Superhero sequels, or the most important movie of the century

[NickLaureano 1]

I was recently asked what I thought the most important movie of the century was. After some thought, I came up with two responses: Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight.

 

These are not my favorites of the century, but in 30 years when the film historians look back at the beginning of the century, they will have to concede that comic book fare dominated the culture. Spider-Man 2 is, for my money, the best comic book movie ever made, and no movie hit the zeitgeist harder than The Dark Knight. I know Devin is quite fond of Spider-Man 2, and it seems like TDK is everyone's favorite comic book movie, so this could be one hell of a versus episode. Best vs. Most Important -- if ever a matchup defined the conundrum of The Canon...

[NathanGordon 1096]

in 30 years when the film historians look back at the beginning of the century, they will have to concede that comic book fare dominated the culture.

...and that it was a brief and expensive trend that audiences eventually tired of due to market oversaturation, ever-inflating and unsustainable budgets, and a dearth of quality source material. Not unlike, say, the boom in musicals during the 1940s, led by MGM's popular and elaborate productions (the Marvel of their day, perhaps).

 

The only thing I currently find more dull than the prospect of anticipating Important Capeman 4: The Pandering is the endless cultural soul searching that surrounds this franchise bloat. If I'm sick of superheroes, I'm even more sick of talking about them. I realize that art reflects life and these films are the lens through which our current timezzz..... ZZZZZzzzzzzz......

[kubrickshines 15]

They rank highly among the superhero films produced thus far, though of the two, only Dark Knight will be remembered 50 years from now, bolstered by Heath Ledger's powerful penultimate film performance (try saying that ten times fast).

 

The question of "what is the most important film of the century (so far)" is pretty interesting though. Like, how do we ascribe "import"? Maybe it breaks down into: 1) what film historians tell us is culturally significant, and 2) what festers and remains in the societal consciousness long after its release.

 

Historically, 'Iron Man' might end up being the most important superhero film since, like Toy Story or Mission Impossible, its the origin of what has become a cinematic powerhouse (Marvel Studios).

[CarlosFerreira 20]

...and that it was a brief and expensive trend that audiences eventually tired of due to market oversaturation, ever-inflating and unsustainable budgets, and a dearth of quality source material. Not unlike, say, the boom in musicals during the 1940s, led by MGM's popular and elaborate productions (the Marvel of their day, perhaps).

 

The only thing I currently find more dull than the prospect of anticipating Important Capeman 4: The Pandering is the endless cultural soul searching that surrounds this franchise bloat. If I'm sick of superheroes, I'm even more sick of talking about them. I realize that art reflects life and these films are the lens through which our current timezzz..... ZZZZZzzzzzzz......

 

Plus, I am not sure superhero movies dominate the culture that much. I know there are a bunch of them out every year and all, and the box office figures show their importance, but arguably nostalgia is the driving force in cinema these days; see the amount of 'long range sequels' we're getting.

 

But yes, Spider-Man 2 vs TDK would be a great episode.

[andrewlion19 6]

There's a real lack of perspective regarding superhero movies, and until enough time has passed, we really can't have a substantive conversation about what the "best" or "most important" one is. I mean, the only one that has any kind of consensus around it in terms of lasting importance would be the original X-Men, and it's objectively awful. I feel like once the dust has settled, the superhero films that stand the test of time will be different from what we expect.

[NickLaureano 1]

...and that it was a brief and expensive trend that audiences eventually tired of due to market oversaturation, ever-inflating and unsustainable budgets, and a dearth of quality source material. Not unlike, say, the boom in musicals during the 1940s, led by MGM's popular and elaborate productions (the Marvel of their day, perhaps).

 

I know this conversation is moot given recent events, but I'm just seeing your reply and I find it rather dismissive and that bothers me so I'll bite:

 

Just because spectacular genres like war-era technicolor musicals or the CinemaScope stuff of the 50s/60s, like westerns and historical epics, fell out of favor doesn't mean they weren't integral, or even dominant, parts of film culture in their respective eras. To imply their historical significance can be distilled to "aw heck eventually people learned better" seems, to me, antithetical to fully appreciating how cinema and culture meet. I think your focus on the scope of musicals and Marvel movies illustrates my point. Sure, Anchors Aweighand On the Town have paper thin plots and predictable character arcs that are supplemented by technicolor photography and spectacular third act Gene Kelly dance numbers, but that doesn't mean we should chalk them up to nothing more than crappy stories with bright exteriors that studios tricked naive audiences into seeing. They're also symptomatic of/offer a corrective to American wartime culture, and dismissing them as "fads" discounts how, say, women of the era might have found/were given an outlet in the cinema (to paint in very broad strokes, but hey, this is a forum for a defunct podcast, so I hope you'll forgive me). Dismissing these films as "fads" also suggests an unwillingness to get at the heart of why the fad came to be; you allude to some interesting economic points, but I'm disappointed in how you take those points at face value -- what can the market saturation, indulgent productions, and skyrocketing budgets tell us about the era beyond "it ended, good riddance"? Or even if the Freed Unit stuff really was just a fad that ran its course, isn't it super interesting that 20 years later a guy like Jacques Demy would re-purpose their generic elements for Young Girls of Rochefort? Even something that's "just a dead fad" can come back in a really fascinating way!

 

My point is this: just because you hate something (and I'm with you on this, Spider-Man 2 is really the only comic book movie I care for, and is certainly the only one I have watched on multiple occasions) or just because something is a trend that is doomed to end doesn't mean it's not important.

 

To the other commenters: yes, I've adopted a very rudimentary system for "ascribing 'import.'" Thanks for pointing that out, and allow me to rephrase: superhero movies are certainly the most widely seen movies right now, and it is my opinion that what is widely seen — and, perhaps more important, what is designed to be widely seen — will in some way shed light on the culture in which it is seen. Another rubric for importance might be much more subjective: artistic excellence, a la the recent BBC poll, Sight & Sound, etc. By this measure, my picks for "most important films of the century" include The Master, 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Ratatouille, Ida, Lost in Translation, Spirited Away, Punch-Drunk Love, In the Mood for Love, and Inherent Vice. (I'm not ashamed of being a total PTA fanboy.)

 

I adopted the first rubric for "most important" because the BBC poll just came out, and taking the "widely seen" approach seemed like a fun corrective to the typical "best of the century" poll.

 

Apologies for getting a little "film student" on you. I get a little defensive any time people cite older stuff when i suggest Marvel movies are an important part of our culture. You clearly know your stuff, and I'm a little insecure and feel like I need to say "just because I dig Spider-Man 2doesn't mean I don't also know my stuff." Maybe I'll grow out of it.

 

peace,

nick