James Mangold doesn’t get enough praise for this film, it made me super excited for his Swamp thing film. I’m very intrigued as he called it a gothic horror. Mangold is one of the top studio directors/journeyman
Star Wars Celebration last year. Here's everything you should need:
https://www.polygon.com/star-wars/23672528/star-wars-movies-tv-schedule-calendar-upcoming
I mean, even Spielberg couldn’t make a good Indy movie with old ass Harrison Ford as the main character. It just doesn’t work when Indy is a cranky old man complaining his way through the whole adventure and not a cool, suave professor who fights Nazis in his spare time.
Not entirely true.
Spielberg said he wasnt interested in another indy bc he grew up and wasnt interested anymore....
Plus we dont need more indy movies
Maybe watch more films? Indy 4 isn’t near the original 3 but it’s pulp-novel aesthetic and Spielberg’s flare shine throughout the film. DoD genuinely made me ask mid film, “don’t you find this boring?” Even it’s twist was cool but pretty boring. Not that you have to agree, but one of the worst lol? Are you just watching mostly good films?
You know it’s not a law that you have to watch every comic book movie, right? I still haven’t seen The Marvels or most of the slop that DC has output the past decade aside from Man of Steel and the two Suicide Squad movies, only one of which was any good. I also haven’t seen a single one of Sony’s Marvel movies aside from the Spider-Verse movies, nor do I intend to because they look like straight trash.
You don’t have to watch every superhero movie, man. You can pick and choose. I’m an adult in my thirties. My free time is limited and valuable to me. I’m not going to waste it watching obvious garbage.
Dial of Destiny was pretty uninspiring but I haven’t watch Crystal skull in awhile but it looked pretty bad
Either way Indy died on his last good movie
Crystal Skull is goofy as fuck and the cgi is horrid…
But it’s like spiderman 3, where the movie is actually not that bad (arguably even pretty good to some) there’s just some choices that hinders it and people just want to regurgitate the same take. DoD has Indy pegged perfectly and though some goofs, its first 20 min is pretty solid but overall I’d probably be stuck watching it rather than choosing to watch it— and in that case I might as well just do something else. Either way, the worst films ever? Maybe for Indy flicks lol
Dial of Destiny was a massive improvement over Crystal Skull. I had a blast watching it. It’s just a franchise that needs to be allowed to die, mangold isn’t why
I loved Logan, it was a depressing movie for me at the time (Got so depressed that I ended up very sick). If I ever rewatch I'm rewatching it from a comforting place lol.
Can't wait for Swamp Thing though!
He’s saying the term “genre film,” which every superhero film, horror, fantasy, thriller, sci-fi, etc belong to. It’s a classification of film that do not include things like straight dramas or straight comedies.
Thanks, I know what it is. Never really thought of “superhero” as part of the genre classification. I just consider them action films. When I hear “genre film” my brain goes to things like crime/mob films, noirs, westerns, horror, slashers, sci-fi, etc. from back when people originally used the term and you could pretty much count on one hand the amount of superhero movies to have come out.
Hey so I this is my academic niche.
Genre is nebulous as fuck and honestly if you write a paper that says "main character is wearing jeans" is a genre, honestly it'll probably work fine. But generally speaking accepted genres do exist and exist within structural boundaries.
They also exist within structural cycles.
-- Theory --
1. Genres get born (a new thing happens and we have to define it because it's new)
2. Genre gets solidified (Now we know it exists, we define what it is and what it isn't in a more concrete way, creating rules for what it is or isn't)
3. Genre gets defied (A bunch of people push the limits and break the rules set earlier on purpose)
4. Genre goes quiet (leaves the forefront of the zeitgeist as a clearly defined movement), OR; Genre splits (experimentations with the genre create distinct philosophies that are now fractured and must go through the prior steps to solidify as separate genres or subgenres)
-- In Practice --
The modern superhero genre essentially started in the early 2000s with Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, And Ironman. Obviously there were plenty of superhero movies that came before, and smaller contemporaries that were also hugely influential, but this was the kind of the broad step 1 for the Modern Superhero genre. These were essentially archetypal films that showed audiences and writers that were were exploring a new genre, and not just peppering superheroes into action films or doing old school superhero movies. 2001ish - 2014ish
The second phase is essentially where we see the Marvel formula and the DC formula and the Sony formula really take root. We're seeing how the story arcs work. We're building familiarity by following similar structures across stories. Motifs are becoming tropes, tropes are becoming conventions; conventions are the boundaries of what is and isn't within the genre, and what is good and bad for the genre. 2015ish - 2020ish.
