Are You Getting Tired of Comic Book Films?

[rukaio101]

Had to split this into two posts. I tend to get carried away when I'm having fun.

 

For starters, don't comic book movies follow "the hero's journey." 

I never said they did. I was using the hero's journey as an example of an archetype. Most superhero movies follow the 'overcoming the monster' archetype.

 

 

And yes, most movies do have similar patterns in the sense that they have character, conflict, story, and setting, but most genres have variation in terms of conflict, character, and story. I think that the comic book film world is lacking in such variation.

And so do superhero movies. Seriously, compare Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne and Steve Rogers and tell me there's no variation between them. And compare the plots of Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Captain America while you're at it.

 

 

How many superheroes find that part of the reason or the reason that they're a superhero has to do with failing their parents/guardians? (Batman, Superman, Iron Man, and Spider-Man all come to mind, and those happen to be the 4 biggest films of this genre).

Okay, ignoring the fact that the biggest films don't represent the entire genre, I find you're once again ridiculously overgeneralising. Rather than oversimplifying it as 'failing their parents/guardians' let's actually take a closer look. (Also, some of your choices are bizarre.)

 

Bruce Wayne became Batman because his parents were murdered due to Gotham's sink into a crime-filled hellhole. So he became Batman to clean up said hellhole from criminals (making himself a symbol of fear to them) and stop the same thing from happening to more kids.

 

Clark Kent (assuming you're talking about the Richard Donner films rather than the steaming pile that is MoS) didn't become Superman specifically because he failed to save Jonathan, that was just a reminder to him that, even with all his powers, there are things he can't do. He became Superman, after learning of his legacy from his space dad, to help people and be an icon. (The MoS version became Superman because he had no choice since Zod would just blow up the planet, including him, if he didn't show himself (Reason 104# I hate MoS))

 

Tony Stark's parents.... had pretty much nothing to do with him becoming Iron Man. He became Iron Man first because he had no choice if he wanted to survive and then he continued a) because he was interested in the idea and b ) to make up for all the destruction he caused with his weapons.

 

Peter Parker is the best example of becoming a superhero because he failed a guardian. Because he refused to stop a robber with his powers, his uncle was murdered. However, unlike Batman who is a superhero for the sake of cleaning up the city, Peter is Spiderman because he feels it is his responsibility after receiving his powers. (Which is where we get 'With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.)

 

So yeah, if you actually bother looking, there's quite a lot of variation there.

 

 

How many of them end with the same outer conflict (saving the world).

The world specifically? (Since you moved the goalposts last time). The ones I already pointed out to you (and First Class, which I admit I forgot). Which is hardly the entire genre. And again, if you actually look, they do it in pretty different ways.

 

 

I don't see such lack of variation in drama or comedy.

I don't see such 'lack of variation' in superhero movies. And drama and comedy are much more widespanning genres than superhero movies (which, as I mentioned, is a subgenre of action movies). A comedy film is any film that's main aim is to make people laugh. And drama's even harder to pin down a specific definition. For a film to be considered a superhero movie, there are much more specific things it needs to include. And, before you jump on me saying 'but that's what makes it repetitive', I have to ask, do you consider all Courtroom Dramas repetitive because they take place in a courtroom? 

 

 

The more predictable a drama or comedy, the more it gets hammered. Comic book movies find themselves getting much more slack in that department. Often, critics go "yes, the conflict is overblown, but what did you expect from a popcorn movie."

Drama and comedy as full genres have much more than superhero movies (which, as I mentioned, is a subgenre of action movies), so it's less excusable for them. A comedy film is any film that's main aim is to make people laugh. And drama's even harder to pin down a specific definition. For a film to be considered a superhero movie, there are much more specific things it needs to include. And, before you jump on me saying 'but that's what makes it repetitive', I have to ask, do you consider all Courtroom Dramas repetitive because they take place in a courtroom?

 

Also, drama and comedy films are mainly judged on their stories/jokes, so if they're predictable, it hurts them much more. Superhero films (as a subgenre of action films) are mainly judged on their action, rather than stories/characters/etc. Not to say those things aren't important when judging an action film, but they're less so than they are for drama/comedy.

 

 

And haven't most blockbusters been criticized for this form of simplicity before? Aren't people tired of the simplistic nature of big blockbusters? Perhaps, it's unfair to criticize only comic book movies for the flaws of the blockbuster system, but I don't think this justifies your point.

