Are Superhero Movies really BAD or is it just YOU ?

Some time ago, legendary movie director Martin Scorsese caused a bit of a uproar when he called superhero movies "Not Cinema".

The other week, movie director Ridley Scott also blasted Superhero as being "F..king Boring" and said they were poorly written because it was all about the special effects.

In the end also artfilm director Jane Campion said she would never do a superhero movie because she "hates them".

I did not respond immediately when Scorsese made his statement because in my opinion, he was just telling people what he thought. And yes, Scorsese is responsible for classics such as TAXI DRIVER and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, but he also made such boring films as RAGING BULL (technically this may be a very good film but I find boxing boring and this film too), THE KING OF COMEDY and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, none of which were even interesting. 

It is getting to be a bit much however if, following on Scorsese, not just one famous director but also another elects to make similar statements. So now I would like to put up my two cents on this subject.

Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Jane Campion obviously have no background in reading comics. For that reason I also do not feel threatened by their opinions. You see, if Scorsese says that the superhero films are not Cinema, and Scott says they are boring, they obviously have not bothered to check what the characters in these superhero movies represent. You see, when you read into the stories what the characters are all about and what they go thru, then you will see that these stories are also not about the superpowered fights.  It's about the people and the choices they make. And if Tony Stark decides to sacrifice himself in order to stop Thanos, this is definitely interesting story material. But you have to look beyond the superhero fights. 

Ridley Scott came into the movie business by way of advertising and this shows. He always makes his films look very good, even if they are boring in terms of story content. ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER and GLADIATOR, I will immediately agree, are classics in their genres but PROMETHEUS and ALIEN: COVENANT were not only dreadfully boring but also directly responsible for the failure of the Alien franchise. Thank you very much, Ridley. As for his recent movie, HOUSE OF GUCCI, I am sorry but this film does not appeal to me at all. Talk about boring!!

Jane Campion then tops it off by saying "I hate them" about superhero movies. Again, this is an opinion and I am not bothered by it. Campion is an arthouse filmmaker whose films may get a lot of awards, but honestly, after THE PIANO, I haven't seen a single one film of hers that I liked. 

But do I find all of these public exclamations as disturbing? No. They are just opinions and like Clint Eastwood said, "everybody's got one".

I grew reading super hero comic books and I learned how to read into the characters' personal stories in them. And yes, they may be superpowerful or whatever, but it is still the human characteristics that make these stories. The Death of Gwen Stacy was meaningful because before this event nobody ever had lost his love like this. The Death of Jean Grey was equally meaningful because if she had not been killed, she would have destroyed the universe.  Sure, AVENGERS ENDGAME seemed very much the superhero slugfest that Mssrs Scorsese and Scott are stating as uninteresting. But AVENGERS ENDGAME has been far more succesfull than any of the films of Mssrs Scorse and Scott together. And besides, on the personal level the film also succeeds because of the sacrifice that Anthony Stark makes for his friends, for his world. And if you can make it believable that your main character makes that kind of a sacrifice in a film, how on earth can you then call that "boring".

I am not interested in fighting over something like this. Everybody has an opinion. And opinions are personal. So, Mr. Scorsese, Mr. Scott, thank you for films like TAXI DRIVER and BLADE RUNNER. I hold these films both in high esteem. Jane Campion, THE PIANO is a great drama. Many thanks.

But I also LOVE the MARVEL Superhero movies. And again, that's just MY OPINION.   

Some Notes about NO TIME TO DIE, the last James Bond film starring Daniel Craig

 

NO TIME TO DIE is, of course, an EON Production, produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson. When I finally got to see it, I was favourably impressed. I thought it was very good but soon I found out that a good many of people did not care for it. 

Why? Because the film is VERY POLITICALLY CORRECT and it checks all the boxes.  

True. But first of all, we are no longer living in the 1960s. I think it is a good thing if you try to move along with the times. Personally, I am not on many social media and I am fine with that. I do not use Facebook (nor META), I do not use Instagram and so on, and so forth. I am making a choice in that and I will live with it. But I am moving on and living in this time. (Or at least I am trying to.) And if you live in this time, you have to be more considerate also to those who would earlier have easily been overlooked. Women and minorities. Many quotes from earlier Bond movies would now not be possible in films. They would be considered offensive or maybe even racist. And let's not forget that when Ian Fleming wrote the original books, there was a good deal more of said feelings that one could take offense to now. Should a character like James Bond then stay in the same mode, in the same level or manner of possibly being offensive to others, as before? In the 1950s people were dealing with minorities in a wholly different way. And where I would not like to condemn people of the past as being wrong in their opinions, it is way easier to say "we can be better now!" And if that includes more strong roles for women as with Paloma in NO TIME TO DIE (or as with Halle Berry's character way back in DIE ANOTHER DAY), is that a wrong thing?  I think not. Put a stronger woman opposite Bond and he will only have to work harder to be what he always has been before. The hero of the story.