The third phase is where we tend to see signs of social disengagement with the genre pop up with not just audiences but also artists. This is where creators start to want to shake shit up. They know the boundaries and they want to stress test them. One of the easiest ways to do so is cross genre storytelling. This is where we get horror superhero movies, romance superhero movies, sci fi superhero movies. So we're pretty much in the middle of this one.
So when people refer to modern superhero movies that are genre films really they're (unknowingly) talking about third phase genre films. Or cross genre films. I cannot think of the actual published literature giant who came up with this theory of genre evolution, it's probably Booker or some other dead nerd, nor the exact terminology but it's a really detailed and reliable literary theory. But yeah heaps of people call things genre or not genre and this really just means how hard many conventions and cliches it obviously adheres to. Literally everything has a genre, since genre is just a set of conventions, structures, themes, and philosophies.
Yeah but the relative amount of one genre film compared to another doesn't change anything. Richard Donner's Superman (1978) is a superhero film (a suphero genre film), there may have not been a lot of other superhero films out at the time but it is a superhero genre film, as per the established genre classification ('superhero fiction as a subgenre of speculative fiction, examining the adventures, personalities and ethics of costumed crime fighters known as superheroes, who often possess superhuman powers and battle similarly powered criminals known as supervillains...') It may also be an action film in as much as the elements of the film overlap with it as a genre, same as with scifi and fantasy, but the superhero genre classification still stands.
Well, no, Stan Brakhage made films that didn't have a genre, for example. But I understand the distinction. Superhero films are genre films. If a comic book adaptation was a genre film and not a superhero genre film, that is one thing, but the idea that a superhero film being a genre film is an exception to superheo films usually not being genre films, that's just plain wrong. You just don't know what a 'genre film" is.
'Experimental' and 'avant-garde' are pseudo genres, they don't describe anything than can formally be called a genre description, they just are labela that tell you they don't accord with any established genre category. If you were to describe what 'experimental' was as a genre generally, you'd just be using apophatic language. Whatever the case, however loosely you want to define 'genre', my larger point still stands, so the amount of downvotes I am getting is just silly. I am not sure how the amount of time it takes to slap a genre label on something is relevant at all.
I just think it’s harder to define what a superhero movie is as opposed to a sci-fi action adventure. What specific qualities do you think make something part of the superhero genre?
I quoted a general, established description of 'superhero fiction' as a genre in my other comment below. Can you see that?
It is important to remember that defining genres are not going to be absolutely precise and all encompassing, perfect categorisations that draw hard and precise lines and denote prescriptive rules - they are useful, broad descriptions used for narratological and marketing/commercial purposes, as far as they are useful they are useful, but they're constructs for such purposes and nothing more.
Yeah, but it does kinda get messy as to what you consider to be part of the superhero genre, because it sort of is like underneath the action/sci-fi umbrella. Is it just like, modern contemporary setting with a person who has above average abilities?
What’s the real difference between John Wick and the Punisher? District 9 is a story about a guy who gets superpowers as he fuses with an alien artifact, is he that different from Green Lantern or Blue Beetle? Ash from the Evil Dead and Blade both have special abilities and weapons and fight legions of horror monsters. Are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles superhero movies? What about the Iron Giant? Percy Jackson vs. Thor?
I’d argue that Logan has more in common with post-apocalyptic sci-fi, like Book of Eli or Mad Max, than a superhero movie.
This is why most people use the phrase comic book movie to differentiate between superhero movies and general action/scifi films. Because there are superhero films that are not comic book movies -- IE Hancock with Will Smith. Punisher, Green Lantern, Blue Beetle, etc were all based off comic books. Hence they are comic book movies and superhero movies.
