Escape to the Movies: Kick Ass 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Is the age difference thing off by more than a year? I have no clue what ages US high school actually takes on, but if it's only a single year then that's easily explained by Kick-Ass having to redo the year in which he got beaten to a pulp and started his crime-fighting spree, no? I mean, how much time to study do you have between all that? :D

I thought that the age gate would be due to the gang rape of a minor and the shooting of kids, but instead, it's because Bob said 'Motherfucker' without bleeping it? Weird, considering that most other video contributors get away with saying such things uncensored all the time, and without age gates.

Speaking of, my big question of the film is 'does it include the gang rape and/or the shooting of little kids from the comic'?

JimB:

Sejborg:
How didn't Superman act as Superman in Man of Steel?

snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him. Superman saves lots of lives in Man of Steel. In fact he saves the world from total destruction at the end. He saves all the kids in the bus as a kid. He saves all the people at the oil platform. Not just two people.

The movie is as much about Superman getting ready to take on the role, as it is of humans being ready to accept something like him amongst them.

I can't say I was a fan of KA1. Call me crazy, but I instinctively have a problem with Hit Girl. An eleven-year-old butchering and killing people (even if they're bad guys) is not something to get giddy about. If the movie was more a solid deconstruction of superhero stories, I'd understand. But as Movie Bob states, the movie franchise loves its characters too much to go that direction. And for me, it's a bit of a turn-off.

Still, I'll end up seeing KA2 when it comes out on DVD. I mean, why not?

Man of Steel note: Bob, I think it's time you revisit it. Make a column or Big Picture episode. Get it out of your system. I got angry last time when you focused too much of your time on Amazing Spider-Man, and you didn't do that here. I applaud that, except that I can sense that you really do want to correct the record. And this time out, I'd support it. Because much like you, I felt like my reaction to Man of Steel was more positive initially. But then time, thought, and fandom reaction wore down my opinion.

It was much like my reaction to the finale of LOST, which I liked... until I thought about it.

Sejborg:

JimB:

Sejborg:
How didn't Superman act as Superman in Man of Steel?

snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him. Superman saves lots of lives in Man of Steel. In fact he saves the world from total destruction at the end. He saves all the kids in the bus as a kid. He saves all the people at the oil platform. Not just two people.

The movie is as much about Superman getting ready to take on the role, as it is of humans being ready to accept something like him amongst them.

Eh, he still lets his father die when he could prevent it, still causes billions of dollars of property damage and likely kills thousands of people himself accidentally in the Zod fight, straight-up kills Zod himself (that whole deal made no sense; can Zod, like, not just turn his gaze slightly to the side? Why are those civilians not even attempting to get out of the way? Can Superman not just, I don't know, yank him away or fly away with him like he does in tons of other fights?)... Superman didn't feel like Superman to me...

Then again, I am a purist. I'm the same person who was pretty pissed that Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die in Batman Begins, gets fooled by literally every villain (seriously, stop getting duped), is the world's worst detective, can't fight worth a damn, growls like a chain-smoker gurgling gravel, and has the subtlety of driving a tank on rooftops. But I guess Batman: The Animated Series spoiled me.

Thank you, Bob. I will probably be going to see it with some friends this weekend. I had no fear that it would be good, but I think you got me excited for it.

ExtraDebit:
The most memorable part of kick ass one for me was when kickass was helping a dude being beated up by 2 dudes and kickass intervene but got his ass kicked instead, then one of the thug ask "what's wrong with you man, you gonna die for someone you don't even know?"

Of which kickass reply "what's wrong with me? 2 dudes ganging up on one guy while everyone just watches and you wanna know what's wrong with me?"

I don't know what but that brought a tear to my eyes, maybe it just brought out the idealistic youth I have inside of me which was nurture by disney movies but now buried deep inside by real life practicality.

Yes, I loved that scene. I think for much the same reason. Kick Ass was just so earnest in that moment. He really didn't want to just let these guys beat up on a guy. He didn't know who they were or why they were doing it, but he knew he wouldn't allow it. And that was just beautiful. Plus, they didn't try to pretty up the fight. Dave was clumsy and awkward and the fight was ugly. But that added to it's weight and realness. Probably my favorite scene in that movie.

Hit Girl was awesome the whole way through, though.

