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