It ticks all the boxes. Certainly it does. Even Daniel Craig wanted Phoebe Waller-Bridge to go over the Purvis & Wade & Fukunaga screenplay in order to make it more palatable to women and minorities and so on. I believe this is what some call a "woke" Bond screenplay and these "some" also may take offense at just that.  Why?  Personally here, I would like to say the following:  if stronger roles for women result in a better story, I'm all for it. If it is more believable that also minorities can be heroes or criminals, I'm all for it. The world has changed in all this time. The designation "villain" is sometimes even hard to draw up. Because in some ways even those figures who think they are doing good for their own country can be a bad guy ! Good and bad is not just black and white anymore. And I think it is good that James Bond also changes with the times. It can make for better stories if the conclusion is all the harder to get to, just because of said difficulties.

 

NO. I do not think Idris Elba is a good choice for James Bond. I think that whole casting rumor is idiotic, to begin with. Idris Elba is a good actor but he is way too old to play Bond now. Ian Fleming saw Bond as a Caucasian male, so I do not want James Bond to be black, oriental, mid-eastern, Indian or whatever nationality you think might be fun. James Bond is English and he should remain so. ( I don't want to start the discussion if he should be Scottish or English. Just because we have had a good actor being a Scotsman play him first. Bond can be Scottish or English or whatever else. But he is and should remain British.) And before you then start thinking "well, what about Bond being a woman, then?", this is also not what Ian Fleming had in mind. (So let's forget those JANE BOND feature films of the 1980s, they have no place in this discussion). James Bond, according to Ian Fleming, is a Caucasion male agent. Period.

It's going to be tough enough to now show Bond to be a hard-drinking, hard-smoking tough guy. Smoking and drinking both are now considered "uncool" but that is something you can really talk about, if you want Bond still to be like that. But the womanizer he was in the 1960s and 1970s, well, now that can go only if the woman says YES. Because we don't want to see Bond as being a rapist, now do we? And in the case of women like Paloma, (or Halle Berry, or Michelle Yeoh, or even Ursula Andress) who wouldn't want one of those in their own back yard? Believe me, the film will only get better if the women also fight for themselves and get what they want from Bond. (Okay, Paloma didn't but I thought she was excellent anyway. How about a movie just for her???)

 "Yes, please !!"

Some people also think that the fact that Bond (.....deleted - spoiler......) is corny and copycats some Marvel movie. I think that is a very unfair criticism to make. Comparing Bond to Marvel Superheroes is ridiculous, even if some of the stories in the past seem incredible. I would much rather raise a point of criticism to for instance the music. Dan Romer exited the position of composer rather unexpectedly and Hans Zimmer was asked by Barbara Broccoli to step in. I must admit this sent a shiver up my backbone because Hans Zimmer can be a very good composer if he wants to (BACKDRAFT is a wonderful score for a mediocre film, GLADIATOR is also an excellent score for a good movie, and so on),  but he can also deliver crap like MAN OF STEEL. So my point of criticism would then be: "why not go to David Arnold immediately?" David Arnold has been known to be a very fast composer and has done some excellent Bond scores in the past as well. I do not know why he was not approached, but if he was not available, well, there you go. You have to get someone! And in the end, Hans Zimmer did bring us a very good score. I thought his score was exciting and sensitive at the right places. And the references to John Barry with "We have all the time in the world" and the main theme for On Her Majesty's Secret Service (the one with the Australian Bond, way back in 1969) were well placed. If you don't like Hans's music, that's fine. You are entitled to your own opinion, that's all right.  I liked it.

I would like to also refer to another franchise in which political correctness could be a pain in the backside. In the early years of STAR TREK, THE NEXT GENERATION, Gene Roddenberry also mandated that this crew would not fight amongst themselves. They would get along with each other because they respected each other. For the writers, this proved to be very difficult to work with. But if you put the right people together, (and in the case of more than one STAR TREK series, a writing team works excellently) they will find a way to incorporate new ideas and themes and work with them. They just have to get their groove. And when you have a writing team just as on any Star Trek series, this happens faster than with a one-off team of 3 or 4 writers.

