Comments on: Rules for Superhero Movies

By: inkblot

inkblot — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 03:59:35 +0000

#6: Yeah, I can grant a mining ship that sort of size, but what do you mine with that hideous jelly fish shaped thing? And dangling a drill head into atmo? That thing ain’t going down to pick things up!

By: Alicia Vogel

Alicia Vogel — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:54:58 +0000

The biggest abuse of Campbell that I’ve ever seen was the opening of the last Star Trek film. Kirk almost literally shoots out of the womb while his father’s ship is under attack by history’s most ridiculously armed mining ship. (Those Romulans don’t F- around!)

Really, I think the only thing that would have made it more painful was that Kirk’s real father was Zeus who appeared to his mother in the form of the Mutara Nebula.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:53:05 +0000

Yeah, I’ll go along with that.

By: inkblot

inkblot — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:08:20 +0000

#2: The Phantom and Buckaroo Banzai both aimed for the same goal, but personally, I think on Buckaroo Banzai actually hit it. The Phantom did well for bringing a Golden Age superhero into modern movies (I imagine Lee Falk is up in Heaven consoling Will Eisner right now), but as a movie it didn’t do so well at the box office. Beyond the opening intro to the character, the movie itself would make references to the Phantom’s past, his father, etc., that never got fully explored, leaving me (unfamiliar with the comics) feeling lost.

Buckaroo Banzai, however, took the classic “start in the middle” and just ran with it full blast. It didn’t get much critical acclaim either, but the cult following more than made up for it. It ignored rule #1 and was the better for it.

I think what you say in the second half is exposing the problem. Hollywood does try to make superheroes someone to “identify” with, which often makes them feel they need to start with a blank template human, then build them into the hero.

A proper origin isn’t about identifying, it’s about building the character…the sort of thing you read about in Joseph Campbell’s stuff, which Hollywood has turned into some sort of checklist they use to make origin movies with. Makes me want to scream sometimes. Someone had a much better rant over how Hollywood abuses the Monomyth, but I’ll have to go dig it up.

By: inkblot

inkblot — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:34:25 +0000

#1: I didn’t intend to suggest that after an origin story, it’s all downhill. Instead, I feel the origin story is important, and shouldn’t be treated lightly – like some necessary evil to get beyond. I think Dark Knight surpassed Batman Begins simply because Nolan was on a roll. X-Men 2 surpassed X-Men because the script overcame the ensemble problem a bit better that the first movie (and the final movie regressed when too many people spoiled the plot).

Really, only Spiderman ever felt like it was constrained by its origin story. It was executed brilliantly, but Spiderman 2 could go so much further once they got past that. I didn’t get the same feeling from Nolan’s Batman.

Speaking of, I think they suceeded so well bending number 2, because Two-Face wasn’t presented as a villain. He was a victim, in his own way, of the Joker…a pawn. Now, in another movie, he could be a true antagonist, if they can ever decided just how dead dead is.

I’m not as solid about Wolverine’s background, but I think I mostly agree with your assessment. It started well, the origin seemed to be important to the story, but midway through they started going off the rails. Trying to be much too “epic.”

By: ebony14

ebony14 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:19:19 +0000

I agree with that the origin story does not need to be the central point of the first movie. There needs to be an introduction to the character, but the movie equivalent of the narrator’s opening from a radio serial works pretty well, when it’s used. A good example is “The Phantom,” a somewhat hokey, but thoroughly enjoyable, telling of an adventure of Lee Falk’s radio/comic hero, starring Billy Zane. It opens with a brief, ten minute, introduction to the character that is all flashback and voiceover (beginning with the wonderful opening line, “For those who came in late…”, implying that the audience has stepped right into the middle of an ongoing serial movie). Another good example is “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension,” which is actually written, both in screenplay and novelization, as if it is from the middle of a series of films or books.

Unfortunately, I think the American mindset demands some sort of origin, unless you are going with a Man With No Name sort of character. (Wolverine is, after a fashion, a Man With No Name – or more accurately, a Mysterious Past – so this would work pretty well with him.) Hollywood feels the need to make the hero someone that the audience can identify with straight from the beginning, so they show all his or her motivations in the first 30 minutes of the film. It’s not necessary to show how a hero got to be the man or woman that he or she is, merely that he is one. Origins and motivations can be revealed as the story goes along. However, Hollywood is nothing if not an industry, and industries believe strongly in patterns and formulaic approaches. It’s not necessary, but it is certainly easier.

By: aikido_al

aikido_al — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:22:24 +0000

I disagree that the orgin story is the end-all tale and everything afterwards flounders. The Dark Knight, X-Men 2, and Spiderman 2 are all the strongest tales in their respective run. I would argue instead that unless done properly, the orgin story is all setup and the second film lets you actually get involved with the character.

The “floundering” you describe is an unfair description to specific incidents that are Hollywood politics. The first Batman was the studio coming in and looking over Burton’s shoulder, and then bringing in Schumacher. X-Men’s was change of vision/director in it’s third film. Spiderman’s was Avi Arad’s insistence of throwing fan-favorite Venom. The first Superman run is really hard to use as a case since it was the first superhero film franchise. It also had the problem of changing directors/vision…particularly Superman II, as was it was half Donner until he had a disagreement with the producers.

No arguments with rule #2, although Batman Begins bent it to good success. Just have a reason for them to be there! I would also amend this rule to be more of a “don’t throw everything and the kitchen sink in there!”

Wolverine: He’s best without an orgin story IMHO, due to the mystique of his character. I didn’t like the film’s attempt to merge almost every orgin theory together to make a plot. And they threw everything and the kitchen sink in the film, and it turned into a gigantic ball of cheese at the end. Thank the heavens for Jackman, otherwise it would have been unpalatable.

Have a strong consistent vision, and solid writing and you should have a decent run of films. And that goes for any film genre.