Compare and contrast
Mar. 1st, 2010 12:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenA serious article about film criticism and its decline.
vs.
ZOMG COMIC BOOK MOVIES R OVR.
The criticism of online reviewers in the first link seemed especially prescient this morning when I went from it to the second link. Of course, the problem with the io9 criticism is that the cyclical nature of genre popularity is just that: it is only popularity that waxes/wanes, not actual production. There will be some stepping off of making superhero movies, say, when a few superhero movies have failed to make big bank or have failed critically (either with fans or reviewers or both). But the movies will still be around. After Watchmen did less well than hoped, and after Wolverine was so boring even fanboys didn't bother watching the leaked movie, we are still looking at a slew of movies that were pushed into action regardless of those films failures.
This year, we get Iron Man 2. Next year, Thor and The Avengers. DC is pushing a new Superman movie and another in the Nolan Bat-films. Kick-Ass is already rumored to have a sequel in the works. It is not that we'll tire of superhero movies. We only tire of some superheroes. That's what I mean about popularity. As the Burton-Schumacher Batman franchise started to wane, Blade stepped in, as did X-Men. (The former informed upon The Matrix; the latter took a few cues from it.) Within a couple of years, we had Spider-Man. All around them were the also-rans: The Hulk, The Punisher, Fantastic Four. Then we came back to Batman again.
To the internet's credit, most of this was pointed out to the io9 OP. Perhaps we aren't all the anti-education film reactionaries that that first link assumes many of to be?
vs.
ZOMG COMIC BOOK MOVIES R OVR.
The criticism of online reviewers in the first link seemed especially prescient this morning when I went from it to the second link. Of course, the problem with the io9 criticism is that the cyclical nature of genre popularity is just that: it is only popularity that waxes/wanes, not actual production. There will be some stepping off of making superhero movies, say, when a few superhero movies have failed to make big bank or have failed critically (either with fans or reviewers or both). But the movies will still be around. After Watchmen did less well than hoped, and after Wolverine was so boring even fanboys didn't bother watching the leaked movie, we are still looking at a slew of movies that were pushed into action regardless of those films failures.
This year, we get Iron Man 2. Next year, Thor and The Avengers. DC is pushing a new Superman movie and another in the Nolan Bat-films. Kick-Ass is already rumored to have a sequel in the works. It is not that we'll tire of superhero movies. We only tire of some superheroes. That's what I mean about popularity. As the Burton-Schumacher Batman franchise started to wane, Blade stepped in, as did X-Men. (The former informed upon The Matrix; the latter took a few cues from it.) Within a couple of years, we had Spider-Man. All around them were the also-rans: The Hulk, The Punisher, Fantastic Four. Then we came back to Batman again.
To the internet's credit, most of this was pointed out to the io9 OP. Perhaps we aren't all the anti-education film reactionaries that that first link assumes many of to be?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 05:32 pm (UTC)But I suppose "Superhero movies are good when they're well made" is too obvious a point to be worth an article.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 05:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 05:38 pm (UTC)Spider-Man 3 is not only a bad story, but it's a great example of series fatigue and executive meddling. There wasn't the best story to be had in the first place--Raimi pulled for the Sandman stuff--but what was added to it--Venom, Gwen Stacy--made it just that much worse.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 05:36 pm (UTC)Of course, they also really like movies that are bad. I happen to have enjoyed Fantastic Four, all the while recognizing what a silly and dumb movie it was. But not its sequel, wherein any charm or novelty had long worn off.