Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So following on from the news of Raimi and Maguire leaving the Spidey Franchise, I fancied a chinwag about what people feels makes a Super Hero film really enjoyable, and what absolutely breaks them.

To start, I'll go with the aforementioned Spiderman franchise. First two films (much like X-Men) were fantastic fun. Single Villain vs Single Hero, allowing for decent character development and a respective plot building. X1 and X2 were highly enjoyable films, as the actors playing the characters (barring Halle Bloody Berry as Storm) were well cast, and seemed to genuinely enjoy their roles (Hugh Jackman in particular made a really good Wolverine IMHO). But both franchises stumbled heavily on the third outings. Spiderman 3 simply had too many bad guys in it. To my mind, only Batman Returns pulled this off, mainly thanks to an excellent cast. So whilst we know who Spidey is, and Sandman was covered fairly well, I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss, due to a total lack of investigation as to what exactly the Symbiote was. I know, because I kind of try to follow Spiderman Comics, but the general viewing public? Probably quite baffled by it.

So what do you think Dakka? Are there common hallmarks of a good Super Hero film, or does it vary from flick to flick?

The best one was Dare Devil... Basically a blind man kicking arse majorly.

G

Really? That's one of the ones I think really stunk. THough to be fair, I'm not terribly familiar with the main character, and I think Ben Affleck is a crap actor.

I liked all three X-Men, but I didn't really like Spiderman 2. Doc Oc was the only good part about the movie.

I thought Daredevil was okay. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were both quite good. The Watchmen was decent (it seemed a little cramped). The latest Superman was awful, as was Catwoman. The Incredible Hulk wasn't very good (was there a sequel to it? If so I didn't see that one), but Iron Man was.

I can't think of any others I've seen.

Sticking to the comics is the first thing that comes to mind for me.

I like it when they pay attention to established stuff, but don't feel shackled to it.

Take the latest Star Trek film (a slight digression I know, but bare with). In resetting the Time Line, JJ Abrams has given himself breathing space for the second and subsequent films. This is a master stroke, as he doesn't have to worry and double check what has gone before. But at the same time, he made sure to put references in that long time Fans will appreciate (the Kvashimaru thing, where Kirk cheated the test is a good exampe) without feeling pandered to.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To my mind, only Batman Returns pulled this off, mainly thanks to an excellent cast.

That was a major weak spot for me actually. I thought two-face was a borderline 'throw another villian for 2X the ACTION (echo!)' addition to the movie.

Check out this monkey though...

So whilst we know who Spidey is, and Sandman was covered fairly well, I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss, due to a total lack of investigation as to what exactly the Symbiote was. I know, because I kind of try to follow Spiderman Comics, but the general viewing public? Probably quite baffled by it.

General viewing public...

So what do you think Dakka? Are there common hallmarks of a good Super Hero film, or does it vary from flick to flick?

It really varies from film to film. I can't imagine a practical way to classify what actually made the first two Spiderman movies good, same with X-men. Understandable characters make a pretty big difference in my mind though. I am really looking forward to Iron Man 2, I hope it will rock my fragile mind.

Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

But I do share similar hopes for Iron Man 2. Again, Robert Downey Jr was perfectly cast in that role, much as I find Christian Bale (less growling next time though) makes a good Batman. His Bruce Wayne reminds me of his Patrick Batemen, which I feel fits nicely with the overall darker theme. He's taken Bruce Wayne from a philanthropist, to a complete bellend.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I found Venom weak as Kittens Piss

Raimi had zero interest in doing Venom but Sony forced him in. Raimi doesn't like the character. Big shock that he didn't play well in the movie.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

You were/are right. Batman Returns is correct. Batman Forever *shudder* is the one with something resembling Two-Face.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not the one with Two Face, the one with Penguin and Catwoman (pretty sure it was Batman Returns?)

For some reason I was thinking of The Dark Knight...

Batman Returns was directed by Tim Burton, there is very little that can go wrong there. The whole cast was phenomenal, and this cover explains (in detail) how much awesome is actually contained in this film.