Honestly, unlike other commentators, I'm not gonna get my nipples in a twist over the age restriction thing. Same thing happened with this week's Movie Defense Force and it had an actual reason behind. Either way, I'm not upset about it and that's the least of my worries regarding this weeks episode.

Regarding Mark Millar, I have a hard time understanding what is going on inside his head. At times, he does some good things like the first two Ultimates volumes and his assistance to stop online stalker(s) from harassing female comic creators like Gail Simone. But there are times when he does shit that piss me off, most his independent work like the Kick Ass comics and his flippant attitude towards the press when his overuse of violence and rape in his books. I never fully got into his early works like The Authority (was never big on my heroes being ultra-violent and extreme) but I went through Wanted and first Kick Ass books and I couldn't finish either one. Also, there were moments in Ultimates 1 that made me cringe (Hank Pym's more violent attack on Janet Van Dyne for starters). Mark Millar's total "Fuck comics and its fan base" outlook towards his work and the world around him is a definite sign that he should retire from this gig and find something better to do with his life (seeking professional help would be a good first step). At the rate he's going with this, Millar may be ending up as another "insane in the membrane" creator like Frank Miller. Given his love of ultra-violence and douche-bag characters, I almost want to say Millar and Michael Bay would be perfect for one another but I don't wanna give Hollywood anymore bad ideas (they have enough already).

That said, I preferred Kick Ass the movie because it removed the worst aspects of the book and make the characters deranged but likeable. I'm willing to give the sequel a look this weekend.

As for Bob's predictions of which call Olga Kurkulina will receive, I'm betting on Expendables 3 but it depends. They already, according to rumor, brought in Mel Gibson, Antonio Banderas, and Harrison Ford after Bruce Willis asked for too much money and I haven't heard much casting of female roles. Maybe hire her for one of the possible female Expendables movie projects currently in pre-production. Perhaps have her team-up with Chloe Grace Moretz, Gina Carano, Lucy Lawless, and ZoŽ Bell. Just a thought.

Well this is jarring. The critical consensus has not been positive, despite Bob being in line with it with the first film. Then again he's been like that in the past (Sucker Punch and the Amazing Spider-Man, different reasons of course).

Personally, I'm not so sure. I've had less time than usual to go the cinema and while I am interested to see where these characters go next since i enjoyed the first so much, anything that's critically less than decent is low on my priorities for time reasons.

Ultra-Chronic Monstah:
The main point of the Kickass comics was to shit on the characters. The author puts them through all this horrible stuff because the series isn't about superheroes, it's about consequences. Dave becomes a superhero and loses everything as a result. You can say that it's ripping on all the people that want to be superheroes, and it should, because while wanting to be a superhero is pretty much natural, actually becoming one is stupid beyond reason. Saying that the comics aren't good because they're too bitter isn't good reasoning. They're supposed to be bitter because the entire point is that they're bringing reality into a fairly childish fantasy. The reason that the characters are all stupid is because one would have to be stupid (or suicidal, I suppose) in order to dress up and pick a fight with mobsters in the real world. Now obviously if every comic did that, it would suck, but one comic doing it? Where's the issue? If you want to say Kickass sucks, point out the reliance on shock value, or the schizophrenic tone, but saying "I don't like the comic because it's honest" is just... silly. I'm also not sure where these accusations of racism and misogyny come from. I've only read two works of Millar, but both of them featured strong female leads who put most of the men to shame, and I must be missing the racism part because I'm drawing a blank.

Anyway, good to see the film is alright. I can imagine that there are a few scenes that won't fit in, and that's fine. As long as it makes me want to see Kickass 3, it's doing an alright job.

Well Kick Ass 2(comic) did come off as needlessly brutal as well as pretentious. It just if you hate medium and its fan then by all means write something criticizes both. How ever if just use the opportunity to write a whiny fuck you that for lack better term is 2edgy while not presenting an alternative or something of quality then your being a whiny fuck. Take for example Dante's Inferno;that book is an extended fuck you to every one who Ruined Dante Allegri's life who ever what keeps interesting is his prose and writing.

Okay, I have a serious question to anyone who has already seen this movie.

How gory is it? I know that's a silly question, but I'm pretty squeamish, and whether I see this movie or not really does depend on the answer to it.

Is it like the first one? (which I had no problems with) or is this more like Super, a film I found so grotesque with its gore that I didn't make it past the first half hour.

If there is gore, is it campy/cartoony or do they really try to dial it up to eleven and make it look real?