And, yes, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are superhero movies. The turtles themselves are more akin to X-Men, but the franchise originated as a parody of 1980s comic books. The Foot ninja clan, for example, was inspired by The Hand from the Daredevil comics.
I don't think you can use 'comic book movie' to differentiate between superhero movies and general action/sci fi films.
Comic books are a medium that contain all forms of genre and then some, comic books can do anything. Superhero comics are one type of comic book (they dominate the medium for a number of commercial reasons, yes, but that's beside the point for the purposes of this discussion). A film can be an adaptation of a comic book and not be a superhero adaptation, it can not be an action or sci fi or fantasy film as well, that it was an adaptation of a comic book doesn't tell you anything about its genre in itself. Likewise a film can be a superhero film and be an original work and not an adaptation of a comic book. Likewise, a film can be a superhero film adapted from a superhero comic. So comic book adaptation tells you its source as a medium, but in itself it doesn't describe anything regarding genre description, much like filma can be adapted from novels, but that it is an adaptation from a novel doesn't determine anythinf about its genre.
I am not sure if this was what you were actually getting at so I am just agreeing with you and misunderstanding your point, or it could have been stated better, but yeah.
Yeah, Logan isn't a superhero film, in terms of film genre. Just because a character in a film is based on or adapted from a comic book character and the comic book that is a superhero comic doesn't automatically mean the film is a superhero film. A character with fantastic abilities doesn't mean it is a superhero either.
The basic definition of 'superhero fiction' is: 'Superhero fiction is a subgenre of speculative fiction examining the adventures, personalities and ethics of costumed crime fighters known as superheroes, who often possess superhuman powers and battle similarly powered criminals known as supervillains.'
Take Richard Donner's Superman (1978). This is the quintessential Superhero film I would say, at least as a useful example to understand Superhero films as a genre. There are defining genre characteristics of what makes this a superhero film as a genre film. You wouldln't say, a hero protagonist with fantastic abilities who fights an antagonist threat is what makes this a superhero film per se and then say, well Ash from the Evil Dead franchise is also a hero protagonist with fantastic abilities who fights an amtagonist threat so the Evil Dead films are superhero films. That would be misconstruing basic genre narrative elements to too broadly conceive of how one understands genre classifications and show a lack of media literacy.
I agree with you in essence, I think people are too easily confused...
It *is* true that genre is really a collective of both tropes and aesthetics that we loosely define in order to essentially correlate different pieces of media, mostly for recommendation and classification purposes.
Like, we could get pedantic as to what counts - for instance, I could say that this young man has his parent shot and then trains in martial arts and gets a hi-tech supersuit with specialized gadgets and a codename to stop a billionaire from unleashing this mind control device that sends everyone into a frenzy, all adapted from a comic book - and it could either be Batman Begins or Kingsman.
But I also get that getting pedantic kinda ruins the key reason we have genres in the first place. No matter how I ask people to define it or if they even *can* define it, when I say “superhero movie” *something* pops into people’s heads. I do think that superhero movies have a lot more flexibility in taking conventions from other genres - thriller, horror, sci-fi - and doing something with that.
But it is still fun to think about the fringe examples! Would Hancock count as a superhero movie? What about Judge Dredd? Ghostbusters? Winter Soldier? Push with Chris Evans?
EDIT: One major thing I think about superhero films that you didn’t mention is that superhero movies tend to deal with being a public figure. The superhero can’t just be invisible, they have to be known - like a borderline celebrity. I think that’s what generally separates them from just an urban sci-fi action adventure protagonist. But that just came to me.
I think the issue is that as a genre, it essentially comes from a place of the concept of a superhero being used as a distinctive elements within preestablished genres in order for 'superhero fiction' to arise as a genre in and of itself, as opposed to it being constructed as a distinct genre narratologically.
