Comic book material should never take itself seriously, apparently!?

[Diddy_Mao]

Maybe I'm reading different things into the argument. I don't think that anyone is saying these movies can't be or shouldn't endeavor to be serious. The problem is shoehorning dark seriousness into a character, setting or story that doesn't need it in a cynical attempt to make the story more "realistic."

I'll use Man of Steel as an example because my dislike for Amazing Spider-Man is a bit too fresh to be completely objective about.


Superman struggling to come to terms with his powers and identity is a good seed for a story. Humanity being distrustful of an alien super being and him having to earn our trust is a great seed for a story.

Man of Steel put these seeds on on display and then never planted them. It spent 50% of it's run time giving us dour flashbacks into Clark's dirt farming childhood as one long string of miserable super-accidents. This would have been a great setup for his hesitation to reveal himself to the world but didn't pay off at all because he's never really given a reason to.

It wastes so much time being Super Serious and Super Miserable that when it comes time to actually be Super Heroic we've hardly established a good rapport with our protagonist. The end result is Superman never doing anything to gain the trust of humanity as a hero and never really establishing a connection to humanity that justifies his outing to the world.

It's a miserable movie without a shred of optimism to it and it's just exhausting to watch.

 

[Muspelheim]

Now, did he really say that it never, ever should, or is it just our interpretation?

 

[shrekfan246]

I didn't know this was a thing until the last couple of days. I mean, seriously, this is a thing?

On the other hand, I would argue some premises aren't supposed to be serious, and really, a lot of comics do sort of fall in there. I just don't think it's a mandate.

Apparently, from what I've seen.

I mean, I get the inherent "silly" component that goes with the territory of comic book adaptations, but I don't understand why people seem to think it's some sacrosanct rule that comic book adaptations can't be serious. And again, I also understand that people might simply be tired of "gritty" films, but that doesn't make them bad films in themselves, which is what a lot of people seem to imply.

It almost seems like the opposite of how people treated the "original" Batman film series; The more "serious" Tim Burton films were loved, while the campy, silly, stupid Schumacher films are largely reviled. Now the silly, campy, stupid films are the ones getting all of the praise, while the serious ones are getting blasted down. Maybe I'm not looking at it deeply enough, but that's the impression I get, at least.

 

[Saetha]

MovieBob said in his latest video about the Amazing Spiderman 2 that comic book material taking itself seriously is some how a hipster thing. I on the other hand have become increasingly aggravated by what seems to be the trendy go to for the comic enthusiast/media critic. The assertion that comic book material should never take itself seriously and should always endeavor to return to that silly period where it new what it was etc etc....

I am, by the way, not defending the new Spiderman franchise. I think it is appalling. But I don't think that it fails because it is not a sam rami camp fest. In fact, it strikes me as though this increasingly common sentiment among critics is actually what is truly 'Hipster'. It is basically saying, "eugh.... why cant comic books and their respective spin off movies get back to the roots, you know, before other people began to like them....because you know, I liked that band before they where cool and sold out! My critical understanding of comic books is better than yours."

Seriously, when you hear the likes of Doger expressing this opinion, you have to imagine she started reading comics in the 90s right. But wait! Comic books where horrible in the 90s don't you know!? Must distance myself from them, and adopt condescending and quirky opinions. Hipster 101.

Just remember, MovieBob almost went as far as saying Spiderman 3 was instant fail because Venom was choosen to be in it, not because of the treatment of the character, just the mere presence of him.

/rant

Uh... wasn't his opinion not that comic book movies should never take themselves seriously, only that they should never take themselves TOO seriously - like, to the point of being humorless and "realistic," as though it's shameful to be about a bunch of guys in tights beating people up? I've heard it described that this is the problem between movies adapted from DC comics, and movies adapted from Marvel comics - Marvel embraces it's weirdness and doesn't shy away from the fact that it's concepts are pretty out there (See Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy), while DC tries to "sober up" and "be mature," (See Dark Knight, the new Superman) and as a result, feels like it's ashamed more than anything of what it really is. And that's what Moviebob's problem is, when it comes to comic book adaptions like that. Something doesn't need to be humorless or mature or realistic to be entertaining, especially if it's a comic book movie, and that more of those movies should stop trying to pretend that they're gritty and "adult."

Which, personally, is an opinion I agree with. I rather dislike the modern mindset of "Silly rabbit, optimism and humor are for kids!"

EDIT: To be a bit more clear, I don't think "Hipster" in this context means "Unpopular and underground" because the mindset of "darker = better" is actually pretty widespread. I think hipster's being used to mean "counter-culture, condescending" which... yeah, the belief does come off like that a lot. "I'm too cool and smart and awesome to believe in happy endings, and anyone who is even slightly idealistic needs to grow up!" An opinion isn't counter-culture and "hipsterish" if it's opposing an opinion that was already counter-culture. It's just... culture.

 

[Racecarlock]

If only one thing in the world could, right? No, everything has to be grimdark now, whether it actually fits something or not. In the case of batman, it worked. But then all of a sudden we need a realistic superman, which is why I didn't watch man of steel. The director wants a realistic superman. Great, just what we needed, right?

