James Gunn Defends Superhero Films Following Award Show Critiques

[motherofpearl1]

I may or may not be representative of the majority when it comes to the Oscars. I haven't watched them in, oh, 37 years. I am not sure but I don't think I saw a single one of the movies that were nominated this year. Some of them may have been great movies but I just was not interested. Yeah, the superhero movies are hitting a saturation period and they may go the way of the western. But I hope not.

As to the comment written by someone and spoken by Jack Black, it sounds like a writer who is irritated that movies he thinks of as not very good are making all the money and getting all the attention. And now that he's said that, the big impact will be: they will go right on making a lot of money and getting lots of attention because we like them.

I'll stop there because threads like this inevitably turn into elitism versus popularity.

I like Black, but I do think much of his criticism was based on jealousy.

As for 'superhero movies' being not Oscar worthy, Heath Ledger won an Oscar for Dark Knight, and deservedly so - one of the best performances I've seen in my life. Natalie Portman was terrific in V for Vendetta - I think it paved the way for her later success in Black Swan. Tom Hiddleston has now become a big star since 'Thor' and it's all due to his performance as Loki. The scripts for Dark Knight and Captain America 2 was easily as good as anything cooked up for the Oscars. The sad fact is, in the eyes of the Academy superhero films = 'kid's movies'. Which is ironic, as many so called 'kids' films' have been widely critically acclaimed.

[motherofpearl1]

Simmons only had about 25 lines and maybe 10 minutes of screen time? I'm not sure what the prerequisites are or if they exist, but it should be more than that. Tom Cruise was great and memorable in Tropic Thunder does he need a nod too?

RDJ's Tony Stark is great, but it's just RDJ's usually schtick with stupid facial hair. I haven't seen him evolve as an actor since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. His Stark/Sherlock are just smarmy versions of the I.P. Don't get me wrong though, I like those movies.

What it really comes down to is that the academy is made up of 93 percent white, 76 percent male, with an average age of 63. And these people collectively have seen and participated in making more movies than any one of us. Each one has their own bias as to who is deserving and what classifies as a top production. The one thing they all do have in common though is the industry and that's why its circle jerk of movies about movies (hugo, the artist, birdman, et al) will always come before a genre film(even though those were are awesome movies, on the technical level at the very least).

I just don't think the right super hero movie has come yet, and I can't even think of an I.P. that could tell a story universally appealing. The Dark Knight was probably the closest it will ever get too, until the academy's demographic turns into people that grew up with these movies.

I believe Jack Palance won an Oscar for 'Shane' and he was only in the film for about ten minutes.

[simbob4000]

Excuse me for being blunt, but this is one topic that frustrates the hell out of me.
You can't sit here and tell me that these movies have no heart or no quality acting etc. has anyone actually watched the crap that gets consistently voted. Let me answer that for you. Yes ppl have watched them, plenty of people and for some reason the still struggle to bring in the dollars....someone said in an earlier post that nerds have money and pay top dollar for tickets. You know what, that's not even worth a response.

The fact that these movies not only rule the box office and bring in all the dollars, but at the same time draw in half of Hollywoods a listers. Means that there's simply a bunch of tree hugging hippies supporting these Indy films with a bias opinion on what constitutes as a good film

Let's face it, if the movies truly were bad, they would have stopped making money a long time ago....

I think me Jack Black is just a little upset that he can't land a role where he's actually taken serious

Making money isn't a signifier of quality; there are terrible movies that do extremely well for themselves, and great movies that no one ends up seeing. And people are taking a comedy bit on a show way too seriously...even if it is true. It's not like Jack Black just spontaneously broke into song about how depressing the movie business is getting.

[Kieran_Frost]

There's no big "academy hates genre films bias" going on here. Lord of the Rings : RotK won 11 oscars because it was an achievement in film making. Superhero movies just need to up their game. The people that make those movies definitely work their hearts out and it shows, but there's hardly any real acting in these movies. Literally the hardest part of getting into character is probably going to the gym before filming starts. Then it's all just one-liners in front of a green screen and stunt doubles doing the action scenes.

Quoted for truth! I love me some superhero films, but very few fall into "artistic merit" category. Some do; but the vast majority do not (which is ultimately what the director was critising). It was a general comment, not a specific attack on any one film in the genre.

Excuse me for being blunt, but this is one topic that frustrates the hell out of me.
You can't sit here and tell me that these movies have no heart or no quality acting etc. has anyone actually watched the crap that gets consistently voted. Let me answer that for you. Yes ppl have watched them, plenty of people and for some reason the still struggle to bring in the dollars....someone said in an earlier post that nerds have money and pay top dollar for tickets. You know what, that's not even worth a response.
The fact that these movies not only rule the box office and bring in all the dollars, but at the same time draw in half of Hollywoods a listers. Means that there's simply a bunch of tree hugging hippies supporting these Indy films with a bias opinion on what constitutes as a good film

Oh James, I'm disappointed. You know better. Success doesn't (by default) equal quality. Harry Potter is not a better book than War and Peace; despite the fact more people have read it. The Oscars aren't about box office (mostly ); they are about artistic merit (mostly ). Which is why Transformers was never up for Best Picture; despite huge box-office success. YES there are elitest people in the voting, as there is in all voting; but I think plenty are also objective enough. Which is why Aliens was up for Best Actress back in 1986; or Sir Alex Guiness was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 1977.

It is a fallicy that the Oscars ignore sci-fi or fantasy, they don't; they just only acknowledge excellent sci-fi! Ones that go beyond what everyone has done before. 2001: A Space Odyssey (won 1, 4 noms), Star Wars (won 6. nom 10), Close Encounter of the Third Kind (won 1, 8 noms - including TWO for acting), the Abyss (won 1, 4 noms), Aliens (won 2, 6 noms), E.T (won 4, 9 noms), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (won 4, 10 noms), the Lord of the Rings (won so many, nominated for even more), the Incredibles (won 2, 4 noms), the Dark Knight (won 2, 8 noms). And this is just off the top of my head. Sci-fi is not ignored; neither is fantasy.

[The Cool Thatguy]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5...ars-dont-work/

So the people casting their votes don't even have to watch the movie?

All class.

[simbob4000]

The academy has a very clear bias towards genre films. That being said, that's not why superhero films don't get nominated...or maybe it is, but as it turns out I don't think I've seen a superhero movie that should be up for a nomination in their given year.

[Powerboy]

Excuse me for being blunt, but this is one topic that frustrates the hell out of me.
You can't sit here and tell me that these movies have no heart or no quality acting etc. has anyone actually watched the crap that gets consistently voted. Let me answer that for you. Yes ppl have watched them, plenty of people and for some reason the still struggle to bring in the dollars....someone said in an earlier post that nerds have money and pay top dollar for tickets. You know what, that's not even worth a response.

The fact that these movies not only rule the box office and bring in all the dollars, but at the same time draw in half of Hollywoods a listers. Means that there's simply a bunch of tree hugging hippies supporting these Indy films with a bias opinion on what constitutes as a good film

Let's face it, if the movies truly were bad, they would have stopped making money a long time ago....

I think me Jack Black is just a little upset that he can't land a role where he's actually taken serious

Yes, a line like that coming from Jack Black was ironic.

When I was in college, I took a "History of Film" class. The professor was a man who had been a one-time character actor himself back in the days of Laurel and Hardy and Charlie Chaplin and had known Laurel and Hardy personally. He was also a Shakespeare scholar who had written a book on the subject. So he wasn't just some bumpkin.

I remember a couple of questions he was asked because his answers were quite funny. In defining different genres, someone asked him how he would define the genre known as "the Epic". He said, "Oh, that's easy. That's the sort of film that Mr. Heston is always doing."

He was asked, "What is the difference between a film and a movie?" He answered, "Oh, that's even easier. A film is something you watch in a "History of Film" class. A movie is something people actually go to see in droves."

Then he explained something very important. We should keep in mind that many of the movies we were watching in the class were considered films only because they were decades old, fifty or more years old in some cases. But, in their time, they were MOVIES.

I also know that, when George C. Scott became the first actor to turn down the Best Actor Oscar, he said that to the audience, it seems a great honor. But, knowing personally the politics and maneuvering that really goes into the choices, he thought of it as a joke.

There was a time when the Oscars looked at the popularity of a movie as part of the criteria and thought of movies as entertainment and that the entertainment value (to the vast majority) was an important criteria. But the crop of voters in place for quite a while now has moved drastically away from that.

I personally think the People's Choice awards should just start calling their winners Best Picture, Best Actor, etc., because it's as valid as the Oscars to do that though I realize everyone wants the acknowledgement of their peers. But some genres just have no chance in the current climate.

I also agree completely that there are great acting performances in some of those super hero genre movies. Some of those people are Oscar nominees when they do other genres. So they either stopped being good actors temporarily whenever they do a super hero movie or there's a bias against someone in that type of movie getting nominated.

[Powerboy]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5...ars-dont-work/

So the people casting their votes don't even have to watch the movie?

All class.

Much like superhero blockbusters, Oscar films are becoming their own genre at this point -- their unique tonal motif being that they don't make any money and no one goes to see them.

Quoted for truth.

[The Kid]

Let's be real. None of the Oscar movies were worthy of winning Best Picture

[Kieran_Frost]

There are exceptional performances that don't get recognized. JK Simmons's J Jonah Jameson was on the level of other 2002 supporting performances: CHRIS COOPER in "Adaptation," Paul Newman in "Road to Perdition," John C. Reilly in "Chicago," and Christopher Walken in "Catch Me If You Can."

It really, REALLY wasn't. He was barely in it, and when he was he was smoking a cigar, talking fast and getting angry. That was IT! There was nothing deeper going on, nothing complex or challanging. Don't get me wrong, he is the PERFECT J. Jonah Jameson, but better than Chris Cooper in Adaptation (2002)? HELL no! Not even close to being in the same league; not even close.

Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man is more memorable than Brad Pitt's Benjamin Button or Frank Langella's Richard Nixon.

The Academy has biases against certain genres and in favor of others, and this is to their detriment, given the declining ratings.

Good point about RDJ as Tony Stark. So many acting noms seem like "actor who happened to be in a Best Picture nomination" too. I've seen some pretty straightforward roles in Oscar-friendly dramas get nominated. Yet RDJ's inspired, witty, charismatic and phenomenally popular take on Tony Stark, much of which he improvised, gets ignored?

To be honest I bet Downey was in the running (he did get nominated for Tropic Thunder, after all). But it was a very tough year. Colin Farrell wasn't nominated for In Bruges (2008), Javier Bardem wasn't nominated for Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008), Leo wasn't nominated for Revolutionary Road (2008), James Franco wasn't nominated for Pineapple Express (2008). Like this year, it was a tough year to get nominated and MANY performances didn't make the cut (since you can only have 5). That said... no way was RDJ as worthy as Frank Langella's astoundingly complex and layered performance as Richard Nixon.

[America / Bucky / Russia]

Quoted for truth! I love me some superhero films, but very few fall into "artistic merit" category. Some do; but the vast majority do not (which is ultimately what the director was critising). It was a general comment, not a specific attack on any one film in the genre.

The only reason I watch Marvel films is because I fell in love with a couple of them when I was a younger teenager. If it hadn't been for that, when my friends all come up and say "hey let's watch this as a group", I'd probably dismiss them and say "eh, it looks like your average superhero film and I don't really know the character, I'll pass."

As entertaining as superhero films are, they don't achieve what Boyhood does, or The Imitation Game does. Everyone seems to be in love with Guardians of the Galaxy, but it does what it does. A guy listens to 70s music in outer space, frees his friends from a prison and then fight some bad guys. It's fun, but it doesn't really have anything to make me want to go back to it.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Simmons only had about 25 lines and maybe 10 minutes of screen time? I'm not sure what the prerequisites are or if they exist, but it should be more than that. Tom Cruise was great and memorable in Tropic Thunder does he need a nod too?

RDJ's Tony Stark is great, but it's just RDJ's usually schtick with stupid facial hair. I haven't seen him evolve as an actor since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. His Stark/Sherlock are just smarmy versions of the I.P. Don't get me wrong though, I like those movies.

What it really comes down to is that the academy is made up of 93 percent white, 76 percent male, with an average age of 63. And these people collectively have seen and participated in making more movies than any one of us. Each one has their own bias as to who is deserving and what classifies as a top production. The one thing they all do have in common though is the industry and that's why its circle jerk of movies about movies (hugo, the artist, birdman, et al) will always come before a genre film(even though those were are awesome movies, on the technical level at the very least).

I just don't think the right super hero movie has come yet, and I can't even think of an I.P. that could tell a story universally appealing. The Dark Knight was probably the closest it will ever get too, until the academy's demographic turns into people that grew up with these movies.

So what if they grew up with it? There are tons of movies that are really fun but i don't think should get an Oscar.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

The only reason I watch Marvel films is because I fell in love with a couple of them when I was a younger teenager. If it hadn't been for that, when my friends all come up and say "hey let's watch this as a group", I'd probably dismiss them and say "eh, it looks like your average superhero film and I don't really know the character, I'll pass."

As entertaining as superhero films are, they don't achieve what Boyhood does, or The Imitation Game does. Everyone seems to be in love with Guardians of the Galaxy, but it does what it does. A guy listens to 70s music in outer space, frees his friends from a prison and then fight some bad guys. It's fun, but it doesn't really have anything to make me want to go back to it.

It has about as deep characters as an 80s direct to video flick.

[Powerboy]

So what if they grew up with it? There are tons of movies that are really fun but i don't think should get an Oscar.

I'm really not arguing that any of the superhero movies yet have deserved Best Picture Oscar though a couple certainly merited nomination. But from what I've seen reported regarding the Oscar committee, something as simple as what a person grew up with may have as much to do with it as anything else that ideally should have nothing to do with it. When you've got people voting for movies they didn't even see or because they think a message a movie delivers (in a movie they didn't even see) is important and should be acknowledged or someone refuses to vote for a movie because they don't think that medium (animated in one case) should win, then "what they grew up with" may be just as much of a purely subjective criteria as any other criteria that rightfully should be irrelevant if they were trying to be objective.

But really, it's a moot argument. Other awards were created largely to compensate. The People's Choice awards were largely a reaction to the Oscars not reflecting general public opinion. There are also awards specific to science fiction and other genres, some of which is because they know those genres generally have no chance at the Oscars.

Of course, I understand that the Oscars are the original and the ones given by the peers of the people making movies and I think everyone in that business wants one even when they get defensive and claim they don't care. There are rare people who really don't care and even turn them down. But few people don't desire the acknowledgement of their peers.

Also, although we talk about bias within the Oscar committee- which is inevitable since there is bias everywhere- there is bias among those of us who are the general movie-going public too. Truthfully, I don't think I've seen any of the Oscar nominated movies this year. I might like and admire some of them had I seen them but they just did not catch my interest enough to go to a theater, pay and sit there for two hours or more. I think that is not uncommon among general movie goers.

There are other factors too. I've seen Iron-Man maybe three times though only once at the theater. But I would gladly watch it again. Years ago, I saw "Million Dollar Baby". I thought it was going to be more or less a Rocky style movie about a woman who wanted to be a boxer. When I stepped out of the theater, the first thing I said was, "That was a great movie and, now that it's over, I'm glad I saw it. But I would never have gone to see it had I known ahead of time what it was going to be like and I can almost guarantee you that I will never watch it again." Movies like that are just too painful, seeing people, even within the context of fiction, suffer like that.

But is Iron-Man a better movie because I would want to see it over and over and I would never want to see "Million Dollar Baby" again? Does the fact that Iron-Man is more lighthearted and I would want to see it over and over somehow make it a lesser movie? It's all a very, very subjective criteria.