don't make it personal! we should feel bad about all of us.

or, alternatively, watch in detached amusement because there is no point doing otherwise

but seriously, maybe there is something about the post-industrial economy and its need for ongoing learning that puts selective pressure towards immaturity

know what i mean?

gotta stay flexible or we die, these days

--

but on that note, think about what's more important. truth or feelings?

I said "I feel bad about myself" with a half-grin.

I'm 36, and have in recent years sort of surrounded myself with things from the 90's. Comic books, music, movies, etc. So I guess to some degree I fit into your outline above. I mean that could be nostalgia, or a comfort in something familiar. A lot of this stuff feels like chicken soup, y'know? Or maybe I'm getting old and this is what happens. Don't know. I don't really feel bad about myself, though.

The Dark Knight = Serious film and masterpiece, like, a-duuuhhh.

Nothing else qualifies. Unless you think Deadpool is a comedic masterpiece, or Superman: The Movie is a masterpiece in the way Stat Wars is sometimes considered a masterpiece.

But Dark Knight = masterpiece.

And it's not as if there's something inherent in comic book source material that makes "seriousness" impossible. That's not true at all. Road to Perdition is a great example of a comic-book based movie that is also dead fucking serious and really, really well made. Same with A History of Violence, to a lesser degree.

Also masterpieces don't have to be serious.

There have been maybe 100-125 major superhero movies made since Superman: The Movie. Many more if you count less major ones, and lower-budget comic book insoired adaptations. One of those films is a masterpiece (again, Dark Knight) — less than 1 percent. So I'd say they have the same success rate as movies in general. I'd definitely say that masterpieces account for less than 1 percent of ALL movies, so really ... it's just movies. Movies that are fall roughly within the parameters of a certain style. Just like horror, thrillers and spy movies, action movies, etc.

At this point I think it's a bit antiquated to act as though superhero movies aren't capable of hitting the same emotional notes as any other kind of movie.


Just my opinion though.

Except for the bit about Dark Knight being a masterpiece. That's actually a fact. :D

I was dragged to Dark Knight in the theater and hated it. Too loud.

I love Dark Knight. But we've already talked about this.

Dark Knight is not a masterpiece because Christian Bale's "bat-voice" sucks ass.

lol dark knight zzzzzzz good joke tho

I worry too about the state of mid-budget character driven movies, but just because the new Wes Anderson movie or Sofia Coppola movie isn't playing in the same theatre as The Mummy or Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't mean its impossible for audiences to find them. If you live in a major city like Los Angeles or New York there is still a vibrant indie movie culture, and venues to see them. Outside of that fans have Netflix and iTunes and Amazon to find these movies as well. Yes, the indie boom of the 90's isn't as out there in theaters, but its still there, its just up to filmmakers and fans of those films to keep it alive.

funny that you'd mention wes anderson and sofia coppola. they're actually the perfect example of the infantilification i'm talking about

i really like wes anderson, but he's kinda like an overgrown kid. his movies are not really adult movies for adults-- they're all about the gen-xer imaginary childhood, and staying there-- from tenenbaums to zizou to moonrise kingdom to everything like that. wes anderson is a very imaginative kid. he's not a grown-ass man.

as for sofia coppola she's all about the teenager yes? virgin suicides and marie antoinette and the bling ring. the other one which was my favorite was about failed adulthood.

i'd like to see more grownup themes with grownup ideas-- sex/love. power. death. but with a mature approach, not the romantic goobledygook, or the power-as-evil, or the many shit ways movies approach death.

as ilducio said correctly, there are many other countries putting out great stuff. but america still rules the market in many ways, not just on the consumption front but also maybe more importantly for distribution.

dammit. where is the stuff. let me think. mad men. where is the mad men of movies? business. fucking. grownup morally ambiguous conflict instead of goodies vs. baddies. that sort of stuff.

it's on tv

here is the rub. Hollywood learned that character driven films can be made dirt cheap, a la the indie scene of the 80's 90's. But movies are first and foremost (hollywood studio movies I mean) investment properties. They are NOT creative acts first. They are the equivalent of the high art market, the high end auto market, etc. Sure, the "art" nees to be there but from the moment of inception, a hollywood film is seeking to make it's investors monie. That leads to movies pandering to a non-english speaking world audience that wants visual stimuli, since character acting really does not translate across societal cultures. Only the broad strokes. That is why the whole world loves Chaplin still. and mickey mouse.

mad men sucked shit. it was like eating hard candy. it has a specific type of pleasure, but it rots your teeth, gives you insulin issues, gets you fat, high blood pressure etc. Mad emn was this for tv storytelling. it told NO story. It was pure vacuous wankfest for old white folks to remember how good they had it.

wat. that's a totally myopic reading. missing the forest for the trees. that show wasn't a "nostalgia" show at all. have you actually watched it or did you just decide apriori not to like it?

if anything, mad men was... anthropological. it showed how behind the shiny facade there were layers and layers of rot and injustice and absurdity, and how the power of "the white man" was based on oppression and lies, and it showed many skeletons in many closets.

but see here's the thing-- while it showed all the rot underneath the glitter of madison avenue, and the exploitation, and the abuse, and the discrimination, and the manipulation, and the privilege and entitlement-- it wasn't about the goodies vs. the baddies as children's movies are.

on mad men you could root for any of the characters while at the same time seeing what utter assholes they were--to themselves, to each other, and to the world at large. it wasn't partisan or preachy-- it gave you complex characters and it left you to make your own judgments. that's what good writing does, as opposed to the simplistic morality of superhero tales.

