
Matthew Vaughn has sounded the death knell for superhero movies, and a couple of months ago I might have been inclined to agree with him. We’ve gone past the most exciting and popular heroes, and we seem to have gotten past that brief phase where truly astonishing directors were being attached to superhero films. What’s more, the filmic genre itself has begun to feel more than a little long in the tooth, with every movie being essentially an origin tale and with the action often feeling constrained locally, with the stakes being more personal than epic. I recently had dinner with Green Lantern writer and DC Comics Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns, and he brought up a point that stopped me in my tracks: Why don’t movie superheroes save the world? Looking at the modern superhero movie they’re all-too often just standard action (or cop) movies in funny outfits. In fact one of the few modern films we could think of where the heroes saved the world was Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. (A friend later pointed out that technically Watchmen fits this category as well)
‘I think we’ve kind of crossed the Rubicon with superhero films,’ Vaughn told the LA Times. ‘The genre is going to be dead for a while because the audience has just been pummeled too much.’
On one level he’s right. There have been an awful lot of superhero films, and almost all of them have been in the same mold – the mold established by Spider-Man back in 2002. You can see that basic structure echo in most superhero movies since then, and as in Spider-Man most of the threats have felt small, localized, and in almost every single film have been so completely connected to the hero that the villain feels more like an extension of the hero than a threat on his own. That’s been great, and it’s created some truly wonderful superhero movies, but it’s also begun to run its course. Vaughn declared superheroes dead while working on X-Men: First Class, a movie likely to continue that style – a threat whose menace is small (probably just impacting the mutants) and that grows directly from the heroes (if Magneto isn’t the bad guy at the start, he certainly will be by the end).*
But on another level he’s wrong. The superhero movies that we’ve had have only scratched the surface of what is possible with a superhero story. And I think that could be about to change.
I was hoping that Thor would be the first to break the mold; the original script that Marvel Studios had was nothing short of a Lord of the Rings style epic, with Thor only coming to Earth in the final minutes of the film. That would have been a major kick in the pants for the superhero movie concept – the genre is not what you think it is, and to actually classify it as one genre is misleading. It’s a way to tell stories within many genres. Sadly the Thor that we’re getting is going to be much closer to the standard blueprint, with a smaller, localized threat that is very personal for the hero.
Captain America: The First Avenger is another story, though. While I doubt the movie will be a war film per se – this won’t be Saving Bucky Barnes – it’ll be a movie where the stakes aren’t about Captain America himself, his girlfriend or even his hometown. It’s going to be the fate of the free world as Captain America tries to stop the Red Skull from winning World War II for the Nazis. That’s the kind of selfless heroism that hasn’t been en vogue in superhero movies for a while. I’m excited for a hero to be a hero not because he accidentally created the villain or because the villain’s plans are all an effort to get revenge, but simply because it’s the right thing to do.
Then there’s Green Lantern; if Captain America is the superhero movie filtered through pulp adventure, Green Lantern will be the superhero movie filtered through pulp science fiction. With a scope that spans the stars and a villain who threatens all life in the universe, Green Lantern will feature a hero who does battle not just to save those close to him but to do right by everybody. And this time I mean everybody.
And then we have The Avengers. I am crossing my fingers that Marvel Studios and Joss Whedon have this one figured out and that they realize that you can’t get together Earth’s Mightiest Heroes for anything less than a global threat of staggering proportions. It can’t simply be a revenge plot by Loki or some other villain established in a previous film – it must be something that threatens every living being in the world.
Scope. This is the missing element in the modern superhero movie. The stakes have to be huge. The stakes have to be planetary. Failure by the hero can’t result just in his own death, or the death of his girlfriend or the destruction of his hometown – it has to result in the deaths of millions, if not billions. It’s time to stop looking at Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicles as the models for superhero films and turn to the world-spanning madness of Roland Emmerich. There will always be room for the more personal stories of Spider-Man and Daredevil, but as the focus of Hollywood moves on to characters like Green Lantern and Dr. Strange and Wonder Woman, it’s time to stretch out and think big.
