So Batman isn’t a superhero anymore?
Addressed in the post you’re quoting from.
This is by no means a definitive answer, but if you go to the Wikipedia page for Dick Tracy, you will not find the word superhero applied to him even once. There is only one instance of the word superhero and it is in reference to The Tick.
Likewise, if you go to Professor X’s Wikipedia page, the word supehero appears six times, but the word is never applied to him directly.
On the other hand, if you go to Batman’s Wikipedia page, the very first sentence is “Batman is a fictional superhero…” Same with Iron Man, Cyclops, Superman, etc.
Obviously, Wikipedia is by no means the definite authority on what is a superhero, but it is telling…
Has professor X ever solo saved the world? or solo saved a life? Beaten a bad guy? Done anything a superhero usually does? It’d go towards the superhero bonafides part of the standard.
I think a simpler way to view it would be that the conceptual core of what makes a superhero is simply being a hero with superpowers.
The usual, broader notion also extends to what one might call “functional superheroes”, i.e. people like Batman who fill the same role that a superhero would (usually in a universe where superpowers do exist) without having superpowers.
- Spandex, cape, or iconic costume
- Fighting criminals and/or supervillains
By both of these definitions Iron Giant is right out, which is fine, just observing natural consequences.
Being Obscenely Wealthy is the best Superpower ever.
This entire conversation confuses me. How did anyone ever think Iron Giant was a superhero movie? And James Bond is a super-spy, not a super-hero, even though he often battles super-villains.
And it doesn’t matter if Professor X is a superhero or not, as when it comes to movies, he only appears in superhero movies. There are lots of superhero-adjacent characters who are not superheroes who are in superhero movies, but it doesn’t make those movies less superhero movies.
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.