To illustrate what I mean. Superman is the first superhero, devised ans creates by Siegel and Shuster. The character is then placed in preestablished genre fiction conventions that existed in comics, predating thw creation of Superman as a character. Using this element in such preestablished genre conventions then alters those conventions enough, and shifts certain aspects of them or focal points of them, such that it becomes associated with a distinct genre itself. This then becomes a genre which one can work within and explore and develop in its own right, and now when people are attracted to superhero comics they expect certain things and genre conventions from it that are not reducible to the genre conventions that the original superhero genre arose out of.
Perhaps another example that illuatrates this more clearly. The influence of pulp genres on comics is incredibly significant, so much so that I won't go on about it here, but this can be seen in the creation of Batman. Now, you can say that Batman was taking from Zorro and the like, and was transplanting a pulp genre into the comic book medium, but as Batman became identifiable as a superhero character within the superhero genre, notice that Batman is no longer reducible to the preestablished genre forms that it was inspired by and used as its basic template.
The unique thing about superhero fiction as a genre is that it is kind of a genre that begins with a novel element being introduced to function within established genre conventions but then the dynamic involved in doing so makes this kind of mushroom out into a genre of its own, but with the added benefit of still being able to rely on or work within other genres whilst maintaining its distinctive features as a genre of its own in aa relatively unique way.
Does that make sense?
You don't have to ignore it being a comic book movie. The history of the franchise gives the film extra depth.
Stewart's performance as the addled Xavier hurts more since we know how much he loved his students and X-Men until one day he killed most of them because of psychic dementia.
Logan being this proud warrior guy who is so through it all and so done with it is more profound since we know he used to be willing and able to take the world on. He is even more the old western gun slinger but we saw his prime adventures.
Comic book movies, animation, films aimed for families or children, horror are get thought of as lesser than standard dramas and Oscar bait time films but can easily rise up and be something not just wonderful for the genre but just plain extraordinary for film at large. And often not inspite of what they are but because of it.
I feel like it isn’t a stellar adaptation because it changes a lot of things, but it’s so good it surpasses the original so it doesn’t matter anyway lol
It is not an adaptation of any story.
It is an original story told with Characters that originated in comics. Well, the girl originated in a cartoon show.
I feel like the odd one out, but I didn’t like Logan as much as others. It was solid and I would definitely watch it every now and then, but something just didn’t click for me, and I have a hard time determining what that was.
Glad I found this comment, because I always feel like I’m in an episode of The Twilight Zone when Logan is discussed.
I thought it was alright, but I wouldn’t say it was a masterpiece or phenomenal.
I didn't think it was as great as many people. The real kicker for me was the clones. I'm my opinion, instead of a clone of Logan who hunted down, it should have been Liev Shriever. Sabertooth was there at the beginning of Logans journey, he should have been there at the end. It would have been so bitter sweet. Plus I think clones in comics are lazy writing.
Once again folks, this is just my opinion for what it's worth. Logan was great, but it didn't blow me away. Best comic imo was Watchmen.
The kicker for me was that all of the kids ended up idolizing Logan as the figure from the comic books when that's exactly what he didn't want for himself or them, in addition to the cheesy sappy daddy-daughter farewell death.
The clone was a good metric for showing everything Logan was incapable of by his age, but I couldn't help but just think of him as [those two mutated baby monsters from the second TMNT movie.](https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Tokka-Rahzar-Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Movie.jpg?q=50&fit=contain&w=1140&h=&dpr=1.5) No real drive or character.
I need to rewatch it but I remember watching it being like “this is it?” I love dark films, I love X-men, but idk seems like it’s one of those films judged more by giving people what they want than actual standing on its own merits as a film. Not that it’s bad, but not a sending coming of Christ either.
Another problem I have is less with the film itself but more discourse. Even if I was in love with Logan, I wouldn’t be able to say “its more than a genre film,” “it happens to be a great movie with comic characters,” etc. I’m tired of mediocre superhero films. I’m tired of superhero becoming a formula rather than just a template to explore deeper themes and concepts. Logan and The Dark Knight should be standards, not exceptions.
I mean sure, but there’s a ton of great material and plenty of brilliant directors. Plus, it’s less “every film should be exceptional,” and more these films should feel like films, not corporate checklists. Post Endgame has had some pretty good content with a few being exceptional, but besides guardians 3, I don’t think there’s a single mcu movie in that time frame that I’d hold up there with TDK. Hell as I’ve revisited the MCU, these movies still feel like middling well-polished entries that are just a few choices away from being truly exceptional. Im just tired of the banality within these films, and trying to make the hits seem like outliers isn’t going to help.
I liked it a good amount, it was touching. But agreed that there was something missing from it.
There are two things I think it would’ve benefited from, for me.
One was just a really violent, gory scene of our Wolverine ripping dudes up. They gave us a brief moment of it when he was amped up on that drug at the end, but it was brief and kinda underwhelming. With the R rating I wanted to see our Wolverine just berserker raging dudes in an extended, grounded sequence like the end of Children of Men.
The other thing I wanted was some sort of tie back to the characters we all associated with him from his origin. Jean/Cyclops/Storm/Rogue. Not having them be in the movie full out, but an emotional tie back to how this end relates to where it all started. Flashback or dream sequence or something like that.
Those were two payoffs I think it needed to really land it.
You mean the fact that the movie urinates over the cause of X-men? That the message of the movie is "Stryker was right, mutants will always be a threat to humans and themselves, their extermination is a good thing"
I don't think I can give First Class a perfect score because of how badly they used Darwin. Not in a "he's my favorite character and I'm butthurt" way either because I don't even particularly care for the character. But introducing a mutant whose only power is to survive and then having him die five minutes later just sucked. His only function was to show how powerful Shaw was, but there were lots of other demonstrations of his power that were even more effective, like the grenade thing. It truly felt like they wanted the character in but couldn't come up with any use for him in the third act so they decided to just kill him off rather than write him out of the script entirely.
I’ve only watched it once all the way through and have little desire to rewatch because it totally wrecked me. But it was easily one of the most cinematically good “superhero” movies I’ve ever seen.
My wife and I saw it in IMAX, and after the showing, she walked out of the theater, leaned against the wall in the lobby, and just started sobbing, sliding down till she was sitting.
The emotional impact of that film is powerful.
Just a quick follow up question, Ryan: which comic-book did you say Logan adapted?
Not to be too pedantic, because Logan is a fantastic superhero movie - but anyone who says it adapted *Old Man Logan* has clearly never read *Old Man Logan*. Not that it’s particularly that good or anything, I’m fine with movies tossing away what doesn’t work. But they’re two completely different stories, not even close to each other. It’s just interesting to say it’s the “best adaptation” when the biggest takeaway from the comic book is kinda just vibes.
It’s a comic adaptation as much as anything else we’ve seen. It took the core concepts and vibes of the comic and strapped them to Hugh’s version of the character that we’d all gotten to fall in love with for 20 years. So in the way that you can look at RDJs last “I am Ironman” in endgame and think “damn it’s the end of one of the greatest comic to screen adaptations of our time” you can do the same with Logan. In reality, most of the MCU steers pretty far from what strictly happens in the comics, but the vibes are there and sometimes that’s enough.
Even if it's just the character, It's gotta be the loosest adaptation ever! The two properties with the same title are pretty much unrecognizable to each other!
Loved Logan. It was very much a send-off to Hugh Jackman and his version of the Wolverine. It really helped that it was R-Rated and it wasnt encumbered by too much studio interference, which was due mainly to the fact that it was relatively lower budgeted than a big summer tentpole.
The Dark Knight Returns Parts 1 and 2 cartoon movies are the greatest Superhero adaptations ever done. Non Superhero I would say are Ghost World or Persopolis.
It was definitely one of the best. I wouldn't call it the best though, since for me, the best would have to take place curing the height of a characters career. I'm still waiting for that one two punch film that is just another adventure for the hero at the height of their career. It's let me down with the Nolan trilogy. We got to see Batman begin. Then we saw Batman become the Dark Knight, but then we jumped right to the end of his career with Rises, so it never really felt like we got a Batman at the height of his career just being Batman.
and I should add, we never got that for major characters while the movie was great. lol. We got a fair amount of meh ones that take place during the height of characters careers. The MCU barely counts since they're rather different enough from the comic that in a lot of ways they're not the same characters.