That may be true (even if I disagree), but this thread isn't called 'Are you getting tired of Blockbuster films' is it?

[rukaio101]

Spiderman and Batman took huge steps in the direction of solving their struggles. Does that mean that those fears cannot come back and be revisited? No. But compared to dramas, where the internal struggle can actually consume our main hero and destroy him, it's much more closer to "solving the conflict" than not. In other words, when was the last time you saw a comic book movie and thought "I wonder if he'll be able to solve this internal issue?" The answer is never.

Nope. The answer is Watchmen.

 

 

Again, this is not bad, but when this form of film dominates our box office landscape, then it is tiring.

Again, this sounds more like a problem you have with blockbusters than superhero movies specifically.

 

 

And haven't action movies been criticized for the same thing? I see your point "well then blame action movies and not comic book movies" but I still think it's a negative against comic book films, just like it'd be a negative against action movies as well.

Action movies have been criticised for having a pre-requisite of action packed fights and stunts? Really?

 

 

A) I know that we need conflict, but do we need the same conflict over the same thing (our world/a big city) all the time?

Alright. How about a conflict involving the villain trying to kill the hero's loved one? Oh wait, Spiderman did that. What about a fight over something that can permanently remove superpowers? Nope, that was X-Men 3. How about trying to stop your secretly evil business partner from selling a modified version of your new invention as a weapon? Oh yeah, that was the climax of Iron Man.

 

 

but at least we don't have massive explosions all the time, maybe just a nice one-on-one.

Because as we all know, superhero films never have nice one-on-ones. 

 

 

Or hell, do something even better, raise the stakes with an actually imaginative final battle that I can't think of.

Alright, how about a herring fight in a giant vat of strawberry jam? That's imaginative and I bet you didn't think of it. It's also completely fecking retarded but I digress.

 

 

You know what else makes great films: original content. Or an original twist on already established content.

Speaking as a writer, 'original content' is highly overrated. Either you come up with an idea that tries so hard to be original that it just crosses over into being annoying and stupid (like the aforementioned herring jam) or you come up with an idea that while good, has probably been done by someone somewhere at some point. Also, coming up with an original idea does not necessarily mean you will be able to find an original way to tell it. And coming up with an original way to tell something does not necessarily guarantee said way will be superior to a much more common way. Cliches are used so often for a reason. Because more often than not, they work.

 

 

Instead of trying to defend what was originally a weak point, I will concede that you have me here. With that being said, what are the major complaints against those films? Those few who did dislike Gravity or found it to not be perfect complained about its lame conflict. Same thing with Avatar. 

And do those people complain about Star Wars/LOTR/Finding Nemo/etc having a lame conflict?

 

 

The differences between Finding Nemo and Gravity are greater then the differences between TDK and IM3.

I know. I was merely pointing out that if you generalise films (like DJM has been doing) enough, eventually you end up reaching a common story archetype shared by thousands of films that are otherwise nothing alike.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

Yes

comic book movies a sub genre. If Hollywood did 4 big budget disaster movies a year for years. Comic book movie fans you be complaining. At least most comic book movies are made by Disney so the other studios can make other movies. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, ignoring the fact that the biggest films don't represent the entire genre, I find you're once again ridiculously overgeneralising. Rather than oversimplifying it as 'failing their parents/guardians' let's actually take a closer look. (Also, some of your choices are bizarre.)

 

Bruce Wayne became Batman because his parents were murdered due to Gotham's sink into a crime-filled hellhole. So he became Batman to clean up said hellhole from criminals (making himself a symbol of fear to them) and stop the same thing from happening to more kids.

 

Clark Kent (assuming you're talking about the Richard Donner films rather than the steaming pile that is MoS) didn't become Superman specifically because he failed to save Jonathan, that was just a reminder to him that, even with all his powers, there are things he can't do. He became Superman, after learning of his legacy from his space dad, to help people and be an icon. (The MoS version became Superman because he had no choice since Zod would just blow up the planet, including him, if he didn't show himself (Reason 104# I hate MoS))

 

Tony Stark's parents.... had pretty much nothing to do with him becoming Iron Man. He became Iron Man first because he had no choice if he wanted to survive and then he continued a) because he was interested in the idea and b ) to make up for all the destruction he caused with his weapons.

