Since this challenge popped up right around the same time that Guardians of the Galaxy 2 hit US Netflix I figured I might as well go with that one since I never got around to seeing it. I'll be honest, I went into the movie assuming I wasn't going to like it much. The first one just wasn't my thing and it's not like there was going to be a dramatic shift in-between. It was fine. I get why people enjoy them but I just don't. I actually almost gave up not to far in because Drax's laughter was too constant and too loud. It grated on my nerves
( ... )
Even though I think Guardians would be 'classified" as a superhero movie, I agree with you, it's not, since the characters really don't have superpowers nor particularly protective (except in a pinch) but are just miscellaneous misfits. I did like the first Guardians a lot, mostly powered by the music, I think, and the second one not so much, since the evil Dad thing is a rather tired trope in my opinion. I like your thoughts about the genre, though. I guess the appeal of superheroes should be in the "hero" part, but lately it seems they focus more on the "super" part.
It's not just human with superhuman abilities. Some heroes aren't human and some heroes' abilities aren't superhuman. There's also the traditional element of protecting people. There are plenty of stories to tell about people with abilities who doen't see it as their responsibility to save the world and such. This is where movies like Chronicle fall. Some people call it a superhero movie but I don't see it as one.
I kinda touched on this in my comment. I do view superhero movies as movies where the hero has some sort of superpower. Like Iron Man, Superman, Wonder Woman.
Then there's the simple heroic movies: where an everyday person makes a stand that changes everything. Like Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. Those tend to be my favorites.
But I also realize it's not that easy to classify. Like I'd call Batman a superhero, even though he has no superpowers. He does, however, have enough money to make whatever he needs to mimic powers though. On the other hand, I'd call Harry Potter a simple heroic movie, even though it's all about
Batman really is the one who screws everything up. He's such an iconic superhero that few are going to argue that he doesn't fit the definition.
There's definitely a difference between a superhero and a hero's journey. Harry Potter would be the latter as would things like Hunger Games and Divergent. Though superheros can also have that hero's journey story arc.
I do like your thoughts on the difference between being a hero and a superhero, and how it doesn't need to be because a person has superpowers - or not. It is the journey in the end. Harry Potter had a single journey and he was the hero of that journey (with others) whereas the superhero does tend to go on many journeys to fight many different world-changing threats/villains as they arise.
It's funny that discussing the hero's journey didn't even occur to me when I was writing up my original comment. I had that concept bashed into my head every year for about 5 years.
I mentioned in another comment, that because of the MCU, the definition of "superhero" has expanded. Because of a limited exposure, I have always been on the side of the argument that Batman isn't a superhero, because he has no powers. But, by that vein, that also means that characters like Clint, Natasha and Tony aren't. In recent years, I've absolutely had to rethink my argument..
Should be be expanding the definition of superhero or should we be recognizing that not everything Marvel does is superhero movies?
For me, Natasha is not a superhero. She may fight with them but she is first and foremost a spy. Were they to give her hero own movie it would have to be a spy movie.
This is where movies like Chronicle fall. Some people call it a superhero movie but I don't see it as one. And I like that about it. It's a great movie.
Chronicle is a really great movie! I really like it. I also like Jumper, do you like that one?
Reply
Reply
I kinda touched on this in my comment. I do view superhero movies as movies where the hero has some sort of superpower. Like Iron Man, Superman, Wonder Woman.
Then there's the simple heroic movies: where an everyday person makes a stand that changes everything. Like Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. Those tend to be my favorites.
But I also realize it's not that easy to classify. Like I'd call Batman a superhero, even though he has no superpowers. He does, however, have enough money to make whatever he needs to mimic powers though. On the other hand, I'd call Harry Potter a simple heroic movie, even though it's all about
Reply
There's definitely a difference between a superhero and a hero's journey. Harry Potter would be the latter as would things like Hunger Games and Divergent. Though superheros can also have that hero's journey story arc.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Erin // Clubs
Reply
For me, Natasha is not a superhero. She may fight with them but she is first and foremost a spy. Were they to give her hero own movie it would have to be a spy movie.
Reply
Chronicle is a really great movie! I really like it. I also like Jumper, do you like that one?
Reply
Reply
Here's the link to the movie in case you were looking for it (though you probably already looked it up.)
Reply
Leave a comment