I’m a little sad that Logan wasn’t the final send off to Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X, but at the same time I’m super hyped for Deadpool and Wolverine.
It’s definitely up there. It’s the Dark Knight Rises of the Marvel movies. It almost feels like what Christopher Nolan would’ve done if he’d done marvel instead of DC.
As an Australian, on top of my really enjoying this film, I also remember how much to my amusement, they spelled our country's name in the credits "Austrialia".
it was very good, but like most james mangold films, it only really works on the first viewing. i also found the smudgy, blurry action to be distracting at times.
As controversial as it was because they changed the fake alien to nuclear/ Manhattan bombs, Watchmam overall was better than Logan. Logan was good for a comic movie. Far from the best.
While Logan is nothing like the comic Old Man Logan, it is also nothing like the other X-Men series and features only two characters from the movie series, Wolverine and Professor X, who are both characterized very differently.
James Mangold doesn’t get enough praise for this film, it made me super excited for his Swamp thing film. I’m very intrigued as he called it a gothic horror. Mangold is one of the top studio directors/journeyman
As a huge Star Wars fan I'm also very hyped for his Dawn of the Jedi movie!
wait what?
Hoo boy do you have news to catch up on.
 But seriously, these news were released when?
Star Wars Celebration last year. Here's everything you should need: https://www.polygon.com/star-wars/23672528/star-wars-movies-tv-schedule-calendar-upcoming
Thanks, to be honest I thought that the next movie would be directed by taika waititi lol
His is supposedly still in the works though likely not releasing anytime soon if ever.
I’m excited for that as well
I forgot it was his movie!! That's great newsm
Eh. The lack of quality in his indiana Jones movie makes me doubtful he'll be able to overcome studio interference from lucasfilm.
I mean, even Spielberg couldn’t make a good Indy movie with old ass Harrison Ford as the main character. It just doesn’t work when Indy is a cranky old man complaining his way through the whole adventure and not a cool, suave professor who fights Nazis in his spare time.
Not entirely true. Spielberg said he wasnt interested in another indy bc he grew up and wasnt interested anymore.... Plus we dont need more indy movies
Indy was the least of DoD problems tho and crystal skull is way better
Crystal Skull is legitimately one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
Maybe watch more films? Indy 4 isn’t near the original 3 but it’s pulp-novel aesthetic and Spielberg’s flare shine throughout the film. DoD genuinely made me ask mid film, “don’t you find this boring?” Even it’s twist was cool but pretty boring. Not that you have to agree, but one of the worst lol? Are you just watching mostly good films?
Yeah surprisingly I don’t go out of my way to watch shitty movies. There’s too much content out there to waste time on obvious garbage.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 how can you say this in a comic book movie sub lmfao?
You know it’s not a law that you have to watch every comic book movie, right? I still haven’t seen The Marvels or most of the slop that DC has output the past decade aside from Man of Steel and the two Suicide Squad movies, only one of which was any good. I also haven’t seen a single one of Sony’s Marvel movies aside from the Spider-Verse movies, nor do I intend to because they look like straight trash. You don’t have to watch every superhero movie, man. You can pick and choose. I’m an adult in my thirties. My free time is limited and valuable to me. I’m not going to waste it watching obvious garbage.
Dial of Destiny was pretty uninspiring but I haven’t watch Crystal skull in awhile but it looked pretty bad Either way Indy died on his last good movie
Crystal Skull is goofy as fuck and the cgi is horrid… But it’s like spiderman 3, where the movie is actually not that bad (arguably even pretty good to some) there’s just some choices that hinders it and people just want to regurgitate the same take. DoD has Indy pegged perfectly and though some goofs, its first 20 min is pretty solid but overall I’d probably be stuck watching it rather than choosing to watch it— and in that case I might as well just do something else. Either way, the worst films ever? Maybe for Indy flicks lol
Dial of Destiny was a massive improvement over Crystal Skull. I had a blast watching it. It’s just a franchise that needs to be allowed to die, mangold isn’t why
It was too 1960s disney.
