Mass Debate: An ongoing argument column

Ooooh, more like this!

I like the first half of Kick-Ass a lot more than the 2nd.  I'm not sure what to make of Super quite yet, but I think I'm with Renn on this one. 

I actually started to seriously dislike Kick-Ass during the second act when it started to abandon the entire realistic deconstructionist angle in favor of more outlandish superhero stuff.  But I came back around by the end, when I realized that the real-world grounding was just a way to allow the action to continually escalate all the way through the batshit finale.  I ended up enjoying it as wacky violent romp once I accepted that it didn't really have much to say satirically. 

Fun column. Kick Ass didn't hold up well to a second viewing for me but I liked it a whole bunch the first time through. Dave not being a particularly interesting character and his friends being black holes of screen presence are the most damaging aspects of it.

Thematically I agree that it doesn't run too deep either, but then I don't look to comic book films for deep themes, I look to them for fun action. The sequence where Hit Girl saves Kick Ass's ass is still good, but the finale sequence is just a little too far into bending the laws of biophysics and that's where it falls down again. Along with Nick Cage it's the bad guys who are most fun on repeat viewings - Hit Girl was a one shot deal.

I'm still not 100% on whether I'll see Super on the big screen but Renn definitely makes it seem inviting.

Super hasn't come out here yet, but for argument's sake I'll go with Nick. If only for his excellent argument about what a retreat Gunn's post Slither career seems. And it really bothers me how nonchalantly Kick Ass is being written off. Even if you feel it fails miserably at providing commentary on its genre it's still one of the best action movies of the last few years.

As someone who grew up reading superhero comics and has seen literally every superhero movie ever, I feel like... I just don't get these two movies. Like, I enjoyed most of it, and I winced at other parts, but in the end, I wasn't sure what to draw from them. Super, I feel, gave me the most to chew on, with its obviously deluded, dangerous vigilante, but is it possible Kick Ass is telling the same story, but from a rockstar (and thus, subversive) perspective? Is Kick-Ass himself a slightly more distaff version of the Crimson Bolt? Or is Big Daddy the Crimson Bolt?

I love the details of both, I love the villains in both, I love the music in... well, Super mostly, and I love the foul mouthed female characters in both. But I don't understand the formal intentions of the end of both, as they conclude in ludicrous bloodbaths. I was pretty cold on the satirical elements of Kick-Ass for the first hour (everything about the internet, sex, the cult of celebrity felt completely tone-deaf), but that last half hour is really full throttle action, and thus, kinda awesome. Super, meanwhile, has a more ramshackle end that fits more with the tone of the film, though it takes that right turn into (superficially - possibly subversively) advocating the Crimson Bolt's approach.

Again, I just don't get either of these films. What are they deconstructing? What are they about? And what does it mean that both fully endorse the vigilante's quest as noble at the film's end?

I haven't seen Super yet.  I didn't like Kick-Ass.  I started reading the comics and enjoyed the first few issues.  As soon as Hit-Girl showed up, slicing heads like cantaloupes, I lost all interest.  I bought a couple of issues after that, I think, but everything that I enjoyed about the first few issues was gone.  Maybe I brought that baggage with me to the film, but it never really caught my interest at all.

I'm really interested to see Super now, though, to see where I fall on this debate. 

This was a great read.  Please do more.

For what its worth, I land firmly in the Super camp.  I think Gunn comes dangerously close to getting too melancholy and maybe he isn't entirely successful in terms of genre deconstruction (although as Renn mentions - hes fairly successful in exploring the post-Watchmen notion that superheroes are fucked up individuals), but he's working with a very small, personal story and the whole thing just feels very raw and honest.  Super seems like less a superhero movie to me, and more a really weird twisted break-up movie.  

Great read. I'm with nooj; we need more of this.

