mol on 18/12/2009 at 10:47
That's along the lines what I said the other day in #thief:
"Kryptos: Only I'm afraid that it'll suffer the same fate as all superhero movies: only the origin stories are interesting. After that, you introduce new villains, and it's just generally about blowing shit up --> boring."
It's been the same with all of them, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman etc. I think origin stories are far more interesting. They are forced to flesh out the characters a bit, provide them with motivations, give background, and keep you waiting for the "hero to emerge". In sequels all that has been established, so they throw in villains, and start blowing shit up.
But I have some faith in Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. Hopefully there's also a story in there somewhere, and shit doesn't have to be blowing up in every frame.
Thirith on 18/12/2009 at 10:55
Quote Posted by mol
It's been the same with all of them, X-Men, Spiderman, Batman etc. I think origin stories are far more interesting. They are forced to flesh out the characters a bit, provide them with motivations, give background, and keep you waiting for the "hero to emerge". In sequels all that has been established, so they throw in villains, and start blowing shit up.
is largely seen as an improvement on the first film, as is
The Dark Knight. Many (though not all) people prefer
Batman Returns to Burton's first
Batman film; same goes for
Spiderman 2 vs
Spiderman. Not sure about
Superman 2 and
Superman, but I seem to remember most critics (for what it's worth) preferring the second film.
Origin stories can be interesting, but they can also be predictable and samey.
Matthew on 18/12/2009 at 10:55
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
Whiplash/Crimson Dynamo for the Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger one-on-one villain, Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and (apparently) his army of Iron Man knock-offs are more equivalent to the Ten Rings in the first film. Hell, for all I know members of the Ten Rings are piloting the knock-offs.
Not sure what Black Widow's role is going to be, but I have a feeling she'll turn out to be working for SHIELD.
The speculation so far is that Widow will be working for the military/Rhodey and Justin Hammer, stealing secrets from Tony so that the military can build their own Iron Men. These may be fully automated and run amok or be purposefully sent after Tony, hence the attack scene at the end of the trailer.
Morte on 18/12/2009 at 10:59
Origin stories work, but they all start to blend together in the end. The problem is once you have a big franchise hero established, filmmakers are basically obligated to maintain the status quo, and that makes things pretty tricky. The easiest way to get around it is to shift the focus on the villains, who can have an arc that ends and everything.
I'm interested to see if RDJ and Favreau take things though. Given that they basically were (
http://incontention.com/?p=18384) the only reason the first was any good, a bit of faith isn't misplaced.
Quote Posted by Jeff Bridges
"They had no script, man. They had an outline. We would show up for big scenes every day and we wouldn't know what we were going to say. We would have to go into our trailer and work on this scene and call up writers on the phone, 'You got any ideas?' Meanwhile the crew is tapping their foot on the stage waiting for us to come on."
Bridges, director Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. would literally act out sequences during primitive rehearsals, Downey taking on Bridges's role and vice versa, to find and essentially improvise their way to full scenes, the actor recounts. Bridges says that the entire production was probably saved by the improv prowess of the film's director and star.
"You've got the suits from Marvel in the trailer with us saying, 'No, you wouldn't say that,'" Bridges continued. "You would think with a $200 million movie you'd have the shit together, but it was just the opposite. And the reason for that is because they get ahead of themselves. They have a release date before the script, ‘Oh, we'll have the script before that time,' and they don't have their shit together.
"Jon dealt with it so well," Bridges continues. "It freaked me out. I was very anxious. I like to be prepared. I like to know my lines, man, that's my school. Very prepared. That was very irritating, and then I just made this adjustment. It happens in movies a lot where something's rubbing against your fur and it's not feeling right, but it's just the way it is. You can spend a lot of energy bitching about that or you can figure out how you're going to do it, how you're going to play this hand you've been dealt. What you can control is how you perceive things and your thinking about it. So I said, ‘Oh, what we're doing here, we're making a $200 million student film. We're all just fuckin' around! We're playin'. Oh, great!' That took all the pressure off. ‘Oh, just jam, man, just play.' And it turned out great!"
mol on 18/12/2009 at 11:23
Quote Posted by Thirith
X-Men 2 is largely seen as an improvement on the first film, as is
The Dark Knight. Many (though not all) people prefer
Batman Returns to Burton's first
Batman film; same goes for
Spiderman 2 vs
Spiderman. Not sure about
Superman 2 and
Superman, but I seem to remember most critics (for what it's worth) preferring the second film.