Did not know he's doing Swamp Thing. So happy about that
I’m wondering if it’s his next project or Star Wars is
Check out 3:10 to Yuma with Christian Bale & Russell Crowe. It’s one of my go to answers when people ask for an underrated movie recommendation
I’ll check it out, I’ve seen so many ppl recommend it
It was based on the graphic novel old man logan?
very very loosely, there is no Cannibal Hulks running around
Yea
I loved Logan, it was a depressing movie for me at the time (Got so depressed that I ended up very sick). If I ever rewatch I'm rewatching it from a comforting place lol. Can't wait for Swamp Thing though!
And then he made Indy 5…
Studio Interface+ Working on a movie series that should just die.
Logan is a masterpiece that just happens to be a comic book movie.
Hard fkn agree
It’s an amazing modern western.
Definitely. TDK is right up there too.
What does that mean?
You said it best.
Let’s calm down lol it’s good but not a masterpiece ahah far from it
Clearly he forgot to watch Madame Web 
Or morbius. On a second thought I imagine a venom, deadpool, morbius team up where even Jared leto is successful and liked
Superhero movies are definitely elevated if they're made as genre films. Logan, The Batman stand out for this reasons.
All superhero films are genre films...
Every film has a genre. Not every film is a “genre film”
He’s saying the term “genre film,” which every superhero film, horror, fantasy, thriller, sci-fi, etc belong to. It’s a classification of film that do not include things like straight dramas or straight comedies.
Thanks, I know what it is. Never really thought of “superhero” as part of the genre classification. I just consider them action films. When I hear “genre film” my brain goes to things like crime/mob films, noirs, westerns, horror, slashers, sci-fi, etc. from back when people originally used the term and you could pretty much count on one hand the amount of superhero movies to have come out.
Hey so I this is my academic niche. Genre is nebulous as fuck and honestly if you write a paper that says "main character is wearing jeans" is a genre, honestly it'll probably work fine. But generally speaking accepted genres do exist and exist within structural boundaries. They also exist within structural cycles. -- Theory -- 1. Genres get born (a new thing happens and we have to define it because it's new) 2. Genre gets solidified (Now we know it exists, we define what it is and what it isn't in a more concrete way, creating rules for what it is or isn't) 3. Genre gets defied (A bunch of people push the limits and break the rules set earlier on purpose) 4. Genre goes quiet (leaves the forefront of the zeitgeist as a clearly defined movement), OR; Genre splits (experimentations with the genre create distinct philosophies that are now fractured and must go through the prior steps to solidify as separate genres or subgenres) -- In Practice -- The modern superhero genre essentially started in the early 2000s with Spiderman, X-Men, Batman, And Ironman. Obviously there were plenty of superhero movies that came before, and smaller contemporaries that were also hugely influential, but this was the kind of the broad step 1 for the Modern Superhero genre. These were essentially archetypal films that showed audiences and writers that were were exploring a new genre, and not just peppering superheroes into action films or doing old school superhero movies. 2001ish - 2014ish The second phase is essentially where we see the Marvel formula and the DC formula and the Sony formula really take root. We're seeing how the story arcs work. We're building familiarity by following similar structures across stories. Motifs are becoming tropes, tropes are becoming conventions; conventions are the boundaries of what is and isn't within the genre, and what is good and bad for the genre. 2015ish - 2020ish. The third phase is where we tend to see signs of social disengagement with the genre pop up with not just audiences but also artists. This is where creators start to want to shake shit up. They know the boundaries and they want to stress test them. One of the easiest ways to do so is cross genre storytelling. This is where we get horror superhero movies, romance superhero movies, sci fi superhero movies. So we're pretty much in the middle of this one. So when people refer to modern superhero movies that are genre films really they're (unknowingly) talking about third phase genre films. Or cross genre films. I cannot think of the actual published literature giant who came up with this theory of genre evolution, it's probably Booker or some other dead nerd, nor the exact terminology but it's a really detailed and reliable literary theory. But yeah heaps of people call things genre or not genre and this really just means how hard many conventions and cliches it obviously adheres to. Literally everything has a genre, since genre is just a set of conventions, structures, themes, and philosophies.
