Superman: The Movie deserves credit for creating the super-hero genre. (I don't think anyone would count 1966's Batman as a legitimate contribution to anything but camp.) Since Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve awed the world, DC and Marvel have made their most popular properties into movies. Sometimes it's great (Superman, The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man) and sometimes it's terrible (Daredevil, Superman III, Batman & Robin, Spider-Man 3). Krishna is right that Superman: The Movie started it off. But I disagree with this: "Without it, there would be no "The Dark Knight," no "Batman," no "X-Men," no "Iron Man."" Hollywood, at least the Hollywood we've seen in the last decade, is not entirely adventurous. I'm not saying there aren't creative people out there or creators willing to take a chance. I'm saying the studios don't want to take a risk with original properties that may or may not sink at theaters. Sequels, prequels, remakes, and adaptations dominate the box office. What Krishna boldly said is that without one particular movie, an entire genre wouldn't exist. I think Hollywood's dependence on proven commodities, and thus a bit of financial security, would have brought the super-hero genre to the same or similar place it is today. I don't want to get into the whole "what if" game that my argument can lead to, because any number of scenarios are possible. But comics had already broken into the mainstream: Superman was on TV in the '50s and so was Batman. Studios were aware of them. If it wasn't Superman: The Movie, it would've been Batman: The Movie, or Spider-Man: The Movie. Now, if the argument was if Superman: The Movie hadn't done well, there'd have been serious repercussions for the super-hero genre, I'd be in complete agreement.
Most of us are suckers for nostalgia. Ask anyone from my generation about Nickelodeon. For hours we can talk about Rocko, Arnold, Doug, Pete, Pete, Clarissa, and hundreds of other characters we grew to love. We'll probably have something snide to say about the current crop of Nick cartoons, too. You may even get to a version of "the good old days" speech we hear guys like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck go on about (except we're talking about cartoons, not...whatever they're hoping for. I honestly don't know. Segregation? Tricky Dick? The gas crisis?). I do it with Jurassic Park. And I think Krishna's doing it with Christopher Reeve's Superman. Superman's also in the unique position of having been played on the big screen by only two men: Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh. I agree with Krishna when he says Routh wasn't Superman. He was playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman, because director Bryan Singer made a tribute to Reeve and Donner's original two films (the idea behind Superman Returns was that it was a sequel to Superman II). Routh was immediately barred in by what had come before. Val Kilmer and George Clooney weren't when they put on the Bat-Suit. Either was Michael Keaton or Christian Bale. Or Kevin Conroy. We saw unique, occasionally awkward/bad, takes on Batman. But with the Man of Steel, it's really just been Christopher Reeve. And he did an incredible job for two movies. But just because we haven't seen a new take on this character does not mean Reeve is the end all, be all. Because I heard the argument Krishna's making before. We all did, when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker. Nicholson fans came out of the woodwork, praising his performance like never before. People claimed no one else could be the Joker. But ya know what? Mark Hamill was the Joker in Batman: The Animated Series. Luke Skywalker put his stamp on that classic villain. Then Heath Ledger did, and now people say no one else should ever touch the role. The thing is, Heath, Mark, Jack...They were all the Joker. But the Joker wasn't them. Same with Bond and Batman. And as much as Krishna would disagree, same with Superman. He's the father of modern super-heroes. He was created before Christopher Reeve, and tragically, has survived him. Batman has done the same thing. Wolverine will too, once Marvel gets their hands back on the rights. These characters have histories that movies and actors can only scratch at. They've gone through golden ages and silver ages, experienced bankruptcy and bad writing, good movies and disappointing movies. And yet, super-heroes are still revered. That's because they're bigger than their medium, whichever one it is. At this point, they're mythological. They're gods.
Sorry if this was nit-picky. I've just heard his argument before, from me, too. I've been in Krishna's shoes. I came around. A lot of it is acknowledging the way we taint films, cartoons, etc., from our childhood. We skew it beyond what it was/is. Actually, it's one of those things that goes beyond childhood. Anything we find some sort of emotional attachment to, we're defensive of: a car, significant other, memory, toys, pets. Sometimes we want things to be better, or bigger, more important. So we say that no movie will ever surpass Jurassic Park, or that George Lucas raped Star Wars AND Indiana Jones (the man just can't leave well enough alone), or that no one but Christopher Reeve will ever be Superman. It's understandable. This thinking, though, closes us off. I mean, what happens if Jon Hamm lands the role of Clark Kent, and we get one of the best performances of the year? We all need to be open to change, to something different and new, especially when it evokes a strong emotional response.
A couple of points:
ReplyDelete1)Hollywood has only even been truly adventurous in the 60s-70s and you can thank Speilberg and Lucas for indirectly making Hollywood what it is today. (See, what I did there?) It's never going to change either, the studios today adapt too easily to fall apart like they did in the 50s.
2)Wolverine going back to Marvel doesn't mean that it will be treated with respect. I have doubts about their upcoming slate of films (That's mainly because Iron Man 2 was so f'n bad and The Hulk was so f'n mediocre) but hopefully I'm proven wrong and they really are doing something special.
3)You're right on about the whole nostalgia kicked, which is why I will probably never understand your position on Avatar. Star Wars...JP...Avatar...in essence, they all share the exact same goals and execute them and the exact same way. That is, visual effect showcases that makes us awe the mountain vista that is our imagination. Is Star Wars truly original? Flash Gordon. Is Jurassic Park? King Kong. Avatar? The Princess of Mars/ Dancing With Wolves. The point is, it's bullshit to deem any film unoriginal unless it's direct plagiarism. Yes Avatar and Fern Gully rip their structure from the same fucking story, but it's James Cameron's Dances With Wolves. He took it to a different planet, thus introducing scientific as well as spiritual discussions that place that "unoriginal story" into an entirely different context. Likewise with Jurassic Park and King Kong. Same idea of men attempting to control nature via containing massive monsters for public display. This time, the story transformed Skull Island into a theme park and introduced scientific debate as a way to modernize the story.
