Bond couldn't get any field work until he neutralized him.