I'm firmly in Renn's camp on this debate. Super is a leaner, more focused and heartfelt film. It gets to grips with the meat of what's going on in a way its competitor doesn't for the most part. The only criticism I'd make of it is that its resolution, post-mansion climax, felt a little at odds with what went before it. The stuff with Liv Tyler's character especially wasn't integrated well enough early on to call for such a sickly finale. Otherwise it's a delightful, genuinely quirky movie that shows it doesn't always have to be bravura action set pieces in films like this.

Gunn's one of the good guys and I'd urge anyone on the fence about seeing Super to take the plunge. It looks gorgeous on Blu, by the way. 

Haven't seen Super, but I clearly need to check it out.

Based on the issues of Kick-Ass I read, the comic's a pretty scathing critique of fanboy culture that somehow manages to be more obnoxious than the thing it's criticizing (Mark Millar at work, ladies and gentlemen!). The movie drops that element, which results in a likable protagonist and a story that isn't like having nails rammed into your face, but it also makes it thematically hollow. The movie also reflects Millar's usual problem of starting up with a half-baked but potentially interesting idea, realizing there's nowhere to go with it dramatically--or at least, he can't think of anywhere to take it--and wandering off in a completely new direction. I guess it's to the movie's credit that it ditches the "what if superheroes were REAL?!?" question as soon as possible and just moves on to be a fucking blast of an action movie. It's a shame that it ends up not really being about anything, though.

Yeah, let's throw the comic out when we're discussing the movie. I certainly did when I bought the first issue. Way before they had even released stills of the film, I figured I'd sample it, and I honestly feel it was the worst comic book I had ever read. But I don't know, I never read any Image comics.

Madman is a boss title published by Image, Gabe.

Or should I say a ginchy title?

+1 on Prankster's comments. Netflix informs me that Super is waiting for me when I get home tonight, so looking forward to checking out the comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Haven't seen Super, but I clearly need to check it out.

 

Based on the issues of Kick-Ass I read, the comic's a pretty scathing critique of fanboy culture that somehow manages to be more obnoxious than the thing it's criticizing (Mark Millar at work, ladies and gentlemen!). The movie drops that element, which results in a likable protagonist and a story that isn't like having nails rammed into your face, but it also makes it thematically hollow. The movie also reflects Millar's usual problem of starting up with a half-baked but potentially interesting idea, realizing there's nowhere to go with it dramatically--or at least, he can't think of anywhere to take it--and wandering off in a completely new direction. I guess it's to the movie's credit that it ditches the "what if superheroes were REAL?!?" question as soon as possible and just moves on to be a fucking blast of an action movie. It's a shame that it ends up not really being about anything, though.

Might be giving the movie too much credit, but I always thought that it's outright abandonment of the "realistic super-hero" by the movie's end is in itself a commentary on the fact that a real vigilante is a stupid, terrible idea, and the reason superheroes are fun is that they move so far outside the realm of reality into overblown theatrics. If anything the movie felt like a condemnation of Millar's original work, which tried to pull the Sucker Punch trick of simultaneously being schlock and trying to make fun of you for (theoretically at least) liking said schlock. I can see where you'd say the movie is hollow, but I feel like it's celebrating the "fuck it" gee-whiz factor of comics in a way that's sort of the antithesis of, say, the Nolan Batman films.

Also, adding to the chorus of needing to see Super. Come on Netflix!

If I had watched both back to back fresh, maybe I would have felt differently, but as it stands now I far prefer Super. It has peaks and valleys, but it's pretty damn audacious throughout, and it does a good job of having its cake and eating it too. More than anything it reminded me of Kickass by way of Observe and Report (it's not nearly as funny, but the crazy protagonist stuff works about as well). Or maybe King of Comedy. It has a lot more empathy for its lead, though, which blunts the satiric edge and ultimately makes it feel more conventional. But it a nice way. 

It didn't look like something I'd like much, but despite a handful of lulls, I was very pleasantly surprised. Even if its not the deepest film, its smartly written, well acted, and has a lot of nice directorial flourishes that give it a lot of personality. 