Maybe Vaughn’s right. Maybe the only type of superhero movie that really works is the smaller, personal, and vigilante-based type. If that’s the case, yeah, we’re at the end of the ride. But if the magical and the fantastical and the cosmic and science fiction heroes can get a toehold, the superhero cycle will renew itself and it’ll be something very different. It’ll be something grander, more exciting and wilder. Let’s get senses-shattering. Let’s get reality-rending. Let’s make it so that heroes live, heroes die and nothing is ever again the same.
It’s time to put the super back in superhero movies.
* For the record you could say that the modern superhero movie actually gets its blueprint from the original X-Men, but I argue that it was Spider-Man that refined and perfected it.
47 comments
I don't think superhero movies will completely vanish but 2011 probably will be the year that pushes them into overkill. Green Hornet, Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, X-Men, Red Sonja – I just can't see people not getting burned out on the genre after an endless wave of superhero movie after superhero movie.
It won't put a dent in The Avengers, Batman 3 or the Spider-Man reboot, but I'd have to imagine we'll start to see some slowdown in the genre after 2012, other than with the key franchises.
I would actually like to see more pulp influence in superhero films. One great character in particular, The Spider, often faced down villains threatening to kill thousands of people. The pulp sensibility is what set Timely (Marvel) apart from DC in the late 30s/early 40s.
Would be nice to see this reflected in
Captain America.
Damn straight. One of the problems with Spider-Man was that the Goblin's nefarious plans involved threatening… a parade. And the suburbs.
Superman The Movie was suitably epic, even if it was just California and New Jersey in the crosshairs.
Something that I've been telling people for a year or so now is that superhero movies have become the new Western. What I mean by this is that they've become the warhorse of the action genre. Hollywood churned out tons of westerns every year once upon a time. Now it churns out superhero movies. I think they've transcended the idea that they were a disaster movie type fad, as most of them tend to perform relatively well.
And what's funny about devin's argument here, is that it is essentially rooting for the grander, DC characters, who devin has in the past put down, as too impersonal and not relatable. Marvel characters are usually the ones who have personal stakes in the story arc, beyond trying to do the right thing. Spiderman, Daredevil, Punisher, etc.
I love the concept of heros save the fucking PLANET. However, these are still big budget pictures and after box office flops, but great film like the WATCHMEN studios will still adhear to the blueprint even with these "higher stake" films. What hero's with many large scale CGI action sequences that make mother fucking bank blueprints am I talking about? Transformers films. Yes I understand that this scenario isn't a foregone conclusion with the right people at the wheel but lets be honest its more than likely. Even a possibility of a Transformer-esque style of Marvel or DC film hurts my eyes already. So while I agree with Dev in theory realistically I say No thank you.
Would you not count the Hellboy films as superhero movies? Both of those had doomsday plots, and both were wildly successful in my eyes.
I have a feeling that world-wide superhero epics are something Hollywood will struggle with. This isn't meant to be an attack on America, but Americans in general are extremely insular. Planet America. Hell, Planet New York. While I agree with your general sentiment of what SHOULD happen, do Americans actually give a shit about the rest of the world being saved? The 'rest of the world' to a lot of Americans just means Canada. Besides, a worldwide superhero epic would still take place almost entirely in America, and be aimed at and for Americans, with token shots of Big Ben blowing up, or something. That's what Emmerich does.
Also, the educated, articulate netizens of CHUD are not an accurate representation of the general American public, so please don't flame this comment with the fact that you went to Japan for your holiday, or that you can point to Australia on a map. You guys aren't who I'm talking about.
Green Lantern's script tells a pretty personal story. While it does go "universal", Reynold's Hal Jordan is hardly going to be saving the world.
There is a certain habit of making superhero films where the threat is somehow related to the hero. The problem with that is it occasionally brings about a situation where the hero truly is responsible for the carnage that occurs. One of the things I liked about the first Punisher is that it was just a situation where something bad was going down (the children of one crime family were being abducted by another) and Frank Castle had to step in and stop it. Same with Superman: The Movie – Lex Luthor was all-set to shoot off his missiles and make his earthquake, and Superman was there to put an end to it.