I'd like to see it, but if it's too gory, I'll have to pass, as I tend not to enjoy movies that might cause my body to throw up.

So the movie changed the core message of the books to "optimism" over ultra-violent vigilantes? That's kind of a bummer, because that's how they painted "God Bless America", where a dude goes on a cathartic rampage, killing everyone we find really annoying, without consequence with a little girl sidekick to seems to enjoy it (theme starting to develop I guess).

I enjoy the movies but those nagging intentions behind the movies kinda bug me.

Meh, didn't watch the first one, not going to watch this one.
Also was the age gate reeeeeeeally necessary??

Xman490:
"A good movie to end summer with"? Well, summer's not ending anytime soon. (The individual weeks before January, April, July, and October are season transitions, technically.) Even if you consider "summer" as "summer break", even colleges like mine still have a couple of weeks left of summer break.

Could someone explain to me why Bob and other people in such industries consider seasons to happen earlier, including the "Christmas season" lasting throughout December and arguably dragging winter back with it?

I have no idea, but winter seemed to last forever here in the Mid-west of the United States. It WOULD NOT DIE until Summer was pounding away at it and Spring was broken and whimpering somewhere in the corner.

This might be a good watch if I can justify the expense!

Didn't like the original, so won't be bothering with the sequel :S

Yuuki:

If Kick-Ass 2 is just more of Kick-Ass then what's with the sudden drop in ratings...

When you get more of the same, both the strengths and flaws are repeated. The strengths lose their luster while the flaws become harder to ignore.

Kick-Ass was never intended to work as a franchise with sequels. The premise is too thin. The sequel comic was only made to cash in on the success of the first movie. As a deconstruction of superhero comics, there is only so much material you can tear down before there is nothing left to explore.

Haven't see the film yet and most likely won't go see it in the theater so don't have much to add on the actual movie.

However I think Movie Bob fucking nailed it with the self loathing comment about the comics. I can't stand the books as they are so grim and unhappy, with the protagonist Kickass being as much of an emotional punching bag as a physical one. However I found the first movie absolutely fucking hilarious as unlike the books it decided to lighten the fuck up a bit and have a little fun. The Kickass franchise reminds me a bit of the Pat Mills and Keven O'Neil comic Marshal Law from the late 1980's, as they are both a pastiche and parody of what is illogical about the idea of costumed super-beings living within the constraints of every day crime fighting morality.

I have to say I'm kind of surprised Bob didn't mention anything about Jim Carrey's change of heart over the amount of violence in the film. Not that talking about it is necessary to review the film at all, but it was a big enough story on its own that it seems odd to have gone unmentioned.

Saw it today. I enjoyed the movie for the most part, but the first one just felt like a much more solidly assembled movie.

Personally: I hated Kick-Ass and anyone who couldn't tell the original author had a slanted and twisted hatred for his characters needs to take Lit 101 again. His vitriol is spilled in the pages under a patina of trope deconstruction but its always been there and is apparent even in the movie.

Hit-Girl as a draw was a sad gimmick of the "Gawk at the freak-show!" variety that was tiresome to watch. I understand a generation who hasn't watched Portman's excellent performance in (Leon) The Professional falling in love with the character but people Bob's age I expect more from. Moretz did well for the lackluster direction she was given though.

Labeling Kick-Ass as "unpredictable" is an insult to the sensibilities of anyone who has read a few comic-books. Its twists were telegraphed in the first act and every beat subsequent was textbook. The sole thing that took me was how Kick's power-set came together and only because of how monumentally stupid it was. For those who don't know: There's a very good reason Logan has regeneration tied to his adamantium frame, ask anyone who has had nerve death and metal installed after an accident and they'll tell you how much worse off in a fight they actually are.

I rented the original and drafted a buddy to come over and tear into its rampant awfulness, think I'll do the same with this entry as well.

Carpenter:

SpaceGhost:

Retrograde:
Oh hey look, another person on the internet taking a pop at Man of Steel for no good reason. That's what you became for a moment then Bob. Not a respected member of a field, another person on the internet.

This. Bob should totally have, like, done a video review for the movie...and maybe even another video to argue/explain his opinion!

And if he didn't want to be just another person on the internet, he should have posted these videos on a major popular culture website!

Shame on you, Bob!

p.s. And get a nickname, Bob! Don't you understand branding???