 

Peter Parker is the best example of becoming a superhero because he failed a guardian. Because he refused to stop a robber with his powers, his uncle was murdered. However, unlike Batman who is a superhero for the sake of cleaning up the city, Peter is Spiderman because he feels it is his responsibility after receiving his powers. (Which is where we get 'With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.)

 

So yeah, if you actually bother looking, there's quite a lot of variation there.

 

I understand that there's some variety, but nowhere near the variety that other genres offer. They still all have similar conflicts dealing with the murder of their parents that tie into other conflicts. And btw, all of the other conflicts are pretty similar too: cleaning up the world, stopping crime, and so forth. But all of those conflicts are expected from superhero films. If I dislike that stuff, then I'm just hating. However, the issue is that outside of these expected conflicts of stopping crime that will obviously repeat, we get conflicts that don't have to repeat (daddy issues/love interest issues and so forth).Now, maybe you could argue that daddy issues and love interest issues are necessary because they follow mythology or because the GA loves that stuff, but my point still stands: it is tiresome to see these same conflicts repeated. 

 

 

 

The world specifically? (Since you moved the goalposts last time). The ones I already pointed out to you (and First Class, which I admit I forgot). Which is hardly the entire genre. And again, if you actually look, they do it in pretty different ways.

 

 

I didn't move the goalposts last time (what does that really mean)? I clearly explained why Spider-Man trying to save a city was the same thing as Superman trying to save the world, or at least was similar in scale. And yes, X-Men: First Class might "do" it differently, but it's still doing it, which is my problem. 

 

I don't see such 'lack of variation' in superhero movies. And drama and comedy are much more widespanning genres than superhero movies (which, as I mentioned, is a subgenre of action movies). A comedy film is any film that's main aim is to make people laugh. And drama's even harder to pin down a specific definition. For a film to be considered a superhero movie, there are much more specific things it needs to include. And, before you jump on me saying 'but that's what makes it repetitive', I have to ask, do you consider all Courtroom Dramas repetitive because they take place in a courtroom? 

 

 

Drama and comedy as full genres have much more than superhero movies (which, as I mentioned, is a subgenre of action movies), so it's less excusable for them. A comedy film is any film that's main aim is to make people laugh. And drama's even harder to pin down a specific definition. For a film to be considered a superhero movie, there are much more specific things it needs to include. And, before you jump on me saying 'but that's what makes it repetitive', I have to ask, do you consider all Courtroom Dramas repetitive because they take place in a courtroom?

 

Also, drama and comedy films are mainly judged on their stories/jokes, so if they're predictable, it hurts them much more. Superhero films (as a subgenre of action films) are mainly judged on their action, rather than stories/characters/etc. Not to say those things aren't important when judging an action film, but they're less so than they are for drama/comedy.

 

 

 

 

A) Superhero films are not courtroom dramas because SH films don't have to be in one setting. Rather, SH films are more like mobster dramas. Certain things cannot be altered (violence will be there, the law enforcement) but there is room for variation. I think mob movies exploit that room much more than comic book films. Yes, SH movies are judged by action, and this fact has sadly allowed them to get away with predictable storytelling and characterization. Which is something that I'm tired of.

 

That may be true (even if I disagree), but this thread isn't called 'Are you getting tired of Blockbuster films' is it?

 

No, it's not titled that. But wouldn't you agree that if I find these elements tiring in blockbuster films, and they pop up in comic book movies, then it's valid for me to say that I find these elements tiring in comic book films as well? I think so. 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Action movies have been criticised for having a pre-requisite of action packed fights and stunts? Really?

 

No, but they have been criticized for favoring action over any original plots or characterization.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Dark Jedi Master 007

[AniNate]

I am beginning to feel a sense of indifference towards superhero movies. Not all that hyped for the ones coming out this summer.

[Lazer]

Maybe the better question is : are you getting tired of superhero films ? Road to Perdition was a comic book film you know.

Or Summer movies?

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Alright. How about a conflict involving the villain trying to kill the hero's loved one? Oh wait, Spiderman did that. What about a fight over something that can permanently remove superpowers? Nope, that was X-Men 3. How about trying to stop your secretly evil business partner from selling a modified version of your new invention as a weapon? Oh yeah, that was the climax of Iron Man.

