Superhero Overload?

Since the box office success of the first X-Men movie back in 2000 (which was in turn made possible by The Matrix), we have been treated to an unparalleled smorgasbord of superhero cinema. Like most smorgasbords, some offerings have been incredible, some have been mere filler, and some have made us want to run to the restroom to relieve ourselves of their weight. With Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight slated for next summer, more helpings are on the way. One of my fellow Extralife Forum-ites recently posted the following gripe:

“Ok, we get it. You can shoot a movie about a comic book hero and make almost a billion dollars. Now stop. In the past decade, there have been TWO "good" superhero movies, and only one I enjoyed (Batman Begins). Everything else is complete crap that is obviously a marketing decision rather than an artistic choice.”

Now, you must realize, I have been a comic book fan since I was old enough to read. Throughout the eighties and nineties, I endured through the obvious disparity between the rich, utter coolness of the comic books and their embarrassingly campy TV and movie counterparts. Then, finally, after keeping the faith, we came to a window in history where unprecedented interest in comic book material converged with advances in special effects. Finally, superhero movies could be produced that actually did justice to their source material from both a F/X standpoint and a dramatic standpoint.

Since 2000, there have been some bombs (i.e. Punisher, Elektra, Catwoman). There has been a lot of filler (i.e. Daredevil, X3, Spiderman 3, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Fantastic Four). These have had some great moments in and of themselves; more importantly, though, they have advanced filmmakers’ superhero instincts, helped them to see what works and what doesn’t. For instance, it’s obvious that filmmakers are moving away from mindless action and explosions and delving instead into their characters core struggles; dramatic substance is moving up the priority list.

Most importantly, this rush to produce superhero films has given birth to arguably the greatest films of the genre, films that not only master the source material, but also the medium. I speak of films like Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, Hellboy, and even X-Men 2 that have been successful critically, commercially, and in regards to their contribution to their source material. I would argue that these films would not have been possible without the other lukewarm eighty percent of superhero films, that it was the trial and error- the synergies of all of these projects, if you will- that created the right environment for these films to be produced so well.

So, with so many superhero films in theaters and on the way are we suffering from superhero overload? No. I think we could stand to do away with some crap (Please don’t ever allow another Zoom: Academy for Superheroes to ever be made… e-v-e-r). But for the most part, superhero fans are finally getting what we have waited for. We are seeing justice done to our most beloved characters. True, we have to expect that not every filmmaker will get it right. But with each Ghostrider and every overly metaphysical outing with the Hulk, Hollywood gets better at bringing our heroes to life. Suffering through these experiments is worth it when we get to see Batman or Spidey done right.

Stop making superhero films? Not on your life. Bring them on, I say!

What do you say? Too many superhero movies got you crying, “UNCLE”? Or are you loving this downpour of super-movies? Chime in and put in your two cents!

Is Stan still the Man?

The headline caught my attention: “STAN LEE SIGNS DEAL WITH DISNEY.” After all, this is Stan Lee, father of Spiderman, X-Men, Hulk, and countless other iconic Marvel comic superheroes. Superheroes, I should mention, that have ultimately defined modern comics and summer blockbusters, making a lot of sweet moola in the process. Indeed, aside from Bob Kane, Joe Shuster, and Jerry Siegel, nobody has left their footprint on the superhero world like Stan Lee. But then I wonder, If Stan’s most notable characters are owned by Marvel and the media companies, what is he bringing to Disney (I’m also asking, Disney, of all places?). So, by this point very curious, I read the article (see link below).

Turns out Stan won’t be bringing any of his Marvel characters to Disney, but a bunch of new characters he has been concocting at his company Pow! Entertainment. Obviously, Disney is trying to compensate for the foolish mistake they made when they let billion-dollar money machine Spiderman go to Sony Pictures, or blockbusting X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises to Fox, or even the Hulk to Universal. A little slow on the uptake (“Hey, maybe there is something to this comic-book-superhero-movie thing?”), Disney is willing to settle for characters that have not been tested and, therefore, have no core fan base. They’re probably saying something like, “Well, they’re superheroes, aren’t they? Made by that same Stanley guy, right? Well, just throw ‘em out there. The money will come rolling in, right?” Wrong, Disney.

Not all of Marvel’s superheroes have turned into successful franchises. Even those with sizeable fan bases (i.e. Daredevil, Captain America, Punisher), have had a tough go at it. Those that have been successful had a few ingredients in common: massive (and I mean, massive) fan bases, competent directors who respected the material and the fans, and a genuinely solid end product, from script to acting to FX to marketing. Apparently, when it comes to superhero films, fans fuel the movie; the larger majority will buy in if it has the best quality. So, this then begs the question: will Stan’s relatively obscure characters make bank without the necessary fan base?