Wow, dude. You just hate everything that has been culturally deemed relevant in any way, don't you?

Fuck Mad Men! Dark Knight sucks! Breaking Bad my ass! The Beatles suck shit! Hey fuck you Daniel Day Lewis and Radiohead and David Mitchell and Louis C.K. and Steve Jobs and Jennifer Lawrence! Screw you Oscar winners! Nobel my balls! Short list this, bitch!

Dark Knight is a great movie in spite of Batvoice and you all goddamn well know it.

honestly not saying this to fuck with you or anything but no way

i understand that you particularly as a batman fan might have an inordinately strong liking for it, but from there to say "great movie' it does not necessarily follow.

i understand also that nolan did very good for superhero movies, "greatness" is a different standard to reach. though i liked avengers more because it didn't take itself so seriously and was very funny.

me i like this little movie from the 90s called "big night." it's an indie flick about food, and i like food a lot, and i've cooked since long before it was fashionable. but while i'm super-fond of the thing, and i really like the actors, and i love the whole thing, i can't in good conscience claim it's a great movie because... it's just not a great movie or the best of anything.

so hm yeah. taken out of the superhero context i can't see how it would be a "great" movie or why. it was the best of the three and it wasn't bad and had great technological fireworks but from there to great movie caliber it's a big leap.

this is not to say that you can't or shouldn't like it. just saying that it's very hard to universalize your particular.

Well, Roger Ebert (RIP) disagreed. Also it won an Oscar. Also, it not being nominated for a best picture Oscar was the reason the Academy re-assessed its rules for BP nominees. Also it's on all kind of list and stuff.

You think I like it because I like superhero movies, but I don't really like superhero movies that much. Sure, some are cool, but only one is truly a great movie, and that's Dark Knight.

Also it's not a superhero movie. :D

I'm actually really hard on superhero movies because I like comic books. So if anything, the fact that I think Dark Knight is legit great should work in its favor.

Also also also, I know you're not saying stuff to fuck with me. We're bros.

coincidentally I re-watched Deadpool over the weekend as well. I... love that movie. Mainly because it's rare that I comic book movie is so true to a comic book. Not a specific story or anything. I just mean they didn't say "well, we have to make Deadpool fit into a PG-13 box." They said "well, Deadpool in a movie should be like THIS" and just let it happen. As a big fan of the comics, I was super impressed w/ how accurate it felt. (So if you don't care for the movie, you certainly will hate the comics).

Ant-Man is an interesting entry in the MCU. It's basically a comedy, huh? I enjoyed it but mostly because I like Paul Rudd. I'm actually sort of amazed that they made a whole movie for Ant-Man. And that there will be a sequel. It almost seems like his part in Civil War could have been enough. So yeah. I liked it, but it's kind of unnecessary too. Shrug.

well, if anyone is looking for a movie with a real story line and excellent acting, I'd recco The Measure of a Man

"After his long and humiliating search for employment -- while scrambling to feed his family -- Thierry Taugourdeau lands a job at a megamarket catching shoplifters. But he faces a moral quandary as he begins to sympathize with those he apprehends."

^ That sounds really good. I have no idea how it would unfold, much less how it would end.

I think my problem with most superhero movies is either the bad guy is defeated at the end, or he's only temporarily disabled until it's time to make a sequel.

Here's the plot to the next Avengers movie: antagonist threatens humanity. The Avengers fight. The Avengers win or lose. Probably win. The end.

I see you've read Infinity War ;)

I watched all of it. The whitewashing was IMMENSE and the token references to the civil rights movements were pathetic in a Trump-deluded white rich man's world kind of way. fucking shit shit shit show. sick of tv shows that are essentially rich white people problems, easily solved by vast amounts of money and the good white looks.

all films are unnecessary.

you know what I meant. Ant-Man (the standalone movie) was unnecessary in progressing the overall MCU series of films.

Yup. It's not my favorite, but I think Ryan Reynolds' depiction of Wade/Deadpool was one of the best ever for a comic book character. Maybe THE best.

It nailed Deadpool so well that now when I read Deadpool comics, I just plain hear Ryan Reynolds' voice. Seriously. And I don't dislike it, in fact, it feels like I finally know exactly how to read Deadpool so he doesn't sound like crazy Spider-Man! If that's not the mark of a great superhero performance, I'm not sure what is.