In the End, I want to say about NO TIME TO DIE that I enjoyed the film very much and was deeply moved by the last performance of Daniel Craig in this role. Daniel Craig was the first actor who made Bond really have to work at it and that is something that is so appealing that I would say YES to the next actor in line to also do this. Maybe the time that Bond is the best at what he does, should be over. (Wolverine also always says that: "I am the best at what I do but what I do ain't pretty." And then they make him go thru hell all over.) If Bond is the guy that just won't quit, maybe that will also do very nicely. But of course, a good story with good other characters will also be required.

NO TIME TO DIE is now playing in the cinemas. I will see it again and I will buy the blu ray, hoping to get lots of interesting extra's. I would like to thank Barbara Broccoli, Michael Wilson, Hans Zimmer, Cary Fukunaga and the entire cast and crew of NO TIME TO DIE for delivering a really good film.  

All pictures courtesy of EON PRODUCTIONS/  MGM

Rest in Peace : RICHARD DONNER

 

Last week we lost Richard Donner, one of the most successful directors of the last 40 years. Richard Donner began his career as an actor but soon switched to directing. In the 1960s, he made his first film X-15, with Charles Bronson but even though it was not a bad film, he chose to get some directing experience on television with series like THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE MAN FROM UNCLE.  In the 1970s he broke through with THE OMEN, the 1976 blockbuster horror film for which Jerry Goldsmith won his one and only Oscar. He followed this film with SUPERMAN, THE MOVIE but the production of this film was also a story onto itself.

In the 1980s he also directed LADYHAWKE and began a franchise with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover that ran 4 movies: LETHAL WEAPON. Rumor had it that Donner had been prepping to get under way with a fifth and final LETHAL WEAPON film. It would be a real shame if this were so and we won't get it now. Richard Donner and his wife Lauren Schuler Donner also later produced The X-Men films. But if it is one movie we will take to our grave from Richard Donner, it will be SUPERMAN, THE MOVIE. The best SUPERMAN film ever made and never surpassed. Thank you, Richard Donner. 

 

Christopher Reeve and Richard Donner

An Ambitious Spider-Man : No Way Home !!

 

The Amazing Spider-Man # 2, 1963

written by Stan Lee, art by Steve Ditko

People around me know that I have been a fan of Marvel Comics for a long time. Sure, I haven't bought a single comic in the last fifteen years because the new comics simply do not really reach out to me like the old ones did but I have been ordering a lot of books of reprinted comics of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Marvel is printing these on much better paper and with much better printing than before, in the original issues. Yes, I do like the old issues, the whole feel and smell of that old paper, but it is also a big bother that these issues are so fragile because of their age. That is why I prefer reading these newer collected books with reprints.

And when you have been reading titles like The Amazing Spider-Man for as many years as I have, ( I read them from the 1970s until the mid-1990s when I quit because, well, I will explain in a minute or two) you see a lot of writers and artists taking their shot at the magazine. Me, I had originally fallen in love with the Stan Lee stories of the early years, with Steve Ditko and then John Romita at the artistic helm. When Stan was writing these issues, they were joyful, full of optimistic witticisms, hope and humor. And the art was always tremendously complimentary to that.

The Amazing Spider-Man #70, Stan Lee & John Romita

In the late 1960s however, Stan had so much work on all his comics that he had to pass a few to colleague writers. And so Roy Thomas wrote a few Amazing Spider-Man stories before Gerry Conway started his substantial run into the 1970s. His stories also became more serious, darker and more dramatic, such as with the DEATH of GWEN STACY, Peter Parkers girlfriend in The Amazing Spider-Man 121. ( I have this issue myself and although it is sad to read it, it is a magnificent piece of Artwork.) The death of his girlfriend of course affected Peter Parker deeply and in subsequent issues, it turned out his life was no  picknick. Readership also responded enormously to the dramatic tone of these newer stories, following this  pivotal moment in the History of Spider-Man.

Amazing Spider-Man #121 The Night Gwen Stacy Died

Story Gerry Conway, Art by Gil Kane, John Romita & Tony Mortellaro

By giving full coverage of Peter Parker's grief and his thoughts of "If only I had...", the whole feel of the comic started to change into a much more dramatic title. The stories also continued to reflect this when famous DC artist ROSS ANDRU came in to take the title to new artistic heights. Andru gave the webspinner a very unique, realistic 1970s look, while at the same time he also drew Peter Parker as a young Elvis (just as John Romita had done before him). And while at the same time deglamorizing Mary Jane Watson, Andru gave her just enough reality to have something beautiful grow between her and Peter Parker in following issues. 

