Summer of the Superhero

July 15, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
There was Iron Man. There was the Hulk. There was Hell Boy. Now, Batman is back.

Summer has long been the time of blockbuster special effects movies, but this year seems disproportionately super hero focused.

What does it say that so many films--not to mention, so many acclaimed films--focus on characters with special powers?

Is it, as some have theorized, the continuation of a long dramatic chain linking all the way back to the Greeks (whose gods seem strikingly like our cape-and-cowled friends)? Or is there something about our times that cry out for these larger than life characters?

Your thoughts on these weighty philosophical matters? And your thoughts on the best and worst super hero movies?

And, while your at it, your prediction for the success or failure of the upcoming Spiderman stage musical?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • FirewomanJuly 16, 2008 8:11 AM
    As a comics book fan, I usually look forward to these movies when they're done well with great stories and great actors. I think Spiderman really kicked off the craze and re-ignited the superhero movies. The last good ones were the first two Batman's from the 90's, but eventually those descended into stupity. Movies for many people at different times in their lives are an escape from reality. What better escape than to image super heroes are there to save us?

    Movies I liked:

    Spiderman 1, 2, 3
    X-Men 1, 2
    Superman1, 2, 3 (Christopher Reeves version)
    Iron Man
    Batman Begins
    Batman (the first two from 89-90's)
    V for Vendetta (based on a comic anyway..)

    Movies I didn't like:

    X-Men 3
    new Superman (that chick was no Lois Lane!)
    Ghost Rider is probably the worst one I've seen - ridiculous dialogue and bad acting, poor script
    later Batman movies from the 90's I don't even remember how many they made...
    The Fantastic Four are just plain awful...
    The Hulk (Ang Lee) I love Lee's other movies and think he's a great director who can do just about any genre, but the Hulk really got weird at the end. I liked some of his visual touches though.

    Spiderman the musical? I can't help but think it will end up on the Worst Musicals of all Time list.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BrianJuly 16, 2008 12:46 PM
    You know, there was a Suparman musical in the late '60s . . . Oh, you don't know? Well, that's not too surprising; it seems to have faded away rather quickly. It was done around the same time as the ultra-campy '60s Batman, and apparently had the same general ethos. And like everything else, there appears to be a brief clip from that production online, from a TV adaptation aired in 1975:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDR-XvJpqBk

    If you're interested in cheesy music and some of the most spectacularly awful fight choreography this side of a Blaxploitation film, give it a look. If not, well . . . go get a ticket for THE DARK KNIGHT. I know I will be.

    That Spidey musical, though, seems like it could be weirder yet. Directed by Julie Taymor, music by Bono, and a Geek Chorus? This could be fascinating either as an unlikely success or a spectacular failure . . . but then there's still a chance it could never see the light of day. Remember the brief hoopla about a Batman musical from a few years ago, penned by David Ives and directed by Tim Burton? Gone, and probably best forgotten.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BrianJuly 16, 2008 12:48 PM
    Whoops. Suparman? I should proofread.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • LouJuly 16, 2008 1:22 PM
    Brian,
    Of course, that would be It's a Bird, It's a Plane...It's Superman.
    Jack Cassidy and Linda Lavin were in it (Not sure if she was on the TV broadcast version, but I remember him in it).
    Hal Prince directed. Charles Strauss (of Annie fame) composed.
    Oddest credit is that it was written by Robert Benton, who went on write Bonnie and Clyde (thankfully not yet turned into a musical)to Kramer vs. Kramer (ditto).
    --Lou
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BrianJuly 16, 2008 1:30 PM
    Actually, according to my quick sweep of the various online info sources (the Internet knows all) on It's a Bird . . .etc., the roles of the reporter and Lois Lane were actually played by Kenneth Mars and Lesley Ann Warren, respectively, in the TV version. Curiouser and curiouser.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • LouJuly 16, 2008 4:34 PM
    Memory can be fuzzy--especially from here in New Jersey (where I am for the week). Looks like I was blurring the Origional Cast Album and my memory of the TV special.
    Kenneth Mars (he of The Producers) it is.
    Lou
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT