James Gunn Defends Superhero Films Following Award Show Critiques

[Pinsir]

But that still relies on a blockbuster like Gravity (or Titanic) being made. Studios don't exist solely on distributing art house cinema, they need the dollars that scifi and superheroes bring in.

I wonder if back in the day people complained that there were so many musicals?

If people can make money doing it, they will still do it. There are tons of niche hobbies that still turn a profit.

[wylietimes]

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.

[The Kid]

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.

Agreed. I like Cap2, Guardians, and DoFP but none of them were awards worthy. I do think they were better than films like The Imitation Game and Theory of Everything but that's not saying much

[cadet]

If they made a superhero movie that wasn't "formulaic" I'm curious how it would do

[Mister Mets]

On this forum I am not obviously, this is a comic book forum, but in the general population I am absolutely in the majority.

If that were true, wouldn't other types of films make more money?

[Heisennerd]

If they made a superhero movie that wasn't "formulaic" I'm curious how it would do

An expressionistic film and/or period piece superhero film would be awesome. Dan Slott's been mentioning Mysterio, which is the kind of visually interesting antagonist that is more than just a punch partner.

[JimRaynor55]

What counts as Oscar worthy is subjective anyway. Some incredible films win or are nominated, but I've seen a bunch which just seemed distinct in all the right ways (offbeat, serious or historical subject matter, big name director) without being particularly entertaining or memorable.

How are Avengers and The Winter Soldier "not Oscar worthy" when another genre movie like Avatar (not to bash this movie which I loved as well) was once nominated for Best Picture? Avatar was basically Pocahontas in space, and nobody went crazy over its acting. Most people on the street can't even name its lead actor! Its big selling point was its groundbreaking visual effects, but aren't the effects something snobs usually criticize about genre action movies?

With their sharp dialogue, acting, and plotting, I'd put Marvel's best movies way above quite a few actual Oscar winners. So do most moviegoers. So do many critics.

But what is a critic or an Academy voter anyway? Again, it all goes back to opinion. The Academy voters just seem to have different tastes than most other people.

[Mister Mets]

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.

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." 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.

[JimRaynor55]

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?

[Powerboy]

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.

[Powerboy]

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.

With all due respect on that one, it was generally assumed that "The Fellowship of the Ring" was a shoe-in for the Best Picture Oscar. Even among many television personalities, there were remarks made about genre bias when it didn't win. Same thing with "The Two Towers", maybe more so. In many respects, giving the Oscar to "Return of the King" seemed a result of pressure building up for two years.

Best Actor is definitely and obviously about acting. Best Picture should be about the overall picture and there is definitely a genre bias. Ask yourself how often a comedy wins. There are actors who have sarcastically commented that they might do a period drama and especially a Holocaust period drama because that's an auto-win unless there's another Holocaust drama the same year.

I'm not knocking those movies at all. I'm saying there is a genre bias. Someone pointed out to me that, if you go back many decades, the movies that won best picture often tended to be popular movies, not necessarily the most popular one but movies that a majority of people actually saw. These movies were often every bit action/ adventure within the effects of the day as the ones now or the equivalent such as western shoot 'em ups,, etc.

[Biff Pow!]

How are Avengers and The Winter Soldier "not Oscar worthy" when another genre movie like Avatar (not to bash this movie which I loved as well) was once nominated for Best Picture? Avatar was basically Pocahontas in space, and nobody went crazy over its acting. Most people on the street can't even name its lead actor! Its big selling point was its groundbreaking visual effects, but aren't the effects something snobs usually criticize about genre action movies?

Avatar's use of 3D was groundbreaking, and created a spectacle that you had to see in the theatre, something Hollywood should definitely celebrate in this home theatre/file-sharing era. The same goes for Gravity- it might not seem like much on paper, but on the big screen was an incredible experience. I think both should have won (especially Avatar, The Hurt Locker wasn't very good.)

[Jameszahra]

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

[wylietimes]

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." 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.

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.

[wjowski]

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.

Is that why I can list the number of Best Picture-winning comedies on one hand?

Or better yet, total number of Best Picture-nominated animated movies (a grand total of 3-4)?