If I remember correctly though, there really was no use of any penguin special forces... soooo... that was a letdown.

Oh well, check out these marching penguins.

Obsolete comment.

I still haven't seen Hancock. Where have I been?

A good superhero flick must contain Asterix and Obelix, all other factors are irrelevant.

I can count the superhero flicks I like on one hand.

First and foremost story is the most important thing. TBH I really enjoyed 90% of all super hero movies, since the new millenium, that have come out starting with the blade series.

And yes I liked Daredevil and the first Hulk movie. I also liked Spiderman-3,Xmen-3 and Ghostrider, even though I know a lot of people didn't.

Corny endings and shortcuts can make a movie bad. This almost happened for me with the first hulk with the absorbing man ending, but I really enjoyed Ang lees approach to making the film.

The superman and Batman reboots haven't really done it for me though. I did enjoy the two new batman films, but wasn't overly "wowed" like I was for Spiderman-2 and Iron Man.

My top ten List

1-IronMan
2-SpiderMan 2
3-X-men 1
4-Spiderman 1
5-X-men 2
6-Batman(1989)
7-Batman Begins
8-Ghost Rider
9-Fantastic Four
10-X-men 3

GG

edit..forgot the Watchmen..throw it in as my honorable mention

As others have said - maintaining loyalty to the "canon" of the comic does wonders.

Appropriate casting is also a huge necessity, as a block-buster name actor can't necessarily fit the role appropriately (eg: Halle Barry as Storm, Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom, Jessica Alba as Invisible Woman, Arny as Mr. Freeze). Proper casting for even the smallest characters can do wonders (JK Simmons as J Jonah Jameson remains a highlight of the Spider-Man series and Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach in The Watchmen).

Non-overcomplicated - usually, they try to draw in more numbers by including more and more fan favorite characters, which tends to lead to a dilution of plot. Part of the issues with the first and third X-men movies is that they tried introduce too many characters, for instance (first one by nature had to deal with introducing all the characters, third one just tried adding too many new ones). The later non-Nolan Batmans suffered from this as well.

Action! Ultimately, we want to see the super-heroes kicking ass. Character development is nice and all, but we don't want to see our heroes being all weepy and stalkerish (Superman, I'm looking at you) or turning all emo (Spidey). The first Hulk movie suffered from this a lot since most of it dealt with his internal issues with relatively low amount of action (though to be honest, I liked the movie a lot, personally).

A worthwhile villain - it's hard to care about a movie if the bad guy sucks so much that you don't really care. You can't make them too cheesy (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Bullseye in Daredevil), you can't have a stupid "world conquering plan" (Kevin Spacey - love him, but real-estate plot was dumb), and you can't have them with basically no real motivation (Elektra).

In the end, you're left with only a handful of super-hero movies that are actually quite good (my opinions, only):
X-men 2, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Batman Begins and Dark Knight, Watchmen, Blade, Batman (Michael Keaton), Batman Returns

A bunch that are decent:
X-men 1, Spider-Man 1, Incredible Hulk (personal opinion, most hate it), Superman (plot sucked, casting was otherwise great, imo), Blade 2, Batman Forever

And a lot of rubbish:
Blade 3, X-men 3, Spider-Man 3, Batman & Robin, X-men Origins: Wolverine, Elektra, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Both Fantastic Four, Catwoman (ugh, just ugh)

One last note: if it's a movie involving a group of heroes, don't for the love of god keep focusing on the "most popular" one - it gets old after 2 movies (Wolverine, I'm lookin' at you).

My 2 cents.

Dont bother with Hancock - great idea, great cast - empty film. Nothing in the movie grabbed me in or interested me in any way - and Im not a fussy movie watcher.

Fair point about Wolvie!

As for the first Hulk film (Ang Lee) I enjoyed it as a film (even if the size of Hulk seemed to vary depending on just what he was walloping at that point) but not as a Hulk film. I want to see Bruce Banner worrying about turning, and Hulk smashing stuff. Ang Lee was essentially wasted on it in my opinion, as his stuff usually has a distinct edge to it.

