Amph Superhero Overload?

I mean, does it really suck that there are a bunch of threads on things you aren't interested in? Most threads on the front page are things I'm not interested in, I don't really feel like it sucks tho.

 

i said it was a minor inconvenience in the same post you quoted, so. like i'm not interested in wrestling, and it's no problem ignoring the wrestling thread, but if there were 25 threads about wrestling i might say something.

 

On the other hand, if there were 25 different types of wrestling, I'd understand. There are many different types of comic book movies.

 

When the discussion of comic book films turns to "they're all the same" and reading the OP, I always think to two things, the "seven basic plots" and the notion the comic books are the modern mythology.

As I posted earlier, "comic book films" have subverted the traditional action blockbuster as the action genre and comic book genre are typically built upon "the hero's journey." And said journey usually falls into the "seven basic plots" of literature, which are, as remembered from second grade by IPL volunteer librarian Jessamyn West:

man vs. nature
man vs. man
man vs. the environment
man vs. machines/technology
man vs. the supernatural
man vs. self
man vs. god/religion

So yes, in a manner of speaking, among the super hero films you'll bound to find similarities. But, it's the journey and the character's essence that differs from film to film. Let's take the figure heads of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, Tony Stark and Steve Rogers as different examples of differing "the hero's journey" and character personas. Tony Stark is born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth and grows up being the rich, pompous and apathetic to the world around him, which is stereo-typically the villain of most films, and then you have Steve Rogers, who grew up poor, humble and undersized. Their backgrounds and journeys are in stark contrast to each other, which is the basis for Civil War. Stark's journey to becoming a hero is founded in guilt and redemption, whereas Rogers' is built on doing good for the sake of good. So comic book heroes, much like Jedi take a different path to arrive at their destination or to a different extent, James Bond. So, as posted earlier, it's these different paths and character personas that keeps the genre fresh and the cause for the box office success and therefore not having that superhero overload by most of the movie going audience. Basically, fans of super hero films and whatnot focus more on the differences than the similarities and thus don't have superhero fatigue.

Secondly, super heroes are the modern mythology. You can Google search the phrase "comic books modern mythology" and find numerous essays, articles, books, etc expressing that notion with the underlying theme that super heroes and their stories are a reflection of society and humanity. Moreover, each character typically has some sort of the "12 Labors of Hercules." It's these "labors" that a super hero must endure that make them both mythical and empathetic. And like Greek mythology, comic book mythology finds a way to endure with the passage of time and fatigue. Unlike the "spaghetti westerns," (produced in Europe by an Italian) which were quickly churned out without much variation on characters or themes, the modern comic films (mostly the MCU) are carefully crafted and diverse in themes and characters. Additionally, besides the characters, the artists, writes and directors behind them give them new life. Nolan's Batman has set a new standard for the character, but yet fans are still eager to see other interpretation of the character. And as such, there's always a sense of newness, which the box office success of Spider-Man: Homecoming clearly demonstrates.

EDIT: Comic books can be inspirational and circular with artists, writers and directors and note by an article I read with features this about the director of Black Panther, Ryan Coogler:

 

You didn't hear Kevin Feige is running for president in 2020?

 

even if this were true, and in my experience it really isn't (yes there are ones that are dark and grim, ones that are shiny and lighthearted, self-parodying fourth wall breaking ones, etc. but despite cosmetic differences they all tend to cling very closely to the same cookie cutter three act structure), i still don't think i would buy this argument. there are hundreds of different types of craft beer yet we seem to do fine discussing them in one thread. the "film discussion thread" covers a variety of genres past, present, and future. even if there are different types of a thing it's not impossible, and can be beneficial to the boards and the discussion itself, to discuss them under one umbrella topic.

 

I guess I meant that there is a DC continuity, a couple of Marvel continuities, the X-men stuff, etc. I can see why there are multiple threads.

 

sure, me too. i just think it's too many. like if it was one for each continuity (how it is with the x-men thread basically) that would make perfect sense. and again i realize it's only a minor inconvenience, if people think consolidating discussions will make things worse (and i do understand the spoiler argument) then i'll live, i'm just airing my minor grievance.

 

And only one of them is discussed here.

 

You know that "minor grievance" is interpreted as "big mf problem" on here.

 

Have you seen Legion, tom ? I think it's the least generic superhero TV/film of the decade, at least in terms of presentation. It really leans into surrealism.

 

i haven't seen it yet, but i've been really curious about it since i found out it was created by the guy who created the fargo tv series. will definitely watch eventually.

 

Yeah, Noah Hawley ran it and it shows.

 

I think rather than getting into discussion about whether these movies are different enough to deserve separate threads, we should look at the traffic they generate. Whether they are worthy of the amount of attention they get is irrelevant. They just do. Would consolidating all Marvel movies into one thread make the thread move too fast to be able to keep up with? Then it's impractical and we shouldn't do it. I skip the US Politics thread altogether lately because it moves too fast for me to bother keeping up with. If that's the solution for the superhero discussions, that's counterproductive. Well, not to you. But to the people that those threads serve it is.