So having your opinion stated over and over again on a "popular culture website" makes you something other than just another guy on the internet?

That must be why you post here.

Point. Missed.

Estimate: Country Mile

Also Identified: Straw Man, Ad Hominem

Aiddon:

brazuca:
Cracked.com wrote an article about why superman does not work in the modern world. You MovieBob should read it (AngryJoe too). Basically the only way superman can survive and not become some anachronic character is to change. Times changes as people do. So does the conception of what a hero should behave. Also the movie was not that bad.

Plus some heroes just age better than others. Batman for example have never HAD to change that much because A) his origins were always very simple and free of any age and B) his character is timeless: he's a vigilante who operates outside the law due to the red tape that at times keeps justice from moving forward. Furthermore, Batman's refusal to kill makes sense; he knows that society thinks of him as a lunatic and is well aware that his morals are one of the few things separating himself from those he brings in. Furthermore, again, he deals with the criminal justice system and to respect that he makes sure those criminals are brought to trial no matter how heinous their crimes are.

Superman...has no excuses. The "do not kill" thing makes sense only up to a point with him. There's a difference between psychos on the street and galactic threats that could wipe out all of humanity. Superman should operate like classic mythical heroes such as Hercules, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc.

I VERY much have to disagree with you there. Both characters are timeless for a reason. Superman is supposed to represent hope to us. Also, ironically, studies have shown that Superman is more popular around people who have little to no income while Batman is more popular around people who are middle to rich classed. I believe this perfectly demonstrates the reason Superman doesn't change. It isn't because the creators hate change (look at any other superhero in the DC universe), but because of what Superman represents. Superman is supposed to be the "ideal" man. The man, in a world of cynicism, who doesn't sink into the despair of reality, but rises above it.

Besides, in the comic universe he lives in? There ARE ways to contain world conquerors. There is a intergalactic police force, there is the Phantom Zone, which serves as mankind's prison for super powered world conquerors. Hell, he isn't even the biggest brick in the series as Superman still has a lode of weaknesses (magic, red sun, green kryptonite, etc.) while other heroes have his powers but none of the weaknesses.

Also, Man of Steel has a boatload of problems with its character as well. The main reason people have a problem with the "Zod Death Scene" is not just because he kills Zod, but because the movie makes the very idea of Superman killing to be a very dramatic point. This point is moot, however, if you like back on the previous fight scenes (especially the ones in Smallville where he could have moved a fight into an open field), he is carelessly smashing the villains into buildings and most certainly causing damage and loss of life. Yet it is only at that specific point in the movie when the directors suddenly remembered "Oh, yeah, he tries to avoid killing." It feels put in there for necessary drama. If the movie shows him going out of his way to save people, even to the detriment of himself, THEN showed that scene, I would have liked it. But it is such a different contrast to the rest of the movie that I thought it was horrible.

I guess I'm not the best person to explain why the character of Superman doesn't need to change but I do know of other people who did. Kingdom Come to comic book and Superman vs. the Elite the animated movie perfectly demonstrates why Superman is Superman better than I can.

EDIT: Forgot to talk about the OP

OP: While I am a fan of Kick-Ass, I don't think I'll be seeing the sequel. While it probably won't do the things in the comic, the comic of Kick-Ass 2 left such a bad taste in my mouth that I won't be seeing it.

Age Verification? I wonder what's the deal with this episode... Wait, really, that's why? Because Bob says the word "Mother Fucker"? Half the people... or at least Yahtzee and Jim Sterling have no problems saying that word at all, why say it here? I say this because Jim pretty much forced the Escapist for CREATE the age verification thing because he made an episode way more explicit then simply saying "motherfucker".

Wait, JIM CARREY?! Really?! Jim freaking Carrey is in this movie?! I've seen dozens of trailers and ads for this movie and never caught on that it was Jim! I guess he really can be versatile and not just be "Jim Carrey" in all of his roles.

Anyone else think Mother Russia kinda looks like Kurt Russell?

Buyer's remorse about movies is a fine and reasonable thing. MovieBob has his take on things, and he can change his mind if he feels the need. With that being said, comparing a film about hyper-violent vigilantes and killers to Man Of Steel and stating that they act more like Superman than Superman (as depicted in Man Of Steel) is nonsensical and troll-like. Bob, we expect better than that from you.

Oh thank the Elder Gods, you liked it.....

I really hate disagreeing with these reviews and it's nice to wholeheartedly agree.