But I loved The Incredible Hulk, as it got across that Banner doesn't really enjoy his life, is actively seeking a cure, but part of him needs Hulk.

I guess for me it's all down to how well you can relate to your characters. Hulk and Wolverine for example, work as comic book characters because to a degree, people associate with them. Nobody really likes to lose their temper, but almost everyone gets some sort of rush as the fight instinct kicks in. Easy to get across in a work of literacy, as you can have the inner thoughts mixed in with the violence, whereas it takes a bit of forethought and character building in a movie or play to achieve the same thing.

Jin wrote:One last note: if it's a movie involving a group of heroes, don't for the love of god keep focusing on the "most popular" one - it gets old after 2 movies (Wolverine, I'm lookin' at you).

You're also looking at Jack Sparrow. When that scene in At World's End had twenty different "Jack Sparrows" in it - for no fething reason at all - almost shot myself.

As for the focussing on a single character, I guess that's largely unavoidable. After all, Wolverine is popular for a reason, and was so before the film, so to marginalise him would have been worse.

Oh, and also, I think it was Nightcrawler that really made X-2, and the thought that went into his character was sorely and noticably missing from X-3. From his combat, to his demeanour, everything seemed very right with the Elf. But compare to say Juggernaught. Love Vinnie Jones, really quite like him as an actor, but the role was wrong for him. End of the day, all he did was say a crap one liner, smack Wolverine around, say another crap one liner, and run into a wall. I'd have preferred such a cool character to be more central, rather than 'we need a hardcase, lets use him, he seems popular'. Marvel have a wide gamut of characters for such things (lots of throw away hardmen) so it was a bad call all round.

Thank god we got an A-Team movie coming soon!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:even if the size of Hulk seemed to vary depending on just what he was walloping at that point

The angrier the Hulk gets, the bigger he gets. This is in the comic.

Ah fair enough. Didn't feel it worked all that well in the Movie, as it wasn't really mentioned. Wasn't sure on this myself, so all I saw was inconsistent CGI.

Does Constantine count?

I like the movie, but the thing about it that grabbed me the most was how they portrayed hell.

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Does Constantine count?

Don't get my Hellblazer reading friends started on this.

Something about a brunette American portraying a blonde Brit...

Rachel Weisz was born in London.

dogma wrote:Rachel Weisz was born in London.

lolwut?

Gratz on missing what I was talking about(Constantine is blonde and British in the comics).

Hmm, I guess I don't discuss the color of male hair very often.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah fair enough. Didn't feel it worked all that well in the Movie, as it wasn't really mentioned. Wasn't sure on this myself, so all I saw was inconsistent CGI.

The Hulk was not a very good flick IMO.

They could have clearly portrayed that the Hulk was angrier, thus larger, but they chose to gloss over it. Color tone changes as well if I am not mistaken, and I am quite sure they did not show that in the movie either.

So yeah, it just came across as badly planned CGi. I really like the Hulk as a character, and the movie did not tone his anger very thoroughly. I don't care why he is angry, I just want to see him be angry. I would however, like to have been shown how he gets larger with increasing rage though...

The Hulk is awesome because he is just a big, green, ball of rage. Not because he is a particularly interesting protagonist. His initial background is just not very compelling, his raw rage is awesome though.

Platuan4th wrote:

Drk_Oblitr8r wrote:Does Constantine count?

Don't get my Hellblazer reading friends started on this.

Something about a brunette American portraying a blonde Brit...

Didn't they mention the movie in one of the novels?

"The novel Hellblazer: War Lord by John Shirley (author of the novelisation of the movie) features Constantine talking about "another John Constantine in an alternate universe, [who] has black hair and lives most of his life in Los Angeles" whilst giving a brief summary of the movie's plot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Constantine#Film_adaptation

I absolutely loved both of the Christian Bale Batman films.

Other than that, I'm not a huge superhero/comic fan - although I used to love the Daredevil comics. The film was a bit of a letdown though.