Art by Ross Andru

But even though Stan wasn't writing them anymore, he was still the boss. And apparently, Stan Lee was mad as hell about the death of Gwen Stacy. You see, Gerry Conway and John Romita had long debated about where to go with Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy in their relationship. Gwen was such a nice young lady that she was also a little bland. There was not that much you would really want to do with her in terms of storytelling. Unless of course you killed her off. It is unclear if this was cleared with Stan Lee or not, sources are simply not clear. Stan was often not in the office because of his other publishing duties, duties he has always said he did not enjoy. But after Amazing Spider-Man 121 hit the stands, Stan Lee was not pleased. He ordered Gerry Conway and John Romita to come up with a way to bring her back. Of course, there is a slight issue with that. How do you bring someone back from the dead? (And what would it mean to Peter and MJ later on?) The answer to that was suggested by new scientific theories about cloning. By taking tissues of a living person, you would theoretically be capable of growing a new copy of the original person: a clone. (Ira Levin also used it in his book THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, which was filmed by Franklin Schaffner in 1978. It postulated what would happen if Hitler would come back in the present day of the 1970s. Look it up, it is quite good.) But with this idea, Conway crafted a plot in which it had turned out that Professor Miles Warren had originally taken samples of his students. Including Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker. Conway turned Miles Warren into a villain named the Jackal. (You see, Miles Warren had always been deeply in love with Gwen Stacy and her sudden death (there you go again) drove him crazy. He became the Jackal and devised a plan to bring back Gwen Stacy and to punish the guilty person, Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man. Yes, Warren had found out Peter Parker and Spider-Man were one and the same.) The return of Gwen Stacy set up a series of events that concluded in a big confrontation between Peter Parker, the original Spider-Man and his Clone, created by the Jackal. The final confrontation was in The Amazing Spider-Man 149, in which the real Spider-Man beats the Clone Spider-Man because the clone is not as experienced a fighter. And Peter Parker managed to make Miles Warren realize his own madness and Warren stopped the conflict while giving his life to save others. 

Amazing Spider-Man 149

The conclusion also meant the Gwen Stacy clone would leave New York and try to get herself a life elsewhere. There was now only one major question: how did Spider-Man know for sure he was the real one and not the clone? This was resolved in issue 150, where Peter Parker, while fighting villains, was thinking about his feelings for Mary Jane Watson. And he realizes the clone would not have these feelings for Mary Jane, ergo the conclusion had to be that he was the real Peter Parker. He disposed of the clone body in a later issue and life went on. And so did Gerry Conway as he left and other writers came to the fore. Not all of them improvements, I must say. After a number of years Ross Andru moved on to other titles and artists like Keith Pollard and John Romita Jr ( yes, the son of John Romita) came into play. With some exceptions, this did not lead to new heights in the title of The Amazing Spider-Man. Yes, the Roger Stern issues were very good indeed but overall, the quality of the stories was sagging until it hit rock bottom in the mid-1990s when someone in the Marvel Bullpen thought they could muster up more interest with the idea: "What if Peter Parker had been wrong? What if Peter Parker had been the Clone all the time and the person that had been the original had been disposed of? What if the Peter Parker we had followed for 20 years had been the Clone after all? " This train of thought started off a really bad mess of stories that went from ugly to downright despicable. And the conclusion it reached, I could no longer stomach: Peter Parker, the one we had followed all these years, found out he was the clone. The Peter Parker we had followed stopped being Spider-Man. A new identity came into play: Ben Reilly and the Scarlet Spider. All in all, I was thoroughly disgusted with MAXIMUM CLONAGE and decided to stop collecting MARVEL COMICS altogether. ( The Fantastic Four series had been going downhill as since since the departure of John Byrne.) So I quit the comics.

The beginning of the End for Me: Maximum Clonage !

Around 2005, I decided to take another look at what was happening in the comics and found them, with exception of some of the artwork, to be equally unmemorable. Maybe I was comparing too much with the great artists being Steve Ditko and John Romita (and John Buscema on other titles) but I found that I simply did not care for them anymore and I was even horrified to read storylines that in the old days would have been unthinkable. ( Such as the original Gwen Stacy sleeping with Norman Osborn and having two children to follow in the footsteps of the Green Goblin: ugh! J. Michael Straczynksi wrote this crap and I knew from his BABYLON 5 days, he is a good writer. But this was horrible crap. And nothing I saw would lead me to going back to my collecting days. (One exception was the 9-11 issue of The Amazing Spider-Man, which was an awesome homage to the real heroes of that dreadful catastrophe. I will talk about that some other time.)

