Valarian was bad. Really bad.
Apparently, in 2013, there was a Japanese remake of Unforgiven starring Ken Watanbe. Has anyone seen this? If so, is it worth trying to track down?
I saw Midnight Run for the first time the other day. There’s like a whole genre of films that are “2 guys travel across the US using various forms of transit and become friends along the way.” It’s probably one of the better ones.
I also saw the original Taking of Pelham 123 again. It’s quite good, I read the book not too long ago and it was a solid adaptation. I didn’t see the remake of it from 2009 but it looked pretty bad.
Ready Player One in 70mm? Huh.
The Incredibles is a very good movie. Probably in my top three Pixar/modern Disney animated pictures.
I still think that the Incredibles is the best superhero movie of all time.
What counts as superhero movie?
Unbreakable is at least as good as Incredibles, if not better.
Does The Matrix count? Star Wars? Zatoichi? Lots of movies feature human characters with powers beyond those possible in real life.
Silence of the Lambs?
Superheros wear costumes and have secret identities (at least for the most part).
Unbreakable is pretty much a superhero movie.
The Matrix could be considered one.
Star Wars and Zatoichi are not superhero movies. Neither is Silence of the Lambs.
Dick Tracy wears a costume and is super, but his identity is not secret.
Professor Charles Xavier usually doesn’t wear a costume, just old man clothes. His identity is not secret. Yet he is super and also a hero.
Characters like Batman, The Shadow, and The Spirit have costumes and secret identities, but no/few super powers to speak of.
Hellboy is super and has powers, but his identity is not secret.
Zatoichi doesn’t have a secret identity, but often neglects to let people know who he is. He doesn’t have a “costume” but he does almost always wear exactly the same distinct clothes. He is definitely a hero and has more super powers than Batman. He’s basically the same as Daredevil.
Hannibal Lecter has super powers that aren’t really any different than villains like Lex Luthor or Dr. Doom (before he learned magic). Just a really frighteningly smart evil dude. Clarise is definitely a super detective, not much different from Batman, no?
Dick Tracy is not a superhero and he doesn’t wear a costume, unless a suit, tie, hat, and overcoat count as a costume.
Professor X is not a superhero. And even if he was, his identity, as a mutant with powers IS a secret. To the wide world at large, Professor X is an expert on mutants, not a mutant himself.
Nowhere did I say that superheros have to have powers.
Hellboy is an edge case. He may or may not be an actual superhero. I’d have to think more about him.
Zatoichi isn’t a superhero, because if he is, then pretty much all action movies are now superhero movies.He has amazing abilities, but is not a superhero.
Lex Luthor and Dr. Doom are not superheroes. They’re villains. If you want to make Hannibal Lecter a villain in the same way, by all means. Clarise is a detective, and a very good one, but she’s not a superhero. She’s just a detective.
Based on your post, I’m adding to my definition of superhero: They do not function within the confines of law enforcement. BUT if they do work in the confines of law enforcement, a superhero must have a costume and/or a secret identity. If they don’t, then they’re not a superhero, they’re just an agent of that organization (see SHIELD).
Do you have any reference whatsoever for this definition of superhero movie or superhero, or is it as it appears and you are just making shit up as you go along?
How is your average superhero movie any different than say… Terminator 2 or Transformers? How is Batman in a different genre than… James Bond? These films are clearly telling the same kind of action/adventure stories in the same kind of way. It is shallow and arbitrary to try to put a work into an entirely different genre because the characters happen to wear a mask or happen to have first appeared in a comic book published by DC or Marvel.
I’ve never claimed that my definition of superhero should be universally applied. This is how I define what a superhero is. If you want to have a different definition, by all means, but most people will probably disagree with you.
Action movies and superhero movies have lots of things in common. That being said, pretty much everyone considers the Terminator movies to be action movies, not superhero movies. Likewise, Iron Man is a superhero movie, not an action movie.
You can think it’s “shallow and arbitrary to try and put a work into an entirely different genre,” but it’s not me who’s doing it. Batman IS a superhero. I didn’t decide it, society did. Clarice Starling is NOT a superhero. Again, I didn’t decide that either. No one really considers James Bond to be a superhero. He’s a spy.
I’m just trying to articulate and explain the rules that everyone seems to be following collectively.
Treating “action movie” and “superhero movie” as mutually exclusive categories seems like a terrible idea to me. Surely Iron Man is both, not just the latter.
Also, how is Professor X not a superhero?
Does the Iron Giant get to count as a superhero?
Who said they have to be mutually exclusive? I never did.
Some action movies are super hero movies. Some super hero movies are action movies. Not all action movies are super hero movies and not all super hero movies are action movies.
Professor X is not a superhero because he’s not one. He isn’t a member of the X-Men, he founded the X-Men. He’s a mutant who trains and teaches other mutants. Occasionally, he will get involved with the X-Men, but most of the time, he either stays at home or is off to the side during fights.
Professor X is not a superhero for the same reasons that Alfred is not a superhero. They both aid superheroes, but aren’t superheroes themselves.
That’s a good question. What do you think?
For me, the Iron Giant, the movie, is not a superhero movie. But in the fictional world that the Iron Giant resides in, he may be considered a superhero by the people of that world.
I do not know, to be honest, it’s tough. I almost feel like we need a legal standard for superheroism.
There needs to be some elements in play here:
Wearing a costume
Having super powers
Perceiving yourself to be a superhero
Being perceived by others to be a super hero
having a secret identity
superhero bona fides (most people would agree that that one afternoon peter parker was experimenting with his new powers, he was not yet spiderman)
I’d also say you probably don’t need to hit all of these to be a super hero, just some of them likem if you hit 4, then bam, as far as the law is concerned, you’re a superhero.
I can agree to that.
Sorry, I misunderstood. But then why isn’t Iron Man an action movie? It meshes well enough with the archetype and IMDb lists it as “Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi”.
So? Why is being in the X-Men what makes you a superhero? Why does Professor X have to be involved in fights to be one, especially since action/fights are not a necessary part of a superhero movie?
Let’s apply our newly minted legal standard!
Wearing a costume -
Having super powers -
Perceiving yourself to be a superhero -
Being perceived by others to be a super hero -
having a secret identity -
superhero bona fides -
I think the standard may need work