I stopped by Stan’s Pow! Entertainment website to check out some of his new characters. One character is a warrior with a Cable-like cybernetic arm from the future named “The Drifter.” Another called “Stripperella” (“stripper by night, superhero by later at night”) will probably not make the Disney cut but already has her own show on Spike TV. One superhero named Lightspeed, an agent with superpowers, apparently has a Sci-Fi Channel movie in development. I recommend going to the Pow! website to take a look at some of the others. Most of them are still in development and don’t have much information provided.

If you couldn’t tell, I am skeptical that these characters will reap any real rewards for Disney. I doubt they will result in anything more than a few straight-to-DVD features or Sci-Fi miniseries, maybe a Disney Channel original movie. You’ve gotta admire Stan’s creativity, the gifts he gave us in the X-Men, Hulk, and Spiderman. But let’s face it: these franchises have grown beyond him, fueled by a long legacy of gifted writers and artists and loyal fans. You can’t just toss a product into the market with the Stan Lee name on it and expect the same return. Not going to happen.

What do you think? Anyone think that this is just the most spectacularly brilliant strategy Disney has ever devised? How will Stan’s new characters fare in the marketplace? Chime in.

On being unimpressed...

Call me picky. Heck, you can even call me high-minded, artsy, or overly critical when it comes to movies and TV. For some it's just entertainment. That's fine. For me, however, when you sink hundreds of millions of dollars into production and then hundreds of millions more into convincing the world that it will be worth it, make sure the movie you make is worth it, for pete sake! Way too many movies as of late fall far short of their expected return.

Although the majority of summer movies could fall into this sad category, I am speaking specifically of those two most recent megaliths: Spiderman 3 and Pirates 3. Their budgets eclipse those of the last Star Wars movies or Titanic, which, for its time, was borderline insane. Why is it that they can buy the most elaborate special effects sequences known to man in post-production but seem to skimp on the screenplay in pre-production? The result is like a body builder's muscles on a weak, brittle-boned skeleton.

Don't get me wrong- I ooh and aah at those mindblowing sequences that every now and then take us somewhere we haven't been before. Peter Jackson has a knack for conjuring those kinds of images. Spielberg does, too. The Wachowski's took a quantum leap with a single new shooting technique. These images summon those feelings of awe, dread, or glory that the best movies have always delivered. But it isn't the high-technology of the shot alone that conveys those feelings- in fact, it mostly isn't. The effects have to sit squarely on an awesome story. Honestly, the most expensive FX sequences have failed to deliver.

One glaring example of this was the crane disaster sequence in Spidey 3. It was bigger than any building rescue scene we've seen so far in the trilogy. The FX were more seamless than ever. Spidey had more obstacles to surmount. There were people screaming and webs slinging. So why did it feel so empty? Because it existed for its own sake.

What does this imply about the studios' opinion of their audience? I can picture those studio execs sitting in the screening room, chomping on the finest Cubans, saying, "Oh, yeah, the story! I heard those are good to have. But what I think people really want to see is bigger explosions, bigger dinosaurs, bigger tidal waves." That's when another exec guffaws, "People aren't patient enough for a story. Hurry throw another FX scene in there before they realize we don't have real characters!" Moviegoers want a longterm love affair with their movies; the studios are giving us one night stands. Dramatic drops in ticket sales after opening weekends indicate this.

So pardon me if I seem unimpressed. It's not just because I am becoming prematurely crotchety. Occasionally, movies do come along that still blow my mind. Return of the King blew my mind. Spiderman 2 took me for a ride. King Kong blew my mind. Some parts of War of the Worlds blew my mind. I have every finger crossed that Transformers blows my mind. Will I be disappointed? Only time will tell. Given Michael Bay's record for visuals and ADHD editing before story and characterization, I may need more fingers to cross. As far as satisfaction, I am betting on Pixar's Ratatouille to give me the most bang for my buck.

Calling all film and TV geeks, filmmakers, and fakers...

Around the world, after the late night show or matinee, groups of film-philes inevitably congregate in diners, fast-food joints, or cafes to re-experience, analyze, extrapolate, debate, and otherwise immerse themselves tirelessly in those collective communions we all know as moviegoing and TV-watching.

This blog is dedicated to those stalwart souls at that corner table at one o'clock in the morning, neglecting their Moons-Over-My-Hammy to defend Empire Strikes Back as the single greatest space fantasy movie ever... period.

It's dedicated to those troops slamming down another cup of joe to valiantly fend off suggestions that the Lost Island is actually purgatory.

It's dedicated to that brave upstart who dares challenge Citizen Kane's supposed title of best movie of all time.

Whether you are a fan, a critic, a filmmaker, or a faker, this table is reserved for you. Have a seat, order some dessert, and make yourself comfortable.

Seeing as we are already knee-deep in the '07 summer movie season, we have so much to discuss in so little time. So many so-called blockbusters to dissect and discredit ... or appreciate and laud (I do give props where props are due).

Coming tomorrow: an intense throwdown on the twin goliaths Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End and Spiderman 3 and prognostications on what the rest of the summer season will bring! (I predict a rat will outdo an army of two-story tall robots...)