Sins Past, starring the children of Norman Osborn and Gwen Stacy 

written by Michael J. Straczynski and art by Deodato and Pimentel

These issues were in the time that Sam Raimi had started making the first Spider-Man films, with Toby McGuire, who was very good as Peter Parker. The first film was a big hit and the second film starred Doctor Octopus and was even better. But the third film was CRAP. Raimi had wanted to go on making Spider-Man films but he was not given enough time and so he passed the baton to another guy who did not really do so well, even though his casting was very good. Andrew Garfield was an inspired choice for Peter Parker. And Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was fantastic too, but the death of Gwen Stacy was no good at all in this film. All in all, these films were not good and Sony decided not to continue with them. Kevin Feige, in the meantime, had been able to set up his own Cinematic Marvel Universe with IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK and THOR and was moving on with CAPTAIN AMERICA and THE AVENGERS. Sony and Marvel were smart enough to get together and make SPIDER-MAN come alive in a new incarnation in the Cinematic Marvel Universe.

I enjoyed Spider-Man in CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR but I was honestly not impressed with Spider-Man's first solo film. Tom Holland was quite good in it but his incarnation seemed not at all to be based on the classics that I was familiar with and I could not see these as my version of the character. Zendaya as Mary Jane ? NO WAY. Tom Holland, okay. But Zendaya as MJ, no way. Good thing that Spider-Man was a secondary character in AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR and AVENGERS: ENDGAME, where Tom Holland was very enjoyable again. But his second solo film also did rather little for me. Although I must admit I loved the return of J.Jonah Jameson, even though I felt it was timed all wrong. But okay, they were obviously making these films for a younger audience than myself now. 

Sony also did an animated feature film, in which it was shown that there was not just one Universe but there are many universes. (Later note: this has been confirmed in the first season of LOKI, which ended in a bit of a disappointment.) And in one other universe, Miles Morales is the black Spider-Man. In this animated film, he would meet up with our Peter Parker, Spider-Man of the original Universe and have a good fight with some villains. I actually enjoyed this animated film, even though I have never read any of Miles's stories: this film was good. It won an Oscar and they are going to do a sequel to it. 

Tom Holland has also said that he was working on a third Spider-Man film.  SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME will go into general release in December. Much to the chagrin of the producers of the Marvel Movies, however, Holland has often given away more than they would have wanted. And this past week he said SPIDER-MAN 3 WAS SO AMBITIOUS, IT WAS BEYOND ANYTHING THAT HAD BEEN TRIED BEFORE. I am really very curious. Will this also mean we will get Miles Morales in the Marvel Movies?  Are we really talking multiverse or might it have something to do with something else, like the aforementioned clones? As I am writing this now (and rewriting this article for the third time), the first trailer has hit the internet and we can confirm it is NOT about clones. 

At the end of SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME, J.K. Simmons made his first appearance in the Cinematic Marvel Universe as J. Jonah Jameson but he also created a very big problem for Spider-Man in revealing him to be Peter Parker to the WHOLE WORLD. ( Personally, I feel this also lacks something because in the past incarnations, Peter Parker would be a photographer for Jameson at times and the fact that it was he who worked for Jameson who turned out to be Spider-Man, like that would have been a great storyline by itself, but again, these films are not aimed at me anymore. I am a middle aged man with a soft spot for costumed characters and not part of the young audience these new films are aimed at. ) 

So this first trailer shows Peter Parker experiencing a lot of trouble because of this terrible revelation made by Jameson and he goes to DR. STRANGE (played again by Benedict Cumberbatch) to ask if he can weave a spell to make the world forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. Strange wants to help but uses a dangerous spell that, due to interference from Peter ( who had not stated beforehand he wanted certain people to retain this knowledge ), causes great damage to the multiverse and then all kinds of weird things happen. We hear the voice of Willem Dafoe laughing as the Green Goblin as he did in Sam Raimi's original SPIDER-MAN from 2002. Alfred Molina returns as Doctor Octopus and the fact that he seems to know this Peter Parker seems to be pointing in a certain direction: HAVOC in the MULTIVERSE !!  (We do not see Electro but it is also confirmed Jamie Fox is back in that role in this film. The only thing that remains to be seen is: will we also get to see Tom Holland as Peter Parker and Spider-Man meet his predecessors Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield ? Now that would most certainly be a site for sore eyes, to see 3 Spider-Men fighting 3 villains. Wait a minute..... of course this is just a thought but it might be the same thought the people behind this film have had before !!!)

Could this possibly what we will see in SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME?

I must admit that this trailer looks very promising and as SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME will be released in December of this year, I can hardly wait!! 

All the artwork copyright Marvel and Disney.