I really like that King of Comedy comment, Arjen. Feels very much on point. Although I think it's doing Super a disservice saying it's "not nearly as funny" as Observe and Report. That film's fine, but it's only sporadically funny, while Gunn's movie delivers pretty consistent laugh-out-loud moments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Bear 

I'd urge anyone on the fence about seeing Super to take the plunge.

Urge to take plunge growing ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splatoon 

 

Might be giving the movie too much credit, but I always thought that it's outright abandonment of the "realistic super-hero" by the movie's end is in itself a commentary on the fact that a real vigilante is a stupid, terrible idea, and the reason superheroes are fun is that they move so far outside the realm of reality into overblown theatrics. If anything the movie felt like a condemnation of Millar's original work, which tried to pull the Sucker Punch trick of simultaneously being schlock and trying to make fun of you for (theoretically at least) liking said schlock. I can see where you'd say the movie is hollow, but I feel like it's celebrating the "fuck it" gee-whiz factor of comics in a way that's sort of the antithesis of, say, the Nolan Batman films.

Saying it's a condemnation of the source material might be overstating it, but there's definitely a progression from "real life" to superhero fantasy as the film goes on that does seem to be taking a stand on what works about superheroes and what doesn't. The thing is, "what if superheroes were REAL" is such a boring and done-to-death concept, and since Watchmen I don't know if anyone's been able to add anything new to it. Even Watchmen doesn't focus primarily on that idea, which is why it works. See also Alan Moore's "Miracleman", assuming you ever get the chance, which also contrasts superheroes with the "real world" in a way that actually echoes Kick-Ass, the movie, but with lots of batshit SF elements to keep it interesting.

While I appreciate the analytical aspects and the dose of realism, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that superheroes are an excuse to throw realism aside, and trying to plant it too much in the real world is missing the point. That's one of the reasons I've never been able to fully enjoy Christopher Nolan's Batman--it's really well made, but it gets to the point (especially looking at this new one) where I wonder why they're making a superhero movie at all, if they're going to suck all the fun out of it). I can never get past the fact that Nolan's Batman has its roots in that script about how Batman was going to be a crazy homeless person and pretty much all the Batman elements that we know were going to be stripped out. So, again, that would have put it in the same wheelhouse as Super and Kick-Ass.

Even when you're attempting to deconstruct and criticize the genre's basic assumptions, as Super apparently is, there's not really anywhere to go once you've established that a "real world superhero" would be damaged and insane and cause more problems than he solved. That's why I can't help but be sympathetic to Kick-Ass's attitude of establishing reality, and then saying "Fuck it" and just having fun--pretty much the exact opposite of the attitude that they sold the film on, now that I think about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Even when you're attempting to deconstruct and criticize the genre's basic assumptions, as Super apparently is, there's not really anywhere to go once you've established that a "real world superhero" would be damaged and insane and cause more problems than he solved. That's why I can't help but be sympathetic to Kick-Ass's attitude of establishing reality, and then saying "Fuck it" and just having fun--pretty much the exact opposite of the attitude that they sold the film on, now that I think about it.

Definitely, and selling the film that way caused me to check out for most of the second act, before the gleeful insanity won me back in time for the third (on very different terms).   I remember thinking "why the fuck would you make a movie about a regular guy deciding to be a superhero and then actually give him superpowers?"  But eventually I just learned to stop worrying and love Chloe Moretz, McLovin, and Cage's moustache.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bucho 

Urge to take plunge growing ...

I should also point out that I watched Super for the third time yesterday. And I'd do it again, I tell ya!
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Even when you're attempting to deconstruct and criticize the genre's basic assumptions, as Super apparently is, there's not really anywhere to go once you've established that a "real world superhero" would be damaged and insane and cause more problems than he solved. That's why I can't help but be sympathetic to... establishing reality, and then... just having fun--pretty much the exact opposite of the attitude that they sold the film on, now that I think about it.