I loved this movie completely and I'm glad you mentioned the Tone/Content mismatch, because I knew there was something about the tone that drew me in, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

In some way, I actually enjoyed this one more as the first was a bit padded towards the middle of the film. The first is probably still objectively better what with Nic Cage.

Side Note: Probably best to stop bringing up Man Of Steel. At least 70% of these comments are arguments about it.

Safaia:
The theater I'm going to see this at today is listed as Kick A 2 because the dude who owns the theater chain is a mormon and there is total separation between church and state in Utah.

I fucking hate Utah. It's full of judgmental hypocrites in every level of society.

That being said, Church and state don't factor into how someone who privately owns and operates a movie theatre decides to advertise the movies they show.

I do like that he's willing to show it and make money, but isn't willing to post the full title.

Jacco:

Safaia:
The theater I'm going to see this at today is listed as Kick A 2 because the dude who owns the theater chain is a mormon and there is total separation between church and state in Utah.

I fucking hate Utah. It's full of judgmental hypocrites in every level of society.

That being said, Church and state don't factor into how someone who privately owns and operates a movie theatre decides to advertise the movies they show.

I do like that he's willing to show it and make money, but isn't willing to post the full title.

This is the same state that stopped showing Hannibal on the local NBC channel because it was too gory. Whatever. The fact that the poster was up and the screen on the theater was still listed as Kick Ass 2 I wonder what the point was for changing it on the website and ticket stub.

SpaceGhost:

tarnim80:
I probarbly would have liked the first movie more if it infact DID hate it's own characters, because I did. Neither Kick Ass, Hit Girl or Cage (don't remember the name) where remotle likeable. They where psychotic maniacs who belonged behind bars or in a mental hospital. Hit Girl killed unarmed fleeing people in cold blod and Kick Ass called that being heroic. If the movie would actually have acknowledged that they where de facto villains instead of heroes I could have seen some point to it. But it didn't and I ended up disliking the movie as much as I disliked the characters.

Up front, I just want to say I am not replying to agree/disagree with your opinion. You are, of course, able to hold any opinion you wish, and many people will probably agree with this one.

I just find it funnily ironic that four of your badges you have set to represent yourself to the Escapist community are, in fact, killers. And your avatar is from a show that was almost banned from TV for its own depictions of violence.

Anyway, thanks for the smile on a rainy day.

It's only ironic or funny if you look at the world only in pure black and white instead of greyscales. I didn't make an general extrimist argument against violence in movies and I find it strange that you would jump to that conclusion.

After seeing MOS again its not THAT bad. For the most part its 2 films with a lot cut out and jumbled together. The whole ZOD thing is a bit overblown IMO. The jumbled together part is what people should focus on.

I liked the little dig at Man of Steel at the end. Having Superman not be the ultimate good in good guys was such a bummer that I hope people keep ragging on the studio until they learn people want a little hope and optimism not just how can every hero be more like Batman.

Sadly they aren't showing Kick Ass 2 locally so I guess it's going to have to be on my rental list.

Trishbot:

Sejborg:

JimB:

snip

Meh. This was his origin story. He must first learn to step into the light, and learn to be the symbol before he can have the humans join him. Superman saves lots of lives in Man of Steel. In fact he saves the world from total destruction at the end. He saves all the kids in the bus as a kid. He saves all the people at the oil platform. Not just two people.

The movie is as much about Superman getting ready to take on the role, as it is of humans being ready to accept something like him amongst them.

Eh, he still lets his father die when he could prevent it, still causes billions of dollars of property damage and likely kills thousands of people himself accidentally in the Zod fight, straight-up kills Zod himself (that whole deal made no sense; can Zod, like, not just turn his gaze slightly to the side? Why are those civilians not even attempting to get out of the way? Can Superman not just, I don't know, yank him away or fly away with him like he does in tons of other fights?)... Superman didn't feel like Superman to me...

Then again, I am a purist. I'm the same person who was pretty pissed that Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die in Batman Begins, gets fooled by literally every villain (seriously, stop getting duped), is the world's worst detective, can't fight worth a damn, growls like a chain-smoker gurgling gravel, and has the subtlety of driving a tank on rooftops. But I guess Batman: The Animated Series spoiled me.

He did as his father told him, and he kept doing it for a very long time. He went into hiding and so on. And he had to fight Zod. Sure there might have been casualties, but what could Superman do? Just stand by and watch them kill ALL the humans because of the likelihood of property damage and casualties? Nah. That would make no sense.

And I am sure Zod would have killed them if he could. But he was still learning the powers, and Superman had him locked. I could be wrong but I seem to remember the civilians being pressed into a corner. I guess Superman could have just tried to lift him of the ground and fly him away, but that would also release Zod of the headlock. And Zod was never going to stop. He would keep coming, so Superman wasn't left with much choice.

It seems to me that you have a very specific way of how you want (or demand) Superman to be, and even how fights should play out. I however don't mind different takes on Superheroes. Some of them I like, others I don't. I wouldn't call you a purist. Batman TAS is not at all the only take on Batman or even the first. Before Batman the animated series there was other versions. One of them the Adam West version for instance. Batman TAS version is NOT the pure version. It is just one of many versions. Superman likewise.

You might not have liked the Man of Steel version of Superman in contrast to some other take on the character, but saying he didn't act as Superman is baloney.

Chuck Liddell is in this film? So many MMA guys are doing Hollywood now, Randy Couture has been in a number of films, Krzysztof Soszynski (couldn't get more of a Polish name if you tried!) was in "Here Comes the Boom" with Bas Rutten, Lyoto Machida was in Never back down 2, Keith Jardine was in Crank 2, Georges St. Pierre is going to be in the Captian America, Gina Carano has been in a few, Ronda Rousey is in the next hunger games, Quinton "rampage" Jackson in the a team movie Bobb Sapp was in Blood and Bone, Andrei Arlovski in a Universal soldier and now Chuck in kick ass 2?

Damn, getting beaten up must be a bad gig!

Sejborg:

Trishbot:

Sejborg:

snip

snip

It seems to me that you have a very specific way of how you want (or demand) Superman to be, and even how fights should play out. I however don't mind different takes on Superheroes. Some of them I like, others I don't. I wouldn't call you a purist. Batman TAS is not at all the only take on Batman or even the first. Before Batman the animated series there was other versions. One of them the Adam West version for instance. Batman TAS version is NOT the pure version. It is just one of many versions. Superman likewise.

You might not have liked the Man of Steel version of Superman in contrast to some other take on the character, but saying he didn't act as Superman is baloney.

But... he didn't act like Superman. Or, more specific, he didn't act like the Superman that has existed in the public consciousness, and has been represented for nearly a century. He had the costume, the name, the powers... but he did not share the same morality. He was, in complete and utter contrast to who he is in the comics, not a paradigm of virtue. He's reckless. He's lethal. He makes out with some girl right in the middle of the ashes of a fallen city mere seconds after twisting a man's neck like a soda lid.

Superman, by virtue of him being "Superman", has a code not to kill. He killed. You take away his code, his morals, the very things that define him, and what's left? There are HUNDREDS of Superman imitators with the same generic powers wearing similar generic outfits that are identical in nearly every area except in terms of virtue and valor. THAT is the single, defining characteristic of Superman; not his costume, powers, or origin.

I'm open to different interpretations, sure, but you have to replace something you take away with something of equal or better quality to merit the alteration. What did they replace him with that now makes him any different from the legions of other flying, punching men in capes that go through with ending the lives of their opponents? Nobody has been able to tell me how they "improved" him by taking away one of his core character traits. It's like removing Batman's loss of parents or saying Spider-man isn't defined by "Great Power and Great Responsibility". It's sort of the biggest thing that define them as heroes and motivate them to put on the costumes. It's the reason why they could take away Batgirl's legs, her costume, her athleticism, and leave her in a wheelchair... and yet her moral center and burning intellect remained and she redefined herself as Oracle, becoming in many regards a better crimefighter using the power of information, computer and analytical skills, and cyber-investigating that she ever did kicking a dude in the mouth. They took away something but replaced it with something equally as compelling.

Though I will say that, of course, there are many interpretations (Batman has killed, Superman has killed, and typically they're wacky/misguided alternate universe stories like Injustice), but a mainstream movie that seeks to create a defining image of the most popular hero of all time in the public conscious has, in my opinion, a pretty strong responsibility to embolden every last single positive element that a hero such as Superman represents and defines.

