Tweet
Cindy and I tackle these topics in the latest episode of Super Mates. Give it a listen!
Chris
Chris
-
Fun podcast Chris! I didn't know you and the wife were doing these. I enjoyed it. Here are some of my thoughts on the evolution of heroes through various media outlets and theater...
For each era, I have a different setting for my disbelief/tolerance allowance. The old serials are fun for me because there's this kind of free form application to both the stories and costumes. It demands you either shut your brain completely off or spend the duration stating you could have made a better script and costume when you were seven. Its kind of like watching grown ups pin on bath towels as capes and go play in the backyard (only with bigger props).
I was never much into the television Superman. For me, he just didn't carry the charisma of someone like Clayton Moore as the Lone Ranger or Guy Williams as Zorro. For me, there had to be a presence or quality in their personality that went beyond the trappings of a costume. They had to embody the essence of the hero by having qualities that were just as striking in how they carried themselves. I think that's why people like Adam West and Burt Ward have remained timeless. In many ways they were cast in those roles, because of who they were rather than what they could become through acting. You can't fake that kind of delivery. It's either a part of your makeup, or it's not there at all.
That's also why someone like Christopher Reeves is held in such high regard to this day. He really embodied the very definition of inspiration as only a real hero can. And no where was that more on display than watching him battle his paralysis so bravely. That's why it's so hard to see others come after him. Once you find that formula, you can create imitations, but you can never reconfigure that original moment. I feel like I actually experienced Superman. I saw him live, I mourned watching him die. He was the real McCoy.
But if you look at the two licenses of DC and Marvel back then, they were exact opposites of what they are today. DC had this rich history of both television and movies, but Marvel struggled to find anything that remotely reflected it's comic book roots. The television shows were so diluted to meet with the standards of cop and detective shows of it's day, there were no real super-villains to fight. Those scripts easily could have been swapped out with Starsky & Hutch or SWAT. So the DC license certainly held all of the legitimacy for mainstream audiences. History was on their side...or so they thought.
Somewhere along the way I think Warner Bros just lost interest in the license and didn't feel like anymore could be farmed out from what had been done. When Marvel came on the scene with X-Men and Spider-man, DC had just finish eating mud with Batman & Robin, so I don't think there was any sense of urgency from Warner Bros. to readdress the DC license on any level. It was Marvel's turn at the movies and when Spider-man started breaking theatrical records, I think everyone stood up and took notice. Everyone except Warner Bros. I don't believe they had the slightest clue what do with the DC property. And that became obvious with all of the various productions that were started, then dropped. Warner Bros. was trying to find the "formula" that made those Marvel movies work. They missed the point completely and simply revisited their past with a nostalgia laden adaptation entitled Superman Returns.
Never in my life have I seen a production so confused in what it wanted to be. Three parts Reeves homage, one part "wannabe" sequel that ignored character development from other installments. The casting was equally confusing. Some looked the parts, others looked nothing like the former actors/actresses. For me it made Batman & Robin appear grounded. At least Schumacher knew he was making a clownish interpretation and stuck to his guns. And while the new "Man of Steel" did better overseas, it did only modestly better than Returns domestically. About $40 million more when adjusting for inflation. So WB is still in a "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" kind of philosophy. It's television development is introducing more and more characters and supposedly it's theatrical slate is stuffed full as well. All the while Marvel continues to explore it's universe with confidence and a knack for understanding it's about the source material, not formula. A foreign property for audiences like Guardians certainly speaks to that discipline. My, how times have changed. -
^Make Mine Marvel!
Interestingly, did you catch Hans Zimmer's comment on the ASM 2 documentary about why he wanted to score Spider-Man? He said Spider-Man was the "antidote" to Batman. I found that comment extremely telling.Comment
-
Thanks for listening guys! Yeah, DC and Marvel's fortunes have flip-flopped, at least with the fans and overall goodwill toward their film projects. My graphic was a tiny jab at the somber, dour seriousness of the recent DC films (which I did enjoy overall, mind you), juxtaposed with the iconoclastic and fun Guardian Star Lord flipping the bird. I think that image says a lot about their current approaches to the material. I don't want everything to be that baudy or broad, but a little fun and joy goes a long way.
ChrisComment
-
Exactly. I think another good compare is Guardians to Green Lantern. Now while Green Lantern may have been more of a known property in the comic world, he was still pretty much an enigma to the general public. You would think Marvel would struggle more with selling a talking tree and vigilante Raccoon. They didn't. And I think the main reason for that was because they were not afraid to embrace the material as it was written. Green Lantern should have been an outer space epic. But WB was afraid of what it had. I think they were ashamed of the source material so they tried to ground it on earth and only take you to space when it was absolutely necessary. That diluted the hero, the villains, and essentially removed the elements of fantastic from the story. That in turn made audiences go, "Huh?" Marvel took everything about Guardians and put it out there. It was a fun ride and people enjoyed the experience of that movie. WB didn't embrace Lantern, so audiences didn't either. I think every movie carries an inherent feeling of whether the director and writers care about the product. Generally audiences can tell when a movie is loved through it's process of being made because it comes out through the flow of the story telling and the charm and wit in the characters. So generally if the director is not invested, the audience won't be either. You can tell everyone at Marvel was completely invested in Guardians and the results speak to that.Comment
-
^Amen. As soon as we recorded our episode, I realized we SHOULD have mentioned the GL film! While I do make notes, we try to keep the show fairly spontaneous and "live" when recording, so that means we sometimes gloss over the 800 lb gorilla in the corner of the room.
I agree completely that a good chunk of GL's failure lies in WB's reluctance to fully embrace the "out there" nature of the concept. Marvel dived in the deep end and are laughing all the way to the bank.
ChrisComment
Comment