Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
sure superhero movies are generally dumb, but some are a decent spectacle for some reason or another, and it irks me to hear them discussed as art masterpieces which they clearly aren't. they're dumb, cheesy, ridiculous, and often intolerable. like rollercoasters and funnel cakes, they can be fun but make you wanna vomit.
|
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.
