34 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
magnuskn said on May 2nd, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Thanks for the rebuttal of that article, I also was shaking my head in disbelief at the assumptions and leaps of shaky logic.

While I think that Guardians of the Galaxy is actually a good sell ( if they do characters like Groot and Rocket Racoon in a good way and not as mere comic relief ), I have my doubts that there is any shape or form in which they can sell Ant-Man to the public.

ReplyReply
mygif

Besides, Blade came out a year before X-Men and started the whole “Let’s start really trying with these” movement. Blade’s success motivated them to go for it with X-Men.

ReplyReply
mygif
Elijah Fly said on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Guardians of the Galaxy is James Gunn (whose last superhero movie is going to be one of my favorite super hero movies of all time.) doing what is essentially Firefly 2 with a ‘holy shit Thanos is going to wreck earth if we don’t stop him guyz!’ teaser for Avengers 2.

That it might flop with a mainstream audience, I can see that. but he’s been on a roll making things I adore these past couple years, I pretty sure that i’ll love it at least.

ReplyReply
mygif
Tenken347 said on May 2nd, 2013 at 4:43 pm

Actually, superhero movies can easily be dated back to the days of serial pictures of the 1930s and 1940s, which had both Superman and Batman, but also Captain America, Captain Marvel, and Dick Tracy (not a superhero, but definitely a comic book movie). And although your millage may vary, Batman ’66 was released in movie theaters.

ReplyReply
mygif
acabaca said on May 2nd, 2013 at 5:25 pm

Blade is not a superhero movie, it’s a more masculine version of Buffy.

I’d have an easier time accepting Punisher as a superhero movie. At least Frank wears a big damn logo on his chest.

ReplyReply
mygif
Sumguy said on May 2nd, 2013 at 8:25 pm

~40% of all Cracked articles are attempts to spin up the comments section.

ReplyReply
mygif

And Ghost Rider still got a sequel.

ReplyReply
mygif
Beacon said on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:00 pm

Buffy is pretty much a superhero story anyway.

Punisher is more of a revenge flick.

ReplyReply
mygif

Oh, yeah, Blade’s just a buff guy with superpowers who puts on a costume and runs around punching monsters. How silly of me to think he was a superhero.

ReplyReply
mygif
Kristopher A. said on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Superhero movies survived Fantastic Four, Elektra, Superman Returns, X3: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Those movies were all within 2 years of each other (2005-2007), were critical flops or under-performed despite their characters. By the logic of the article, we never should have gotten Iron Man and The Dark Knight.

ReplyReply
mygif
Energy-Puking Boy said on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:41 pm

I think a “superhero” needs to have a clearly defined second identity (not necessarily secret) and a recognizable costume that goes with it. Tony Stark puts on the armour and becomes Iron Man. Bruce Wayne puts on the costume and becomes Batman, etc.

Blade only has one outfit that he wears all the time and has no other identity; therefore, not a superhero. Maybe.

ReplyReply
mygif
Mitchell Hundred said on May 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 pm

What about The Thing? I mean, his real name is Ben Grimm and all, but it’s not like he can stop being The Thing whenever he wants to. Functionally speaking, he only has one identity.

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah that definition excludes the entire f4

ReplyReply
mygif

Taking Cracked articles seriously is its own punishment.

ReplyReply
mygif
HonestObserver said on May 2nd, 2013 at 11:34 pm

I miss PWOT.

ReplyReply
mygif

/googles “New Hollywood”

Oh. Baby Boomer Hollywood.

ReplyReply
mygif
Ian Austin said on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:42 am

Ant Man wil bomb, but Wright makes films so good it doesn’t matter.

ReplyReply
mygif

Incidentally, I had a hell of a fun time watching Iron Man 3, and the post-credits scene was one of the more enjoyable ones of the Avengers movies.

ReplyReply
mygif
Tim O'Neil said on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:40 am

I don’t think Ant-Man will bomb. I think they’ll spend less money on Ant-Man, market it appropriately as an action comedy, and it will do proportionately less but still healthy business.

And the two Ghost Rider films are great, the second moreso.

ReplyReply
mygif

Salmo’s got it. “Blade” made US$70 at the box office and about double that in DVD sales. It was Marvel’s first big movie success.

But Blade was an unknown character, African American, part of a franchise that diminished over time and wasn’t helped by Wesley Snipes’ later behaviour. A lot of fans prefer to think of “X-Men” or “Spider-Man” as the start of ‘modern’ superhero films because those are the marquee names, whereas Blade isn’t.

But they’re overlooking how important that film is to the start of Marvel’s movie ambitions. If “Blade” had flopped, there’s no good reason that “X-Men” or “Spider-Man” would have left development hell, or be given budgets of US$75m.

And as for the ‘separate identities’ thing, “Iron Man” effectively (and sensibly) scotched that at the end of the first film. The world knows that Tony Stark is Iron Man.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Unstoppable Gravy Express said on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:00 am

Maybe a better rule would be that if you can say “x IS y”, where x =/= y, they are a superhero.

