Are Superman Returns, Man of Steel and BatmanVSuperman Art-House films?

[stargazer01]

I've seen people saying that and I can agree to a degree that all these 3 films have that kind of more artistic and moody sensibility.

Generally an art-house film is intended for niche audiences..

[Jim Kelly]

I wouldn't object to calling those movies art-house, but I don't think art-house movies are intended to be seen by only a niche market. A movie can be art-house--in being an attempt at something that has artistic merit--and still be meant for the masses. Christopher Nolan movies are art-house and yet very popular. Akira Kurosawa made art-house movies that were also very popular in Japan and the rest of the world.

[Miles To Go]

MOS and Batman v Superman have kind of retconned into art house movies by their defenders.

SR was attempting a kind of genre in moviemaking that has attempted to catch on, but not quite (reboot sequel or requel)

[superduperman]

How broadly are we defining the term "art house"?

[DochaDocha]

If superhero movies are fitting the standard for "art house," then the bar is really low.

I think any respectable moviemaker wants his work to be artistic, but I don't find a movie that involves a lot of studio interference in attempt to grab millions more in revenue to be consistent with art house.

In short, commercial art is still art, but these movies don't quite fit my expectations of art house.

[stargazer01]

If superhero movies are fitting the standard for "art house," then the bar is really low.

I think any respectable moviemaker wants his work to be artistic, but I don't find a movie that involves a lot of studio interference in attempt to grab millions more in revenue to be consistent with art house.

In short, commercial art is still art, but these movies don't quite fit my expectations of art house.

This is how I feel as well. These superhero movies are meant to be blockbusters and sell a lot of merchandise and make a good profit. It's a product first and art second or third. These are not the right vehicles for pure art.

And of course studio execs have a lot of say on them. I mean, it's their $

[kalai]

how the hell are MOS and BVS art-house when they each made 680 million and 890 million.
Plus the fact they spent on each 200 million to make big action scenes.
The only reason their defender are whining these are art house is because they didn't make as much money as meant to which isn't saying much.
They are still cliche pop culture blockbusters.

[DCStu]

I've seen people saying that and I can agree to a degree that all these 3 films have that kind of more artistic and moody sensibility.

Generally an art-house film is intended for niche audiences..

I think you've answered your own question really haven't you?

[stargazer01]

I think you've answered your own question really haven't you?

I was looking for other people's opinions. I have my ideas, but sometimes other people's insights help see things from a new perspective.


I also think some fans nitpick too much. Like too much. Some people want Superman to solve everything so easy, but then where is the drama if he can do it ALL? He has to have some limits.

[DCStu]

I was looking for other people's opinions. I have my ideas, but sometimes other people's insights help see things from a new perspective.

In that case, no not really. I think they were just trying to be faithful to the modern day iterations of the characters. Problem is, I'm willing to bet that the average moviegoer or film critic isn't really a comic book reader - so they're used to the way Marvel do things. When some of these DC movies come out, they aren't really into it - they just want another Avengers or something.

Not saying there's anything wrong with that, it's just the times we're in.

Who knows? If they'd come out in a time when there weren't a zillion Marvel movies about - they may have been received better.

[Powerboy]

I've seen people saying that and I can agree to a degree that all these 3 films have that kind of more artistic and moody sensibility.

Generally an art-house film is intended for niche audiences..

I know this has already been answered over and over but movies that cost a hundred million and more dollars to make are not and cannot be made for niche audiences.

I'm not saying a director might not take a huge risk and try something more artistic and just hope it also has mass appeal. But, when spending that kind of money, the business people probably perceive it as safe fare and not artsy or risky.

[stargazer01]

I know this has already been answered over and over but movies that cost a hundred million and more dollars to make are not and cannot be made for niche audiences.

I'm not saying a director might not take a huge risk and try something more artistic and just hope it also has mass appeal. But, when spending that kind of money, the business people probably perceive it as safe fare and not artsy or risky.

I agree. Snyder really took a big risk when it comes to how he portrayed the characters, especially Superman and Lex Luthor. It didn't work out for the best. The tone of his movies turned out many casuals away.

Bryan Singer didn't bring anything new and exciting to Superman. it was a Donner Superman love letter. Both filmmakers couldn't hit it out of the park, and it's so clear to see what failed, imo. But I still think Man of Steel worked a lot more than Superman Returns. It didn't paint the character into a corner. It has issues, but they could have been fixed in a sequel.