There is only one thread for what book you read last, because there aren't that many readers. There is only one thread for what the last movie you saw was because most movies don't cause the amount of discussion that the superhero flicks do about their tiniest minutiae. It's irrelevant whether it's silly that it does. The fact is that it just does, and we have to accomodate it somehow. And so, any discussion about consolidation should be on the basis of practicality, rather than whether movies that all look the same deserve separate threads, as that's a moot point anyway.

 

If we could permanently lock all superhero threads, and then have one non-mod user create all new superhero threads, I would place that user on ignore and all the superhero threads would disappear. I don't care who the user is. I'll ignore tom if it means all threads I'm not interested in disappear.

Mods, lock them, someone make a dummy sock, create the new versions of the threads, and we can all ignore.

 

Brilliant

 

The threads would still show up, I think. You'd have to ignore everyone who posts in them.

 

No, you only have to ignore the OP. That's how I ignore the [redacted redacted redacted] threads.

 

Oh, okay then.

 

The threads disappear. They can be revealed by clicking "show ignored content" at the bottom of the thread list. I'm the JCC's foremost expert on the ignore function, don't question me or I'll call Ender on you.

I actually have one such ignored thread on page two.

 

That's just about stupid enough to work!

 

How about just using the watched threads feature and go from there? I use it to post in favorite threads when they are not on the first two pages of the JCC. I don't mind threads on multiple superhero films. I like having that system, that way if there's news that I miss (which is frequent lately), I just can pop in and find out what's up. Post if I want, or don't.

 

Luc Besson is suffering from superhero overload.

VALERIAN Director Luc Besson Slams Superhero Movies And CAPTAIN AMERICA's "Propaganda"

I found these comments by Luc Besson humorous, especially since Valerian is based off of a French comic book. Additionally, he admits he's lost with the super hero genre and therefore doesn't get it and so his criticism is ignorant in the truest sense of the word. And it's not the first time a filmmaker has based superhero flicks. I remember James Gunn clapping back at some indy filmmakers.

Like it or not, comic book films fund other studio films. It's like how college football and basketball fund other programs and whatnot for their school.

And as for Besson throwing shade on Captain America?, well there has been a long history of Frenchmen throwing shade at Murica. And you won't get much argument out of me saying that "Captain America" was part of any propaganda, especially when the comic book cover has the character punching Hitler in the face and even in the film The First Avenger, the character is used to sell war bonds on tour. However, Captain America is not a symbol of the supremacy of America but rather the pride and spirit of it's people during World War II. Meaning, Captain America is not a symbol of today's America before reflective of America in the era the character was created; thus having the tagline "A man out of time." And if Besson had watched the Captain America films he would have realized that Steve Rogers opposes fascism and governments acting in fear. Captain America is normal because he's been around for decades and he does tell a story that reflects modern society.

 

I think you're giving Besson a pretty ungenerous reading. Valérian hems closer to superheroes than other French comics (which is maybe the closest he gets to the pot calling the kettle black in my opinion), but I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to criticize the general sameiness of the Marvel films (something that gets called out with some regularity on this very forum) and, in turn, explain the confusion inherent in the extremely American practice of unspecified crossovers occurring without much apparent rhyme or reason (Why exactly is Civil War a Captain America film if it could easily have been an Avengers or Iron Man film, for example). If you're already running into the issue of these movies seeming pretty same-y it can quickly become an incomprehensible mishmash.

The contention that blockbusters finance less profitable films is debatable. It's also fairly irrelevant as Besson has worked on numerous blockbusters (you might say he has a very particular set of filmmaking skills. Skills acquired over... he made Taken. That's the joke. Moving on.), so if it is indeed the case it's something he'd be aware of.

As for Captain America... eh, I think he's right, actually. It isn't some "French" observation that America has an uncomfortable degree of self-mythologizing baked in at its core, such that, yes, people do find it off-putting whenever the fact that Marvel has several Captain [Insert country here] characters exist is brought up - it's a peculiarly American ideological bent to assume there's a Platonically essential," "good" version of its national values which can be spread through a force doctrine. Steve Rogers is a particularly interesting example as he claims to be opposed to fascism while exercising an arguably fascist sense of extrajudicial authority. There's... a lot to unpack there, more than I want to. Suffice it to say I think you're assuming a fixed correct interpretation where there isn't one.

Honestly in the long run I don't think it's crazy to claim Luc Besson's personal opinions on the subject don't carry much weight outside of facilitating a rather exhausting (and, ironically, fatigue inducing) cycle of criticism -> apologist rebuttal -> criticism of said rebuttal -> criticism of said criticism -> new criticism -> &c. Indeed googling his name right now churns up a lot of pop media outlets and right wing propaganda outlets all but wishing him death (and I'm sure the commenters on said articles aren't pulling that punch). It may be a mild harbinger, though - if successful blockbuster acts get tired of superhero flicks, the question of who directs them instead becomes somewhat relevant to their future success.

Well, assuming directorial control has much influence on the final product when the budgets get this high. The jury's still out on that.