Tony Stark IS Iron Man = superhero
Blade IS Blade = not superhero
Reed Richards IS Mr. Fantastic = superhero
Ben Grimm IS The Thing = superhero
John Constantine IS John Constantine = not superhero

ReplyReply
mygif
Eli Balin said on May 3rd, 2013 at 11:58 am

The main problem with the Cracked article is that it was terribly myopic, and overlooked a somewhat consistent cycle of movie trends.
What prevailed before “New Hollywood”? Blustery war movies and 70mm epics.
Before that? Film noir and tightly-plotted character pieces? And before that? World War Two.

ReplyReply
mygif
Bass Wakil said on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:01 pm

The author of the Cracked article has a hidden presupposition which is: “Great art comes from taking risks and making mistakes.”

It’s a common view, often fostered in academic circles (or pretentious circles hoping to be academic) as one of many ways to somehow trivialise an artist’s accomplishments as accidents.

There may be a bubble, but it’s not because ‘artists can only create if they risk and struggle’.

It’s nonsense. Pixar, Clint Eastwood, and the Coen Brothers disprove that every year. All great artists. All producing consistently excellent work. None of them are worried about their next paycheck and produce at ‘clockwork’.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Unstoppable Gravy Express said on May 3rd, 2013 at 2:28 pm

…Clint Eastwood??

ReplyReply
mygif
Scavenger said on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:09 pm

Other than his one man (well one man and a chair) stage show*, Eastwood is considered one of our greatest artistic directors.

*and really, that just shows why comedians and musicians test out/workshop new material at late night venues before their big shows.

ReplyReply
mygif
The Unstoppable Gravy Express said on May 3rd, 2013 at 3:29 pm

Oh, no arguing that he’s done great work, it’s more the “every year” part. I mean, Trouble With the Curve and all.

ReplyReply
mygif

Eh, Cracked is able to give me unique info now and then, so I can’t complain about a flop article once in a while. At least it doesn’t mire in relentless hypernostalgia like some of the more low brow “List” sites out there.

ReplyReply
mygif

Eric Brooks IS Blade = superhero

ReplyReply
mygif

Exactly so, Adam. His mama didn’t name him Blade – Well, she didn’t name him anything. But you get the point.

ReplyReply
mygif
Kyle W. said on May 4th, 2013 at 2:47 pm

These comments caused me to look up Hellboy’s demon name.

ReplyReply
mygif

Donald Blake IS Thor (in the comics, sort of) = superhero
Thor IS Thor (in the movies) = not superhero?

ReplyReply
mygif
The Unstoppable Gravy Express said on May 7th, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Well that’s part of what’s cool about Thor, is that he’s a Norse god who hangs out with superheroes.

ReplyReply
mygif

“The author of the Cracked article has a hidden presupposition which is: “Great art comes from taking risks and making mistakes.”

It’s a common view, often fostered in academic circles (or pretentious circles hoping to be academic) as one of many ways to somehow trivialise an artist’s accomplishments as accidents.”

And the award for ‘No Understanding of the Creative Process Whatsover’ goes to…Bass Wikil!

No, Bass, to think that great artists are great because great work just springs out of their heads fully formed is what trivializes great artists’ accomplishments. You also used some terrible examples.

The Coens are some of the riskiest filmmakers out there, never playing it safe and always trying to avoid repeating themselves. They also struggled mightily in their early years, having difficulty finding funding (or box office success) for almost every film they made before ‘Fargo.’ If the Coens played it safe, they’d be making the tenth reiteration of ‘The Big Lebowski’ by now.

Clint Eastwood spent years apprenticing under experienced directors like Don Siegal, as well as most of the 70s and 80s directing unremarkable action programmers like ‘The Gauntlet’ and ‘Firefox’…and nevermind those Orangutan movies. Even after he hit his stride (and won critical respect) with ‘Unforgiven’, he had his fair share of critical and commercial failures. He’s in his mature, can-seemingly-do-little-wrong period now, but it took him about fifty years to get there.

And Pixar? The company that John Lasseter came to after he was fired from Disney? The company Steve Jobs bought after he’d been ousted from Apple and was heading a soon-to-collapse company called NeXT? Pixar, the company that George Lucas sold to Jobs because he thought it was basically a money pit? Pixar, the company that is very open about spending literally years in the development of each script, trying dozens of different approaches, employing armies of writers, sometimes throwing out years of work because the stories didn’t click? Pixar is great because they ARE willing to make mistakes, lots of them. They make great movies because they’re willing (and able) to take the time to go down every wrong alley until they get a story that works. After that, they make the movie, but not before.

I’m sorry Bass, but you don’t understand how these things actually work for most creators, and it sounds like you fall into one of two types of people/fan: 1. The fan who wants to believe that the artists they admire are basically inhuman, infallible gods or 2. The person who aspires to be a brilliant creator themselves, and wants to hold to the fantasy that it will happen because they’re brilliant, instantly, and without struggle, risk, mistakes or pain. For your sake, I hope you fall into the first category, because you’re in for a world of disappointment if you’re in the second.

ReplyReply
mygif

Uh, the article is just saying that people will get tired of the Superhero movie fad, and it will happen before Hollywood is aware of it. And he bases his ideas on past fads.

Yes, he also says that superhero movies paved the way for a lot of other fantasy movies headed by geeks who love the material. And that this happened before in the previous fad he mentioned.

There really are more good superhero movies out than there were in recent history. And that’s not going to stay the same, because people are going to get bored unless they innovate–aka take risks, which past history has shown most won’t do.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments