James Gunn Defends Superhero Films Following Award Show Critiques

[CBR News]

The "Guardians of the Galaxy" director has responded to criticism of superhero movies at both the Oscars and the Independent Spirit Awards.


Full article here.

[Holt]

I can totally get why some people are burnt out on all the superhero movies that come out every single year, but I also think it's just a bit funny to see Hollywood slamming superhero flicks when those are increasingly the only expensive summer films turning out profits in the current market place.

They're effectively carrying the market place in order for these smaller dramatic movies to get made in the first place, as well as giving boosts to actors so that they have the financial clout to do more dramatic roles. Trust me, Boyhood and The Imitation Game aren't exactly setting the box office on fire.

[thejka]

Completely agree with Gunn here. It's funny to bash on superheroes, but if someone asked anyone in Hollywood to be in a Marvel movie, chances are they'll say yes.

The reason why Avengers, Guardians, and the Dark Knight trilogy did so well is because they were great movies made with a lot of care.

[TOXIC]

They're effectively carrying the market place in order for these smaller dramatic movies to get made in the first place, as well as giving boosts to actors so that they have the financial clout to do more dramatic roles. Trust me, Boyhood and The Imitation Game aren't exactly setting the box office on fire.

Because superhero movies haven't just blown up in the past decade or so. "Harvey", "Glengarry Glen Ross", "Rainman", "Donnie Darko" and such couldn't have been made without the nonexistent superhero movies.

Superhero movies are an ugly flash in the pan of cinema and I hope the oversaturation of them will blow up and put them back in the niche category where they belong.

[Holt]

Because superhero movies haven't just blown up in the past decade or so. "Harvey", "Glengarry Glen Ross", "Rainman", "Donnie Darko" and such couldn't have been made without the nonexistent superhero movies.

The current landscape has changed drastically in the past few years. The industry is in an entirely different spot than it was in the 90's.

Superhero movies are an ugly flash in the pan of cinema and I hope the oversaturation of them will blow up and put them back in the niche category where they belong.

Why did they get rid of the eye roll on here?

[Jimosai]

Superhero movies are an ugly flash in the pan of cinema and I hope the oversaturation of them will blow up and put them back in the niche category where they belong.

Over-saturation? Madness! How many superhero movies do we get per year? Two to four? Even when both DC and Marvel get in to full swing we're talking still less than ten per year. There were 659 movies released in 2013 according to the MPAA, which means plenty of options if superheroes aren't your cup of tea. Over-saturation? If the market was over-saturated with anything, it would be reflected in declining sales, but that isn't the case. I personally don't understand how anyone can be prejudice against an entire genre of film.

[Goggindowner]

Because superhero movies haven't just blown up in the past decade or so. "Harvey", "Glengarry Glen Ross", "Rainman", "Donnie Darko" and such couldn't have been made without the nonexistent superhero movies.

Correct, back then it was just standard summer blockbuster films that didn't draw from comics for their source material. That's literally the only thing that has changed, the inspiration for the blockbusters. Hollywood has been using blockbusters as tent poles to support more serious and artistic films for decades. This isn't new to the era of superheroes.

Superhero movies are an ugly flash in the pan of cinema and I hope the oversaturation of them will blow up and put them back in the niche category where they belong.

Money talks, and superhero films make it by the truck load. Will it eventually phase out? Obviously, but as a comic fan it is pretty exciting to get to ride this wave while it lasts. Sorry you don't agree, but you are not the majority.

[ghostwoman]

Over-saturation? Madness! How many superhero movies do we get per year? Two to four? Even when both DC and Marvel get in to full swing we're talking still less than ten per year. There were 659 movies released in 2013 according to the MPAA, which means plenty of options if superheroes aren't your cup of tea. Over-saturation? If the market was over-saturated with anything, it would be reflected in declining sales, but that isn't the case. I personally don't understand how anyone can be prejudice against an entire genre of film.

The critical difference is superhero movies are the only movies that people will pay to see on a consistent basis. Why? Nerds have $$$ and stable jobs and don't mind dishing out high ticket prices to see films on a big screen. Then we go buy the Blu-Rays. Without us...Hollywood would be failing hard right now, and they know this. Everybody in Hollywood knows this.

[Pinsir]

I can totally get why some people are burnt out on all the superhero movies that come out every single year, but I also think it's just a bit funny to see Hollywood slamming superhero flicks when those are increasingly the only expensive summer films turning out profits in the current market place.

They're effectively carrying the market place in order for these smaller dramatic movies to get made in the first place, as well as giving boosts to actors so that they have the financial clout to do more dramatic roles. Trust me, Boyhood and The Imitation Game aren't exactly setting the box office on fire.

These Oscar movies would still be made if super hero movies, or blockbusters in general disapeared. Oscar movies actually have huge returns too. They often cost 10 million dollars and you get 5, 7, 10 times the return. Even a movie with a heavy emphasis on cgi like Gravity made 700 million dollars off of a 100 million dollar budget.

[Pinsir]

Also if superhero movies want to get nominated then just animate them.

Does anyone here seriously think Big Hero 6 is better then GotG? Or Cap2? Or DofP? Of course not.

[ExcelsiorPrime]

If you are successful or good at something..shouldn't you expect more than a few haters?

That is a validation of sorts.

Look at Big Hero 6. Was it groundbreaking..not technically but emotionally it did. A character lost a loved one and he was one step away from being a merciless vigilante killer then chose to walk a higher path. Also the importance of caring folks around a person who has suffered a loss.


Sure its more quieter than a bunch of singing Lego. But it had more emotional content.

Superhero genre is at a crossroads where success could ruin it.

We will see if the Comic Book community can handle success as well as it handled being an underdog.

[smart_alek]

Are "super hero" movies really a genre? Captain America was in the vein of a spy thriller with action elements, Guardians of the Galaxy was a sci-fi movie. The Dark Knight wasn't a "super hero" movie either.

[xMatt]

Are "super hero" movies really a genre? Captain America was in the vein of a spy thriller with action elements, Guardians of the Galaxy was a sci-fi movie. The Dark Knight wasn't a "super hero" movie either.

Superhero movies of today are like the spaghetti western-cowboy flicks of fifty/sixty years ago.

At least, they were. They've become so much more diverse in the last ten years. Like you said, comic book movies are more diverse than just "superhero movies". They're science fiction, first and foremost (most, anyway) with action. And then, like the example you gave, they can be spy thrillers, too. However, I think "superhero" could be construed as a genre, as there is a typical set of conventions (both in scripting, filming and directing) that permeate all superhero films.

[lancerman]

Are "super hero" movies really a genre? Captain America was in the vein of a spy thriller with action elements, Guardians of the Galaxy was a sci-fi movie. The Dark Knight wasn't a "super hero" movie either.

Superhero itself by definition is a type of character. But people see powers and costumes and other common tropes and label them as such. Which isn't a significant deal.

Superman is science fiction fantasy
Batman is action/mystery/noir (or Atleast it used to be)
Spider-Man is a science fiction soap opera

But it's easier to look at the characters and group them together for most people.

[xMatt]

Superhero itself by definition is a type of character. But people see powers and costumes and other common tropes and label them as such. Which isn't a significant deal.

Superman is science fiction fantasy
Batman is action/mystery/noir (or Atleast it used to be)
Spider-Man is a science fiction soap opera

But it's easier to look at the characters and group them together for most people.

How great would it be if we started applying the same logic to other "genres"

Crime - detective movies
Western - cowboy movies
Romantic comedy - whiny, uptight woman movies
Action - roid-raging bros movies
Horror/Slasher - hot chicks who die movies (see: people of colour who die movies)