Arguing about definitions by pushing on the edges of them is a common pastime of this forum.
Of course, the truth of the matter is that that’s not how words work; they are fuzzy because they refer to real-world clusterings that are fuzzy.
I doubt anyone was genuinely confused about Iron Giant not being a superhero movie, but it was a pretty good example for pushing at the edges.
Normally semantic argument is semi-banned. But someone had to go and claim that something was the best superhero movie.
Basically, the point I was trying to get at is there is no such thing as a superhero movie. Superhero is not a distinct genre. Every supposed superhero movie is actual in one or more other actual genres.
Even if you want to say that superhero is a genre, defined by movies that are primarily about superheros. Even if you want to keep it to the obvious and undisputed superhero characters. This encompasses such a wide variety of movies that have little to nothing meaningful in common other than their comic publishing heritage. What does a comedic one like, Deadpool have in common with The Watchmen? Not much. Superhero therefore, is not a useful designation. Other descriptors actually group similar works together with others in a useful way.
Right, but “superhero” can be one descriptor alongside others that allows for additional granularity.
While it’s nebulous, we could define the elements of the superhero trope. A “superhero” movie is one that uses that trope prominently. It can also use other tropes.
I listen to shit tons of metal. I know all about needlessly specific genre identifiers. 
By your definition then, whether you intended it or not, there are no distinct genres. I can take any genre of movie, and say that they have little to nothing meaningful in common other than X, Y, and Z.
What does the Terminator have in common with Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Fast and the Furious? They have about as much in common as Deadpool and The Watchmen. By your logic then, “Action Movies” are not a useful designation.
Scifi movies are not a useful designation either because movies like Moon and 2001 have almost nothing in common with Aliens, other than both having spaceships and taking place off of the planet Earth.
RomComs are not a useful designation because movies like Titanic and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind have almost nothing meaningful in common.
I could go on and say the same for every major genre of movies.
At the end of the day though, Deadpool and The Watchmen ARE superhero movies because that IS how people group them.
Movies belong to multiple sub-genres. Deadpool is a superhero movie, an action movie, a comedy, and a parody. It belongs to all of those genres and more. But the overarching genre it belongs to is the superhero genre.
Your point is… pointless.
And on a side note, I find it very telling that you’re seemingly incapable of distinguishing between my personal opinion of the Incredibles being the best superhero movie of all time, and me saying that everyone should think that the Incredibles is the best superhero movie of all time. I never said that, and if you disagree, that’s your opinion. People don’t have to agree on opinions. That’s why it’s an opinion and not a fact.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though. There have been many instances on this forum where you haven’t been able to distinguish your own opinion about something from objective fact or you confuse someone giving their own opinion about something to them and saying that everyone should feel or think the same way.
A superhero movie is a sandwich.
Why do we have to have the same conversations each time?
Genres are labels that you attach to a work of art. Any work of art can have many genres. Genres are not boxes that works of art are put in to the exclusion of other genres. Think Gmail labels rather than Hotmail folders.
Still, your entire point is moot, even if you think “superhero” is a genre, which I don’t. It is a descriptive label that can be attached to any movie that features recognisable superhero tropes.
AND there was never a claim that “superhero” is a genre. The original statement was:
“I still think that the Incredibles is the best superhero movie of all time.”
No mention of genre. No mention that superhero movies weren’t in uncountable other genres. Scott loses yet another argument that he himself started. Yay.
Unbreakable! I argue it’s the best M Night movie.
Considering seeing Pacific Rym. I went to the last one day 1 3d special seats and everything because I love the idea of mechs more than my own existence, but it was kinda meh. It might happen again just because.
I’m ok with the movie. It was pretty much everything I expected: fighting mechs and monsters. Didn’t need anything deep or much with characters. The characters were tolerable. I love John Boyega. Everyone else was meh to me. More nods to Eva with the Japan evacuation and other things. Don’t know if it’s worth seeing in theaters, but at least worth watching if you liked the first one.
I really liked Pacific Rim: Uprising but I’m in the rare camp that prefers it to the first one. The first one is incredibly ambitious through Del Toro’s production, but the leads are incredibly bland. There’s also a lot of world-building that goes nowhere (Why is there a wall? Oh, that’s gone. Black Market is cool, has no purpose) Pacific Rim 2 does build on what the original had but is definitely it’s own kind of creature. John Boyega really makes the movie work.
This is more G Gundam to the original’s Big O.
G Gundam is the most underrated Gundam show out there, and needs more love.
If I don’t see a the main protagonists dancing together in order to hardness the power of passion, and love then, it is nothing like G Gundam, and it will be very disappointing.
A super hero is anyone that has a characteristic/characteristics that makes him/her super in the minds of his/her audience; and uses such a characteristics for benevolent purposes.
A super hero movie is a movie about the person described above.
But that is my opinion so, I might be wrong.
Sadly, there is no Drift Tango in this movie
That said, I will recommend Pacific Rim: Uprising. It is a Hot mess of a movie, and falls into the bathos issue that a lot of marvel movies had, but it was still a super fun ride.
Unfortunately, the plot makes absolutely no sense, so if that bothers you a lot, you probably aren’t going to be able to watch this movie.
However, I really loved the mythos vibe that Newt had with his face turn. Honestly it was one of the only good plot beats in the trainwreck of a script. It was a really solid pillar to build the movie around, but they had about 5 different plots in that movie so it didn’t really get the time to shine.
Ready Player One is cinematic cotton candy and that’s a big improvement cause the book as we all know is total dogshit. They change a really good amount from the source material so the plot feels condensed in the best way possible (But it’s still too long) Characters are still very flat, but the performances help such as Ben Mendelson is really fun as Sorrento and Mark Rylance gives Halliday a more tragic deposition. There’s still reference heavy dialogue and it can get rather cringey at times. Spielberg atleast made the connection between the OASIS and the real world and the bonds you form from the two a lot more believable. I’d see it as a matinee if you atleast thought the idea of the OASIS was interesting.
Well, frankly, a large part of the problem with the book was that it was 95% tell, don’t show. Just by making it into a movie that isn’t just the lead character doing monologue after monologue into the camera about how many old video games he’s played and about his masturbatory habits(I 100% wish that was a joke, but it’s not), it would be a vast improvement.
I’m amused that my friends who really really like Ready Player One are hating the movie, As someone who’s not a hater and not a lover of the book I’m thinking the movie will be up my alley :-p
A lot of this also comes down to reading comprehension, literary experience, etc.
Most of the experience of reading a book resides in the reader’s imagination. A nerd that is reading something that has all their favorite words in it, like RP1, is likely to imagine things that make them feel really good. What they picture in their mind could be great, even if the book itself is awful.
This is the same thing we see when talking about tabletop RPGs. People have a good time playing an RPG as a result of their imaginations and creativity. They often falsely attribute this great experience to the game itself. As I’ve said many times before, we can have a great old time role playing a game of Monopoly, but that doesn’t mean monopoly is a role playing game, or a good one.
Movies leave significantly less up to the viewer’s imagination. Instead you are seeing what was in the imagination of the director, producer, screenwriter, etc. That is a lot less likely to line up with what some nerd was imagining when they read the book, and will therefore is probably going to be given a worse review by people who enjoyed reading the book.
I didn’t expect to, but I legitimately enjoyed watching RPO. Thank you, Spielberg and Silvestri.
Saw RPO over the weekend. Definitely a tear-down-rebuild of the book, but then it had to be. Thankfully they shortened the time between the distracted globe and the rest of the story. (in the book, the main character wallows in misery for a month.)