The Nolan Batman pictures flirted with the whole 'it's all about Batman' cliche, but made a point to state that there respective villains (Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker) were going to do whatever they wanted to do whether Batman was around or not. As for saving the world, Superman more or less does that in Superman Returns, even if it's his own lax security at the Fortress of Solitude that allows Luthor to steal his Kryptonian weapons in the first place.
@ article. Yup. I wish I were in a position to make a WONDER WOMAN movie; I'd adapt the George Perez 1989 run. It's got an origin story then it moves to Ares and nuclear WMDs. Awesome stuff.
The problem is more with Superheroes themselves. The films need to be imaginative because the characters are generally one dimensional. Either that or adapt comic book characters that aren't superheroes.
Great article Devin. Hopefully the Nolan's version of Superman has more scope than Returns did.
What ever happened to Super Max? I'm not even that big of a Green Arrow fan, but the concept for that film at least sounded intriguing, especially if it sticks to an in media res format and doesn't do a whole lot of back story. I suspect it died, in which case I am sad.
There's a strange tension in this editorial. Vaughn's own super hero movie was a small-scope origin story about costumed vigilantes–exactly the kind of thing that isn't what you are looking for. Yet Kick-Ass was tremendously fun, and proof that the Daredevil/Spider-Man/Batman story scope can work with the right story. The X-Men movies all dealt with an impending global crisis but perhaps none of them made that danger more tangible than the personal struggle between characters. Folks can bring on the cosmic threats and keep making smaller scale super hero movies too–they aren't mutually exclusive.
My argument against superheroes saving the world (at least their first time out at least) is this: Where do you go from there? This was a problem in comics 15-20 years ago during the Image boom, when everybody and their brother was trying to create the next big hero or team. Just about every first 4 or 5 issue story arc had these new badasses, characters we'd never even met much less been given any reason to care about, saving the world or something. On top of that, most of the books were shit, so now you were left with nowhere else to go, with characters that were only characters by definition of the word. They accomplished the biggest possible task and couldn't even make THAT work as a story. A little more planning, with a lot more build-up, and they could have really had something there, but instead they rushed it. Having a superhero save the world in a 2-hour movie, especially previously unestablished character, would really be blowing your wad. I don't mind Iron Man, Thor, and Cap not saving the world by themselves right out of the gate. HOPEFULLY, that's what The Avengers will be for.
I'd argue that X2 had a global scale. The threat of killing every living mutant on the planet, and then every living human. Pretty huge.
Yup. I thought the same thing recently. Imagine ANY destruction sequence from ANY Roland Emmerich film, but imagine it in the context of a super-villain attack. That would be truly and honestly terrifying, and it would give the film a weight that hadn't been seen before in the genre. And yea, bummed about Thor.
The mainstream appeal of the modern super hero movies is, I think, the smaller localized story lines. People who are generally not comic book/super hero fans (like my 60 year old parents, for example), might scoff and roll their eyes at the "silliness" of epic, global super-being-saves-the-universe type stories. I can guarantee my parents, at least, lost all interest in Green Lantern when I started talking about made-up planets and aliens, and universal chaos. However, they TOTALLY love the Iron Man movies (RDJ helps a lot, and strong acting/direction is a big key to 'selling' any super hero movie), enjoyed the Spiderman movies, etc. They more relatable stories help drive non-comic fans into theaters, whereas the more epic in scale Green Lantern, for example, might keep mainstream movie fans from exploring what they might perceive as juvenile silliness.
Only time will tell, and high quality well-made and well-acted films will conquer any genre or convention. A tightly wound Green Lantern plot with strong acting and believable effects will score with the audience regardless of the plot.
The so called "failures" of Watchmen and Ang Lee's Hulk proved people have zero taste and are simply not interested in new and unique takes on super heroes. So we keep getting the standard origin story being pumped out every year. Having said that, People dug the shit out of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, so maybe there is still a little hope
Blame Robert McKee. Giving the hero a personal attachment to the villain is screenwriting 101, and all movies have become slaves to this trope. Hell, even James Bond can't just get an assignment and go on a mission anymore–it has to be PERSONAL.