Granted, I'm also sick to high-heavens of DC losing sight of what put them on the map, of telling editors that they don't make comics for kids anymore but rather 45-year-olds. Of having continual issues portraying women well in comic books. Of playing it safe in their movies with nothing but Batman and Superman (and screwing up nearly everything else). I find it utterly hilarious that DC claims that a Wonder Woman movie would be "too difficult and confusing for modern audiences" while Marvel is going "our next movie has a talking raccoon with a machine gun from space".

But, well, those old Paul Dini/Bruce Timm cartoons were more than just "a" version of Batman. For many, they are the culmination and definition of everything these heroes were, are, and should ever be. They brought with them the perfect blend of the maturity and sophistication that a comic book can while keeping along the boundless and imaginative joy that the medium spurs in children's cartoons. It was, in every regard, a series equally as enjoyable as a child and, decades later, as an adult, something the current slot of movies and books utterly fail to do in any way, shape, or form.

Superman in "Man of Steel" is not a hero I'd want my son to be like, nor its Jonathan Kent a father I'd ever hope my child to have. Parental fear should NEVER limit the greatness of a child, and rather than prepare his gifted son for the difficult and inevitable future, he told his son to HIDE his talents. HIDE his greatness. HIDE his skills and his abilities, even in the face of letting other children die. How utterly selfish to let fear cripple the potential of a boy; how selfish to let fear of differences put the lives of other sons and daughters at risk. I've known plenty of imbecilic fathers in my life that did the same thing; tell their boys to hide their gifts. Hide their identities. You can't do this because our culture won't understand. You can't take ballet or choir; join the football team even if you're talent is elsewhere. You can't be gay; hide it.

Jonathan Kent was an idiot with an idiot son who failed to prepare his son for the world and instilled in him paranoia and distrust without taking any measures to help him come to terms with who he truly was, and the Superman he "truly was" was tempered and altered to be a mewling shadow of his literate self.

One of my favorite issues of Superman is when he heard an old couple was going to lose their deli to a big name store due to lack of interest in traditional family-owned restaurants. Superman took it upon himself to eat there, in costume, which gave the couple's deli major publicity and people flocked to eat at the store that Superman enjoyed.

A simple deed like that goes much further than an 8-megaton punch to the head. Countless superheroes punch hard and cause major destruction and kill their opponents while wearing goofy outfits. But it's those little details the separate Superman from the rest. To sum up another writer, "Superman is the superhero OTHER superheroes want to be".

I'll probably get around to watching it eventually, I did like the first one. That said, I thought Super worked better as a comic 'what if superheroes existed in the real world', but Kick-Ass was a lot of fun. This looks like a lot of fun too, although I agree, I miss Nicholas Cage in it, he was awesome.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Jim Carey getting all silly about violence, I was wondering what you'd have had to say about that.

EeveeElectro:
Loved the Nicolas Cage comments. Haha!

I'm really looking forward to this movie, even though I'm in two minds about the comic book.
It was interesting because it made me feel like I haven't done that often before. I had to put it down for a while because I found it hard to take in. I wasn't offended, maybe very slightly disgusted but I thought it was being violent for the sake of it.

I assume the gore will be scaled down, and I think they'll cut out the

I can't imagine it passing through Hollywood at all.

Will be going to see this movie though.

Finally someone who understands it.

the antithesis:
I find the bit about Millar having contempt for super heroes interesting because I have felt that for a while now from many angles, not just Millar. I think the absolute worst thing was the "I'm a geek" speech from the second Fantastic Four movie, which I'm told was in the actual Ultimates comic book. I could not believe they would do something that transparently pandering, but they did.

This kind of contempt for the audience is most rampant in the horror genre. If you like horror movies, then movies like Funny Games, Rubber, and Cabin in the Woods actively hate you and would like to feed you poisoned turkey just to make you stop watching. To the film makers who make such movies that basically voice a desire to do something else, I say, just stop making these awful, condescending, contemptuous movies. Go back to porn.

Just because you love a genre doesn`t mean you can`t love the slap in the face deconstruction of said genre. In fact, its because I love horror so much that I loved Cabin in the Woods and Funny Games (FG still being one of my favourite movies to date).

Plus, I want to put out there that Cabin in the Woods was produced by Joss Whedon, who is most famous for Buffy which originally was a deconstruction of high school shows/movies and later made him a master at creating a horror-like setting with humour. The fuck that its a deconstruction at its core does not stop it from being absolutely fantastic. I think he was the best person to be involved in a movies such as CitW.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here