When I read the Joker after seeing Heath's version, I'm sad that the version in the comics is so much less textured and less genuinely threatening than Heath's undeniably god-fan-damn-tactic and definitive Joker. That was an example of the performance possibly being so unique that it kinda messes with the way you read the story, even though it was so fucking good.

Reynolds just nailed it. Nailed the hell out of it. You can tell he really loves the character, and you can tell he has read the fuck out of some Deadpool.

dude - yes. 100%. Since the movie came out, I have done the same thing when reading the comics. Deadpool totally has Reynolds' voice in my head. But yeah, that really means something about how well RR understood that character.

Regardless if someone likes the movie (or its source material), Deadpool was a labor of love and it really shows. Everyone involved really CARED about that character.

If I wrote off everything I liked as I child as being "childish" I'd only listen to high brow minimalist electronic compositions and read theorhetcial physics books or something.
I'd never watch Blade Runner (or read PKD), and I'd watch documentaries all the time and sniff my own farts.
I didn't even fully know why Nirvana was great until I was probably 20 years old. Rap music? That was really a later development with the exception of a handful of artists.
My appreciation of comic books inspired my academic interest in religion, philosophy, anthropology, mythology and sociology. Oh, and history.
If your maturation has made Nirvana sound worse to you, I think you might be doing it wrong.

*popcorn.gif*

I thought ant man was an awesome flick because it kept the true spirit of a monthly superhero comic book alive. It told a story that was not earth-shattering, aliens/gods will destroy all of existence. It was awesome because of that. I hate that whole "the world is threatened by a huge insurmountable monster" nonsense that, in the comics, happened maybe once a year, if that. In the films, every hero seems described in mythic status. that is bullshit. only superman is a mythic hero. batman is a HUMAN being with no powers. The Flash is a scientist who got powers to be very fast. aquaman is a merman. the xmen are mutations, some cool, some not. the movies all try to posit each and every superhero as some sort of demigod entity, when they are NOT.

of all the recent DC/Marvel films, the ones that most got the character right were antman, dr. strange, OG Iron Man.

Another good non-comic book movie, Wild Tales, it's really great

You missed the point of the performance, dude. Heath's Joker isn't angry. Nicholson's Joker is just campy. Panache my ass.

That doesn't even make sense. I barely listen to any rock music, as you probably well know. I don't even listen to Nirvana, but their awesomeness does not diminish with my age. If it does for you, well, it's not my fault your face is a butt that shits stupid words. :D

Nuh-uh. What about intangibles? Does time diminish age or decay?

Totally staying on point this thread. :cool:

dammit, i wanted to say that liver damage, like compound interest, is cummulative, but "intangibles" took me out of the race

time diminishes the hacks, and aggrandizes the true artists.

Sonic Youth never had a gold record. I used to dream that something like SY would become so awesome that the mainstream would have to recognize, but it never happened with them. It DID happen with Nirvana, although I attribute that to the appeal of Kurt. If he looked and acted like Gene Simmons, but with all of Kurt's guitar, vocals, etc., Nirvana would not have been the pop darlings they became.

everyone loves the brooding star who is burdened by their stardom. it makes you feel like they are one of "us." but they are most definitely NOT.

more films are made and released now than anytime since the heyday of the studio system in hollywood, yet most do not get any distribution.

Hahah.

this wasn't the autobiography of malcolm x. of course it was a story about "the white man"-- that's who ran madison avenue (and still does).

one of the main points the show made (see the washington post's alyssa rosenberg's columns on it) was how in spite of all the upheavals etc only few people benefitted from social changes and how slowly things percolated through the world at large. shit that was rampant and damnable in the 60s *still happens today*.

to me, that's exactly why the show was compelling-- it wasn't really saying "look at them". it was saying "look at us". yesterday's tobacco is today's sugar. racism, sexism and consumerism live on. people are more than ever manipulated by advertising, which has become more pervasive, subtle, and omnipresent.

i get from your comment that the existence of "rich white people" fills you with hate and rage and it ultimately distorts your reading of the whole story. i would venture that you'd rather see them portrayed as one-note nazi supervillains rather than as complicated people with some good qualities and some terrible defects who operate embedded in a dysfunctional social system that no one person can control.

and that's exactly the problem with the superhero comic book morality you seem to enjoy instead-- it operates as a simplistic black-or-white system of individual choices to indoctrinate children. but while children need a clearly defined moral code, real life in the adult world is messy, difficult, ambiguous and rife with tradeoffs, where cultures and classes clash, and always with more questions than clear answers. this is exactly what good writing for adults illustrates, and what i'm referring to when i complain about a lack of adult subjects in fiction. to read about fictional complexity and social systems helps us to grapple with real complexity and social systems.

to read only simplicities... i think it makes us simple, and not in a good way. too much simplicity gives us puritans and torquemadas and all manner of absolutists, #MAGAs, science-as-religionists, creationists and bible literalists, and reduces all judgments to "this rules" and "this sucks". nature doesn't work that way. nature is an explosion of complexity-- and that goes for ecosystems and social systems and individual lives--and we have to learn to deal with it.

Great post!