My bad for nerdin' all over your comments thread (and for entirely changing topics).
Dude, I need to be challenged on my blog. If I wasn't, there'd be no chance for conversation.
ReplyDelete1) I agree, although I'd like to know how/why you place the blame on Spielberg and Lucas. I could see it, with the successes of tributes like Star Wars and Indy being the blueprints for where we're at now. Adapting is an easier process, and I say that as someone who adapted a song to short story, and then the short story to script. When the story's already laid out, you essentially just have to edit.
2) My point about Wolvie going back to Marvel had more to do with the likelihood of another actor being cast, thus the character rising above and beyond Hugh Jackman. I liked The Incredible Hulk, but I agree about Iron Man 2. I think we'll see if they learned their lesson when Thor and Captain America come out. Or rather, when their sequels come out.
3) With Star Wars, ignorance is bliss; I've never seen Flash Gordon. But doesn't it draw more from Kurosawa, minus the whole space serial thing (which really doesn't factor in to the actual story, once you're past the opening crawl)? I can't really comment out of ignorance, so I won't.
With Jurassic Park, it shares ideas with King Kong. It shares ideas with any film about man vs. nature, really. But not once during Jurassic Park does it occur to me that I saw that before. I don't doubt that the beats will match up with a lot of films, but it feels unique. Like Star Wars.
Avatar, and I know you're tired of hearing it from me, I swear is a prettier Fern Gully. The sequences, and the placement of sequences, are predictable, top to bottom. Maybe it's because this particular story has been told so often recently, whether as Dances With Wolves, or Fern Gully, or The Princess of Mars. It feels more like a re-run than a different take on a classic tale. And science? Unobtainium? That's not science, man, that's lazy. I'll give you the spirituality, but only because I don't have any examples of Fern Gully's spirituality, which I bet is something along the same lines: we're all connected (expect in Avatar, Cameron had everything literally be connected by hair things. I'm not sure if that's good or bad). Could you expand on the different context you feel it was put in? Because I see it as reenforcing the same context: someone is invading someone else's land, to destroy, kill, maim, control, what have you.
I agree with your JP/Kong comparison. But I don't think it's at all an accurate analogy (five a-words in row! c-c-c-c-combo!) to Avatar and the movies I've compared it to. King Kong left the island for display and havoc. He was lost in our world. The exact opposite in Jurassic Park, because it has everything to do with that island. The Lost World hit the same note as Kong. That may seem small, but it's a huge part of both films.
Lucas says The Hidden Fortress by Kurosawa was his main inspiration for Star Wars, and when you watch the movie it's pretty direct in its borrowing of ideas.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Routh playing Reeve playing Superman, and while that bothered a lot of people, I actually liked it (perhaps cause I enjoyed the whole "love letter to the original" style that Singer was going for). I think a lot of people wanted a new style Supe for Superman Returns and they didn't really get it, thus why so many people view the film as a failure.
With Snyder behind the camera we all know we will be getting something different from Superman (probably in a negative manner). But I havent given up hope because I am interested in someone giving us a new take on the hero. Of course all of the classic elements must be there, but I'm interested to see what someone new (please God let it be Jon Hamm) does with the role. I'm on your side Joey in that I never think roles should be considered off-limits for all time. I dont think Nolan should recast the Joker in Batman, but that's because I dont know that it would really work...10-20 years from now when Hollywood does its thing and reboots the reboot (cause we all know it's gonna happen)then I think they should feel free to try something new with the Joker. It'll be tough to top the towering performance that is Heath Ledger's joker, but that's what Hollywood gets isn't it?
Also, before you call Avatar's science lazy, I'd point you to read this article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34515704/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Or this one (if we're going for a more movie-nerd viewpoint):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440
When I said "lazy," I was referring to the laziness of the creativity. Which is not at all a good way to attack Avatar on science. But the AICN article brought up a good point, that was quickly swept away by the author: things on Pandora wouldn't have evolved so similarly to Earth. So Cameron was being lazy and uncreative in creature design! Now I can keep my sentiment.
ReplyDeleteYou're right on about Hollywood remaking the remake. And when that time comes, we ought to see Joker. Legitimately, is there a more well-known comic book villain? Maybe Magneto or Lex Luthor, but even then, I think they lack the notoriety.
I really do want to see a different take on Supes. He's my least favorite of the big heroes, and I want to care and be fascinated and awed. Like we've talked about, I think Snyder is too heavy-handed for Superman. But on the plus side, Natalie Portman may be playing Lois Lane. Rumor is that she dropped a movie for this.
Did you read the section called "the aliens" in the first article...they make it seem like he did a rather good job with creature design. but since there is no real scale for which to measure creativity, it is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteI heard she dropped the Cuaron film "Gravity" for Supes, but who knows..
Hey, I really like this piece, and as much as it disagrees with my article a bit, I somehow, oddly, agree with it :)
ReplyDeleteNice points. Well written.
- Krishna Shenoi
Glad you liked it!
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to be objective about the things we love—I'll never be able to watch Jurassic Park with the same critical eye I use for other movies. So I'm in the same boat. It's an odd balance of agreement and disagreement.