And the problem with superhero movies for comic fans is that they're never going to be as fun and crazy as we want them to be as long as they're so expensive to make that they can't risk alienating the non-geek wives and girlfriends that are necessary to make a movie a hit. Non–comic fans tend to have a lower suspension of disbelief threshold than the rest of us, and a lot of movie time tends to be annoyingly dedicated to convincing them that a lot of the comic tropes we take for granted aren't completely retarded.
I think that this simply means we'll be more surprised by super talented young directors who cut their teeth on superheroes no one thought they'd care about. Kind of like how a lot of our established greats of today started by making low budget affairs no one expected to be successes.
Wasn't it insinuated in Iron Man 2 that Iron Man had been saving the world between films and created world piece. I mean, some of that might have been Tony being an ass but I thought it was clear that he had been battling on a world scale.
Yeah, X2 comes straight to mind when considering a superhero movie where the world is threatened. Every mutant on earth was at risk. You could argue it was pretty localized also given that Stryker attacked Xavier's school, but then it also began with an assassination attempt on the President, which, while not exactly big in the sense that it's still in mainland U.S., is still pretty huge since the thing BEGINS with an attempt to end the life of the leader of the free world (which it returns to later when the brain killer is switched to attacking humans). Plus, I'd argue that X2 also represents the first modern superhero movie that breaks the mold. Sadly, not one X-Men movie since has been that good.
Tim Burton's first Batman movie was the worst in terms of making a villain related to the hero. That was my least favorite thing about the movie. Fantastic Four as well, with Doom. Glad Dark Knight didn't go that way. I understand that it's thematically smoother and easier, but it makes a true "selfless" hero more rare. Maybe if they ever do a Flash movie … one of my favorite things about the Flashes is that they are solely motivated by heroism, not vengeance (Batman) or guilt (Spider-man).
Save the planet what about the universe? The suits are a narrow minded bunch, one thing works and they ride it to death.
Conan the Barbarian would of been the perfect mold for a Thor movie, instead they're going to make the safe, pussy version.
Actually…he's right. Hollywood IS going to kill the comic book genre,because Hollywood cant stop telling the same story over and over. All the superhero movies have stuck to the same formula Hero A gets powers,creates/encounters Villain B,and then must save chaste love interes C. And just when we thought it was over and we could finally get to the good stuff…Hollywood announces plans to reboot Spiderman,Daredevil,The Fantastic Four,X-Men,and Superman….and they'll probably tell the same origin stories all over again. Hell,I'm a fanboy and I'm already sick of these stories….can you imagine how these reboots are going to fare with the average ADD member of the public?
@23
Agreed fully. I personally think X2 is the best superhero movie of all time. Better than Superman, Spider-Man 2, Dark Knight, any of them.
"@23 Agreed fully. I personally think X2 is the best superhero movie of all time. Better than Superman, Spider-Man 2, Dark Knight, any of them".
Thirded. Damn straight, I've been saying this for years. Glad to see I'm not as alone with that opinion as I thought.
I think THAT TYPE of superhero film may have issues (and for the record, Spider-Man just copied the Superman format), but I'd also argue that for many viewers who never touched a comic in their lives, this stage was absolutely neccessary to get them acclimated to the idea.
Now we can move to a stage 2, where we can get a Dark Knight, Watchmen, Hellboy 2, Kick Ass or Scott Pilgrim that doesn't completely follow the convention.
Interesting argument, but I hope that's not the direction super hero movies all go in. One of the reasons the Hellboy movies are disappointing to me is because both of them are about saving the world. What I love about Hellboy is that he's just a dude who has a job investigating ghosts and vampires. He's less interesting when he's facing down the apocalypse.