I know what you're saying, Prankie (can I call you Prankie?), but this is where I think a lot of the criticism towards Super is doing it a disservice. It's understandable that the film would be marketed alongside Matthew Vaughn's flick, but it's actually a lot more low-key (and lo-fi) in its ambitions and execution. Gunn essentially says on the bonus doc on the Blu-ray that he thought it would be fun to write the story of the everyman turned superhero; that is to say, vigilante / masked "crime-fighter." He didn't profess any literary ambitions akin to Moore with Watchmen or any other self-referential work or writer you'd care to name. Everyman decides to dress up and fight crime: that was pretty much the long and short of it. Beyond that concept, Gunn concentrated on telling the story and going where it needed to go - the evidence of which is in the film.

Lumping Super in with other deconstructive superhero works is an understandable tool for getting it seen by a wider audience, but I'd argue that it's getting a little bit carried away applying the same critical thinking to it. Because it wasn't designed as such. And that's part of what makes it so great.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

But eventually I just learned to stop worrying and love Chloe Moretz, McLovin, and Cage's moustache.

This isn't a dig at you, Schwartz. But I think it's sad that that film can get major allowances from audiences on the strength of its action (even in the face of narrative niggles) while a movie like Gunn's which dedicates itself to pursuing a very personal and, at times, quite moving story where superhero tropes are just one facet is met with uncertainty and indifference.

I would completely disagree with the idea that Kick-Ass is trying to tackle the moral dilemma of vigilantism. The whole point of Kick-Ass is that it takes place in a world where morality is a sensational concept that only exists in comic books and only takes shape in reality when Dave forces it to. And sure, Dave's decision to become Kick-Ass is partially motivated by an attempt to make the real world around him conform to the ideas of right and wrong he's seen expressed in comics, and is additionally motivated by curiosity, but it's mainly remarkable in how fucking arbitrary it is -- one day he just decides that he will do it, and then he does.

The point is that it is aggressively pointless, and isn't thematically approached from any perspective other than a perspective that has already been filtered through the prism of countless superhero mythologies -- i.e., "with no power comes no responsibility, except that's not true," "wait 'til they get a load of me," etc. The whole "realism" angle is only useful insofar as it gives Dave a jumping-off point from which he can infuse his life with the superhero cliches he wishes it innately carried -- every step Dave or the other characters take is drawn from another superhero movie or comic book. Big Daddy even recounts his own life through comic panels (perhaps this way he's allowed a level of distance from the events of his past -- it's more than just a nifty visual trick).

Thus, Kick-Ass becomes a comment on how people are influenced by the culture they surround themselves with and how they appropriate it to supplement their own personal identities -- it's a postmodern superhero film that doesn't really care about commenting on the moral question at the center of the genre (as the sincerity needed to approach such a question would contradict the ironic detachment of the film) so much as why people care so much about the genre in the first place. 

When someone says "I like superheroes because they let you throw realism aside," like I read above (not an attack here by the way), that's an incredibly loaded statement. Why is reality lacking, and what do superheroes do for comic readers to fill that void? That's the question Kick-Ass is approaching and that Super isn't much concerned with -- Gunn is just using the superhero movie as a vehicle to carry his ideas on social misanthropy and alienation; the intertextual, self-aware aspects of the movie are very limited. I like Super too, but I think Kick-Ass does a better job of achieving its goal and ultimately I'd say its goal is a more interesting one. 

I finally saw Super.  I definitely enjoyed it more as a film than I did Kick-Ass, though Super is a very uncomfortable movie to watch.  And the ending is all wrong.  Maybe it was the point, but I was actively aggitated that

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shunderson 

I finally saw Super.  I definitely enjoyed it more as a film than I did Kick-Ass, though Super is a very uncomfortable movie to watch.  And the ending is all wrong.  Maybe it was the point, but I was actively aggitated that

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Crimson Bolt wasn't dead or in prison at the end.

 

 

Well considering that the film was heavily influenced by Taxi Driver it really shouldn't.