Everything has to be brooding and serious nowadays unless of course it is making fun of things that are brooding and serious. People want fuel mechanics in GTA Games and even the alien from krypton with heat vision just HAS to be realistic. Mafia II was apparently a great game, because tediously driving and walking everywhere combined with boring chores and sometimes a shootout if you're lucky and maybe a stealth section today counts as a wonderful masterpiece of gaming because is was so god damn realistic and accurate to the 1950s. Who cares if the game was fucking tedious, right? Who cares? It was realistic and that's all that matters these days apparently.

And what really gets me is that the marvel movies are more realistic. They are. When you get right down to it, the avengers had a lot of trouble getting along, and there were some quite tense moments. And yet, there were funny moments too. That's real life, people. Believe it or not, life is not just people dwelling over how serious life is, ok? People don't spend all day looking at their finances or focusing on deaths in the news or going on journey vision quests of self discovery, alright? There's comedy shows, amusement parks, games, and yes, even comics. I don't get why everything needs to be so gloomy and gray nowadays.

 

[Something Amyss]

I mean, I get the inherent "silly" component that goes with the territory of comic book adaptations, but I don't understand why people seem to think it's some sacrosanct rule that comic book adaptations can't be serious. And again, I also understand that people might simply be tired of "gritty" films, but that doesn't make them bad films in themselves, which is what a lot of people seem to imply.

It almost seems like the opposite of how people treated the "original" Batman film series; The more "serious" Tim Burton films were loved, while the campy, silly, stupid Schumacher films are largely reviled. Now the silly, campy, stupid films are the ones getting all of the praise, while the serious ones are getting blasted down. Maybe I'm not looking at it deeply enough, but that's the impression I get, at least.

Yeah, it's weird. Although, it may just be a symptom of comic book movies finally coming into their own. They can be silly now, but when Burton's Batman came out, they really couldn't. I'm surprised Batman even worse a costume in the 90s versions.

Now, it almost seems like maybe it's a backlash against that. The "you have to be serious and brooding to be taken serious" thing that tainted a lot of earlier superhero movies (though I loved Batman and Returns).

Speaking of, I really enjoyed Batman Forever. I know a lot of people didn't, but they basically brought a comic book to life and I enjoyed that. B&R, I think, went too far into camp territory, but silly and fun was okay with me. Then again, I probably wouldn't have complained about another Burton Batman, either.

Anyway, I'm getting off-point. Comic books used to really have to be ashamed of their source material, and now less so. I mean, I don't expect comics to become "the" thing any time soon, but at least we get to see some colourful costumes and the like. Hell, even X-3, for all its flaws, put Beast in one of the classic uniforms, rather than the Hollywood idea of BDSM. It wasn't much, but it was something. But even the Spider-Man films were mostly brooding and serious, and the goofy moments were what people cringed at. Mostly, I was just put off by the mood whiplash. One minute, Peter's trying to murder someone, the next, he's imitating Saturday Night Fever. Each wouldn't be so bad without the other. And it's not just 3. Mood whiplash is the direction of all three films--it's just easier to demonstrate with the infamous "bad" scenes.

Now, did he really say that it never, ever should, or is it just our interpretation?

Does that make Moviebob the new Anita Sarkeesian?

 

[TheRiddler]

Let's just say that it's a whole lot easier to make superhero comic books not take themselves seriously. If you make absurd characters in colourful spandex costumes take themselves seriously, you risk to fail at it 99% of the times, which why comic books should be tongue-in-cheek most of the times.

But mind you: I said most of the times, not every time.

I own a short comic book about MODOK, aka a goofy talking giant head


[ img]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131212205437/villains/images/d/df/Mission_Marvel_-_M.O.D.O.K..png[/img]


.....and it's one of the most serious and thought provoking comics I've read.

Out of curiosity, which one? I've never really read any comics that focus on MODOK, and wouldn't mind trying one.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Okay so there's a difference between taking itself seriously and being serious. Even The Dark Knight has moments of levity; and since the film intrinsically understands that "Batman in the real world" is a STUPID thing, it takes quite a lot of concessions to make sure the audience is on the same page. It's not treating its source material as anything more than a springboard, because that doesn't suit its purpose.

Meanwhile, a hero as stupid as Spider-Man going through that treatment would work. You pick the parts of Spider-Man's mythos that gel, you throw some bits out, you make a serious film but never once do you take Spider-Man "seriously". You're treading on eggshells. There are some comics, granted, that do tell a serious story and any directors and producers adapting those would be wise to do the same. But not superhero comics. Not even the darkest superhero comic is legitimately serious on the same level as, say, Maus.

So when adapting Spider-Man to be a serious film, you can't take Spider-Man seriously. You'll end up making a weird, disjointed, schizophrenic film filled with complete misfires of ironic humour, and alienate fans and newcomers alike. Kind of like what The Amazing Spider-Man franchise has been doing.

I mean, look, I hate Man of Steel a lot... but you gotta admit, it clearly does not think very highly of Superman.