That's my personal taste, but also if I had to guess I would say you're probably wrong about what will appeal to people in future super hero movies. I think what's made them so popular has a lot to do with how personal they've become. Nolan resurrected Batman by stripping down all the gimmicks and making a whole movie about Bruce Wayne, and putting him in a world that seems more like reality to us. I think Iron Man is also popular because of the man inside the suit way more than the suit itself (in fact, most people I talk to agree that both movies lose it when they switch over to the animated Iron Man fights). And even the more epic X-Men series I think people like because of the soap opera elements between all the characters and because of the relatable themes about race and sexual identity. My guess is that the sooner these movies move away from the personal and relatable to the dudes flying around shooting magic beams the sooner they all start losing money and the studios have to figure out something else to fill their summers with.
For a guy who I seem to remember basically claimed people who like superheroes were immature man-children, you sure like to write about them, Faraci. No offense intended.
@ 23, 27, 28: Fourthed. X2 was freakin mind-blowing, especially for its time. It broke the mold. Too bad the X-Men ran and hid back inside the mold after that.
Apparently you never saw any of the Superman movies, Watchmen, neither of the Hellboy movies, Fantastic Four 2, neither of the first two Blade movies, or X-men 3.
The problem with superhero movies is that most directors, screenwriters, and studios involved aren't doing anything interesting or new with them. The exceptions Nolan's Batman films, X-Men 2, and the first Iron Man. All of those films have a certain edge to them, a certain life to them that transcends the usual "superhero movie" tag. They work as standalone films, for fans of any genre, not just comic book fanboys. So many comic book adaptations are full of cheap fanboy pandering. And Vaughn is right. The market has been completely saturated by comic book fanboy tomfoolery. For every Dark Knight or X2, there's five Daredevils, Punisher (please…just stop with the character, Marvel), X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four etc.etc. How many times does Marvel have to fail before audiences stop going? The only reason why Thor and Captain America are being made is so The Avengers will have some frame of reference for non-initiated audiences. Perhaps its time for fanboys and fangirls to grow up.
A smaller-scale character driven story like Dark Knight will almost always be more interesting than a huge 2012 styled obliteration movie. Saving the world or New York of the corner bank is just the storyline to hang things on, it's not the actual story that anyone will care about. I'd rather watch Signs then ID4.
Vaughn is all ego when it comes to…well, Vaughn. He couldn't handle the satire that was 'Kick-Ass.' Millar's comic-book gave us the brilliant revelation that Big Daddy was a fraud, a simple accountant 'fan-boy' who financed his super-hero efforts by selling off his rare comic book connection. Vaughn's film gave us…Kick-Ass with a Jet Pack. That and a final act that was overly sentimental, cliche' and redundant – nothing like Millar's book. What was shocking and fun on the page became the same old thing on the screen under Vaughn's direction. The reality is that the 'Superhero' film has finally become a mature, complex and vital genre. 'The Dark Knight" was the most critically acclaimed film of 2008. Its nominations for the PGA, DGA and WGA awards, along with Heath Ledger's Oscar win, finally had Hollywood itself admitting films based on 'costumed heroes' could be intelligent and insightful social commentary. The commercial and artistic success of 'Iron Man' and 'Watchman' reinforced the unlimited potential of the genre and the fact that comic book movies don't have to follow conventional formulas – like Vaughn did with 'Kick-Ass.' Watch the film's 'Ass-Kicking BonusView Mode' on Blu-Ray and listen to Vaughn pat himself on the back for intelligently making endless conventional decisions in the writing and directing of the film. You come away realizing Vaughn's 'X-Men: First Class' is probably going to have the same formula and feel as the previous 4 'X-Men' films. Any director going into a project feeling the subject matter is "going to be dead for a while because the audience has just been pummeled too much” needs pass on the project and put it in the hands of a director whose attitude is, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!" Thank God for Joss Whedon and Christopher Nolan.
The idea of scope is interesting. The initial Rings'ish "Thor" pitch sounds neat. The flaw with this augment is that real problem is pure audience tiredness. Setting/scope aside, there is still only so much modern audiences can take. This ain't the 50's and these aint Westerns. They are going to start shrugging at superhero movies in the same way they did kung fu films, buddy cop movies, gross out comedies, musicals, all that shit. Movies are more cyclical than ever now and the glut of the major league (and even minor) superhero film is going to have its end.