 

 

 

What's your point? Are you really trying to suggest that comic book films have given us every conflict that they possibly can? 

 

Speaking as a writer, 'original content' is highly overrated. Either you come up with an idea that tries so hard to be original that it just crosses over into being annoying and stupid (like the aforementioned herring jam) or you come up with an idea that while good, has probably been done by someone somewhere at some point. Also, coming up with an original idea does not necessarily mean you will be able to find an original way to tell it. And coming up with an original way to tell something does not necessarily guarantee said way will be superior to a much more common way. Cliches are used so often for a reason. Because more often than not, they work.

 

 

You have not proven why original content is overrated; you've proven why it's hard to pull off an original premise without screwing it up. But exactly what standard should we place for these films? Should we really say: No, that's too high of a bar, and too ambitious of a concept, let's do something safe? Or should we actually ask these films to push for a higher bar?And yes, I'm not expecting a fully original thing to come out, there's no such thing like that in cinema, but we can still have some form of originality. For me, comic book movies lack that compared to other films. 

 

 

 

 

"And do those people complain about Star Wars/LOTR/Finding Nemo/etc having a lame conflict?"No. But there are those who complain about Star Wars having fully realized characters. There are others who complain that Peter Jackson used too much action to tell the stories (Roger Ebert launched that complaint). These people are in the minority, but their responses still show a fundamental dislike for some of the conventions that blockbusters and action films fall into. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Look, rukaio, I understand your point that maybe I should have directed my criticism at blockbusters in general. But I still feel like my overall complaints against comic book films are valid. Yes, you show that there's some variety, but rarely does it match the variety that we'd see from other sub-genres (mob movies) and while there are exceptions to comic book rules (Watchmen), 1-5 movies that buck the trend doesn't mean that there isn't a systemic flaw. 

[The Stingray]

Yes, been fatigued on the happy meals for years.

 

At least the fanboy wars are still entertaining.

^

What he said.

[ShadowGuardian]

No one is getting tired stop trolling marvel haters marvel is mapped out to 2028 and theres nothing u can do about it

[chasmmi]

Not at all. As long as they are still decent at worst I have a lot of time for the genre.

 

And besides, for CGI heavy explosive fun that many audiences want, what would you replace them with? More Lone Rangers and After Earths?

[ChD]

As long as they're well done (like Captain America 2) they can keep on coming. Otherwise, no.

[23IsEverywhere]

The differences between Finding Nemo and Gravity are greater then the differences between TDK and IM3.

IM3 flies and never trained in combat batman doesn't fly and trained for combat

Marlin swims and never trained to be an astronaut Sandra Bullock swims and never trained to be an astronaut 

[Jessie]

No im not getting tired of them, if I don't like a comic book movie I wont slate the whole genre because of it, ill just dislike that one film. If a comic book movie doesn't appeal to me then I wont watch it. Its hard to get sick of a genre that have delivered so many great movies.

[Darth Homer]

Comic books movies, especially the first one in a series, do follow a pretty tired forumula. First half: origin story. Second half: non-stop action and CGI destruction of a major city. But as others have said this is a problem with most genre movies in modern Hollywood. For example, it used to be that you could release a major sci-fi movie that had no action at all and have audiences embrace it for the story and characters. Those days are long gone. No way would a movie like 2001 or Close Encounters be a hit today, not unless they had some ridiculous action sequences forced into the story. Ever since the mid to late nineties, with movies like ID4 and The Matrix, audiences have favoured punching and explosions over ideas.

We really have no one to blame but ourselves, since whenever you have a superhero movie that does focus on character over action, audiences reject it and demand a "less boring" reboot, as in the case with Superman Returns or Hulk. Now, admittedly those two movies had problems other than a lack of action, but at least they tried something different from most recent comic book movies. But now we just get the bigger is better mode of filmmaking.

[Jack Nevada]

Yes, kind of. I'd like to see more big budget studio horror movies like The Exorcist and Scream. 

[baumer]

No one is getting tired stop trolling marvel haters marvel is mapped out to 2028 and theres nothing u can do about it

 

This isn't trolling.  Learn what trolling is before calling someone a troll.

[Jawa]

I'm getting tired of Fox and Sony.

[Fancyarcher]

No, if anything I'm just getting started.