For more on Doug’s thoughts on the trials of being a critic
vs being just a movie viewer, check out his video here
But what does that have to do with how we, the average fan
views a superhero film. Well, let’s take
a look at 2011’s “Green Lantern” starring Ryan Reynolds. Personally I’ve blasted this movie in the
past but in looking back, even I have to admit I was harder on it than I should
have been. We, the fans, see so many
superhero movies over the course of our lives that frankly they start to blur
together. A lot of people were hard on “Green
Lantern” but it had a competent movie star in the lead role, great actors all
around, an amazing effects budget, some very unique ideas on style, and some
pretty solid dialog. So, why was it
blasted? Because we felt we’d seen it
all done before. “Green Lantern” was
very much a “by the numbers” production and it followed the same basic plot of
almost every superhero movie out there.
For some reason when it came out we expected more out of it because of
the unique material it had to work with.
It literally had whole galaxies to explore, but it confined itself to
three locations, Oa, space, and Earth.
We’d become so jaded at that point that a lot of fans were willing to
write it off as just another bad comic book movie. Even “The Big Bang Theory” took a shot at the
film.
(The Big Bang
Theory: The Countdown Reflection 2012)
So, if a bad comic book movie isn’t technically “bad”, what
is a bad comic book movie? Chances are
when I say “bad comic book movie” the same handful of titles keep coming to
your mind: Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Steel, Superman 3 and 4, X-Men: The
Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Batman v
Superman: Dawn of Justice, Iron Man 2, Spider-Man 3, and probably a few
others. Chances are you saw one title in
that list that made you cringe. Now let’s
break that list down and see if we can find common threads that makes think of
these films as “bad”
“Batman Forever” featured competent actors, a decent budget,
and some amazing practical effects.
There were, however choices made by the director, Joel Schumacher, that
fans question greatly. Namely the fact
that Tommy Lee Jones’ Harvey (Two-Face) Dent and Jim Carey’s the Riddler feel
like Joker knock-offs. That’s the
primary complaint I hear from fans, the Joker knock-offs.
Speaking strictly in tone of the film, they feel it is
vastly different from the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton era (which some fans are
divided on whether or not those two films were any good either). The colors are brighter, there are more
jokes, more slap stick humor and the Dark Knight is anything but dark. What Schumacher was attempting to do with his
interpretation of the character is recapture the camp and spark of the Adam
West television series. He wasn’t
attempting to make a “sequel” to the Tim Burton films; he was making his own
version of the character. It just happened
to fall into the franchise established by the first film. If this was your first time watching a Batman
film since 1966’s Batman series and theatrical release, you would have thought
this was just an extension of that series.
The same goes with “Batman and Robin”.
It’s a bad sequel, but as a standalone film, it’s stupid and funny and
you can take young kids to see a Batman movie.
If anything Schumacher seems to understand that his films were only one
part in a much bigger franchise, one that included video games, comic books,
and action figures. The plot feels thin
because he’s making a commercial for merchandise, and kids need to be able to
see that commercial.
Perhaps Michael Bay could learn that lesson, that he’s
essentially making 90 minute toy commercials.
Does creating a film to be a really long commercial make it
any better or any less mercenary? Not really, but it informs why a filmmaker
makes certain choices.
Let’s flip over to the Marvel Camp really quick. “Iron Man 2” gets a lot of flak for being a “cash
in” sequel, but it actually slips into the plot threads set down by the first
film really well, as well as establishing characters and interactions that are expanded
upon by the greater Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Nick Fury and Agent Coulson are expanded on, both of whom have major
roles later down the line, and we are introduced to Scarlet Johansson’s Black
Widow and reintroduced to Major James Rhodes, now played with a lot more
personality by Don Cheadle, and who has again a major role in “Captain America:
Civil War”. A lot of fans feel that a
better plot line for the second film to follow would have been “Demon in a
Bottle”; a story that delves into Tony Stark’s alcoholism in the comics, but
that wouldn’t have fit with the movie characterization. Yes, there was a huge plot convenience in the
film that, under any amount of scrutiny doesn’t make any sense, but that’s very
common for really any action based film, not just comic books.
“Spider-Man 3” catches a lot of heat for shoving in a lot of
villains in a short amount of time, and accusations that Sony insisting Venom
be in the picture actually created a lot of the problems with the film, making
director Sam Raimi re-write the story around the added villain. The final product again was good for kids and
something they could watch again and again.
A lot of how we respond to a film is dictated by our
perspective. When I was a kid, for
instance, I loved “Superman 3”, I was okay with “Superman 4”, and “Batman” with
Michael Keaton was the definitive Batman movie.
Now, as an adult, I see the flaws in all of them. The jokes that made me as a kid laugh don’t
make me as an adult laugh. The plot
choices I thought were cool at the time do not hold up now. Even the sacred “Batman” film leaves me with the
grown up question of “Wait, where are the poison gas balloons going now?”
Rather than blasting a movie as being automatically bad
because we the fans are grown up and have “more sophisticated tastes” we should
consider how the general audience is going to look at these movies. “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” has some
plot holes and choices that, to an adult don’t make any sense, but to most of
the kids in the audience, it makes perfect sense, because it was geared to
appeal to them so they would go out and get us, the parents, to buy the toys.
We as fans need to understand that “Avengers” and “Spider-Man”
are not “The Godfather”, they are geared towards wider audiences. You won’t find Scarface action figures in the
toy aisle at Wal-Mart. You won’t see the
“Great Gatsby” on a kid’s lunchbox. That
doesn’t mean that, as a fan, you shouldn’t enjoy the movie, it’s made for you
too. But don’t take it so seriously
either. There isn’t a definitive movie
about a character; there will always be other interpretations later down the
road. Heck, take a look back at some of
the movies you “hate”, and you may find something you really enjoy there too.
Thanks for reading.