Origin stories can be interesting, but they can also be predictable and samey.
They can, but sequels are also often equally formulaic. Given the choise between samey origin stories and samey sequels, I prefer origin stories.
I am probably in the minority, but I didn't like The Dark Knight as much as Batman Begins, for example. Sequels tend to focus on the villains, and I don't usually find them as interesting. Villains in superhero movies tend to be very stereotypical. Carrying a grudge against the hero for Reason X, bent on destroying the hero & world, etc. Ultimately though, the problem lies in the fact that sequels are required to be Bigger and Badder. The audiences crave action, and I guess I'm just tired of seeing new and innovative ways of blowing shit up.
Muzman on 18/12/2009 at 14:02
You know, I find Bridges a distractingly creepy, intense presence in every movie he's in bar one (well, maybe Fearless as well). So that quote up there is hilarious because it seems he talks like The Dude in real life! I love it.
Anyway, I was all "quicktime's not so bad" until I actually went to see their stupid new scheme and the damn thing would not give the trailer up for love nor money. Until I said "fuck this, I'm going to chud to see if anyone has a direct link" and navigated away from the site. Instantly the player popped up and started downloading.
Walk -the fuck- out, and you'll get what you need.
Lastly; that trailer was terrible! It was cut like an old B movie trailer; just random incongruous crap and explosions. I'll check this out of course, but yeesh.
CCCToad on 18/12/2009 at 14:29
Quote:
The Dark Knight as much as Batman Begins, for example. Sequels tend to focus on the villains, and I don't usually find them as interesting. Villains in superhero movies tend to be very stereotypical.
That focus on the villain is what made Dark Knight work well, though. The whole batman franchise has always been centered around its villains( particularly the joker), and almost all of them are far more interesting than your average superhero villain. I recall one review of Arkham Asylum aptly aptly stated that Batman is usually the least interesting character of whatever story he's in.
mol on 18/12/2009 at 15:05
Yeah, that's what people seem to say. I just don't find them (the villains) all that interesting, and The Dark Knight, while a fine movie, was also all doom'n'gloom, angst, darkness, and Joker's lunacy to the point of almost turning into a parody (didn't go that far though, obviously).
I also think it's kinda bass ackwards to have a superhero just to show off the villains, no matter how well written those might be - I mean, shouldn't they be superhero movies, not supervillain movies? And if, say, the character of Batman is the least interesting, then why not focus a bit more on the actual main character and make him interesting? Ok, of course it's a story choise, and all that - I understand that. It's just not what I'm terribly interested in.
Which is why I've sorta given up on, and grown tired with the whole superhero movie genre.
Of all the recent superhero movies, Iron Man was by far the most enjoyable to me.
Koki on 18/12/2009 at 15:07
Iron Man was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen and that includes Star Wars and few Star Trek episodes.
EvaUnit02 on 18/12/2009 at 15:09
Quote Posted by mol
I also think it's kinda bass ackwards to have a superhero just to show off the villains, no matter how well written those might be - I mean, shouldn't they be superhero movies, not supervillain movies? And if, say, the character of Batman is the least interesting, then why not focus a bit more on the actual main character and make him interesting? Ok, of course it's a story choise, and all that - I understand that. It's just not what I'm terribly interested in.
Watch Mask of the Phantasm if you haven't already. It's the finest Batman film to date and it's actually mostly about Batman.
He's centre stage in Nolan's Batman Begins as well, the villains of the piece were pretty much weak window dressing. But again that's still nowhere near as good as the aforementioned film.