Comic-book movies, and more specifically superhero movies, will continue to be made and succeed as long as they're done well. Superheroes are our modern day myths. The good ones speak to values and virtues. A hero should be tied into the major conflict of the story. This doesn't mean it has to be his girlfriend/relative that's threatened (it got old real quick in the Spider-Man movies). However, there should be some moral to the story that relates to the character. This is good storytelling, something severely lacking from most studio films. The Spider-Man films feel fragmented due to the lack of this idea. You don't even really need to go very deep with a theme; just have it there. (ASIDE: I don't think TDK is very intelligent or even has much to say. But it put the semlbance of an idea out there and people grabbed onto it and exploited it into some deep-thinking piece) Find an appropriate lesson for the hero to learn or a virtue to defend, treat the subject material with respect and the appropriate tone, get good performances out of your actors, make people care about your main character, and don't talk down to your audience. That's all you really need for any film.
I LIKE IT WHEN DEVIN IS POSITIVE LIKE THIS.
Your choice of picture reminds me that Marvel is unable to make me excited for an Avengers film without my two favorite members: Vision & Scarlet Witch.
Is anyone watching Dr Who? I know its only TV but the entire universe is saved in this show on a fairly regular basis. Not just the Earth or the Solar System – but EVERYTHING!
Is it me or has does anyone else feel that Hollywood has literally "Jumped the Shark". They have run out of ideas and had to turn to comic book movies. Now that the most interesting ones have been done (some good, some bad) they are scrambling. How else do explain all the remakes, reboots and lackluster sequels? Not much in the way of original ideas lately.
@Devin
Like when I 'Return'ed that one time?
Funny that Sci Fi Overload is touted as being the savior of superhero movies. As I remember, Sci Fi Overload is what helped kill comic books … at a certain point comics left the personal struggles of recognizably human superheroes and went global, galactic, Universal, in an ever more desparate and uncreative attempt to out-do the scale of each previous storyline. "Infinite Crisis" "Secret Wars", throwing endless piles of superheroes and villains into the fray, for less and less impact with the audience. After comic book readers got sick of Super Galactic Explosions, they turned to Superheroes Acting Like Dicks Instead of Superheroes, which turned out so popular that they haven't really changed things up much since. Personally, I'd much prefer to see personal superhero stories remain. The public doesn't get sick of stories because of the personal level, but because of FORMULAIC scripts that repeat the same KIND of story. Super Galactic Battles Against Galactic Robot Death Fleets aren't going to save things, if the stories are written by timid cookie cutter corporate committees. I think Devin is wrong … the reason comic book movies are dying is BECAUSE they are trending towards the Over Powered already, and away from the Personal. Over Powered comic books stories are what will KILL comic book movies for good, just as they killed comic books. There are real comic book Geeks, the most socially retarded of them, who LOVE power fantasy, and think the more overpowered the better …. they are the worst and loudest of the fans. Sadly, it seems Devin is one of them.
im hoping the third batman is so good that it embarrasses every other filmmaker into never even attempting another superhero flick
Devin, please continue writing articles like this. I appreciate your cynicism and blunt point-of-view, but worry that you often come off as a Negative Nancy. However, this article is just pure film love and open-minded thinking. I totally shared your hopes for THOR; with Branagh attached it really seemed like it could be something special, allowing Marvel to really break into new ground. Alas, all we may end up with is a drop-kicking blonde bombshell.
I never really followed most of the properties that are now beginning to be produced. Yet, as a fan of comics, I am keenly aware of the image of Cpt. America and the Green Lantern. So, I'm actually really excited to see how they get these titles across to the audience. Vaughn's comment reminds me that the moment whenever something is declared DEAD is the ripest opportunity for that thing to be remade, refashioned, redefined. I have this nagging hope that we're about to enter into a strange Superhero Movie Renaissance.
awesome blog, do you have twitter or facebook? i will bookmark this page thanks. peace maria
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.