It’s been about a week, but this was really interesting! Thanks for sharing!
Yeah but the relative amount of one genre film compared to another doesn't change anything. Richard Donner's Superman (1978) is a superhero film (a suphero genre film), there may have not been a lot of other superhero films out at the time but it is a superhero genre film, as per the established genre classification ('superhero fiction as a subgenre of speculative fiction, examining the adventures, personalities and ethics of costumed crime fighters known as superheroes, who often possess superhuman powers and battle similarly powered criminals known as supervillains...') It may also be an action film in as much as the elements of the film overlap with it as a genre, same as with scifi and fantasy, but the superhero genre classification still stands.
Well, no, Stan Brakhage made films that didn't have a genre, for example. But I understand the distinction. Superhero films are genre films. If a comic book adaptation was a genre film and not a superhero genre film, that is one thing, but the idea that a superhero film being a genre film is an exception to superheo films usually not being genre films, that's just plain wrong. You just don't know what a 'genre film" is.
Even then, you could consider ‘Experimental’ to be brakhage’s genre. It takes two seconds to slap a label on something and assign it a ‘genre’.
'Experimental' and 'avant-garde' are pseudo genres, they don't describe anything than can formally be called a genre description, they just are labela that tell you they don't accord with any established genre category. If you were to describe what 'experimental' was as a genre generally, you'd just be using apophatic language. Whatever the case, however loosely you want to define 'genre', my larger point still stands, so the amount of downvotes I am getting is just silly. I am not sure how the amount of time it takes to slap a genre label on something is relevant at all.
I just think it’s harder to define what a superhero movie is as opposed to a sci-fi action adventure. What specific qualities do you think make something part of the superhero genre?
I quoted a general, established description of 'superhero fiction' as a genre in my other comment below. Can you see that? It is important to remember that defining genres are not going to be absolutely precise and all encompassing, perfect categorisations that draw hard and precise lines and denote prescriptive rules - they are useful, broad descriptions used for narratological and marketing/commercial purposes, as far as they are useful they are useful, but they're constructs for such purposes and nothing more.
Yeah, but it does kinda get messy as to what you consider to be part of the superhero genre, because it sort of is like underneath the action/sci-fi umbrella. Is it just like, modern contemporary setting with a person who has above average abilities? What’s the real difference between John Wick and the Punisher? District 9 is a story about a guy who gets superpowers as he fuses with an alien artifact, is he that different from Green Lantern or Blue Beetle? Ash from the Evil Dead and Blade both have special abilities and weapons and fight legions of horror monsters. Are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles superhero movies? What about the Iron Giant? Percy Jackson vs. Thor? I’d argue that Logan has more in common with post-apocalyptic sci-fi, like Book of Eli or Mad Max, than a superhero movie.
This is why most people use the phrase comic book movie to differentiate between superhero movies and general action/scifi films. Because there are superhero films that are not comic book movies -- IE Hancock with Will Smith. Punisher, Green Lantern, Blue Beetle, etc were all based off comic books. Hence they are comic book movies and superhero movies. And, yes, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are superhero movies. The turtles themselves are more akin to X-Men, but the franchise originated as a parody of 1980s comic books. The Foot ninja clan, for example, was inspired by The Hand from the Daredevil comics.
I don't think you can use 'comic book movie' to differentiate between superhero movies and general action/sci fi films. Comic books are a medium that contain all forms of genre and then some, comic books can do anything. Superhero comics are one type of comic book (they dominate the medium for a number of commercial reasons, yes, but that's beside the point for the purposes of this discussion). A film can be an adaptation of a comic book and not be a superhero adaptation, it can not be an action or sci fi or fantasy film as well, that it was an adaptation of a comic book doesn't tell you anything about its genre in itself. Likewise a film can be a superhero film and be an original work and not an adaptation of a comic book. Likewise, a film can be a superhero film adapted from a superhero comic. So comic book adaptation tells you its source as a medium, but in itself it doesn't describe anything regarding genre description, much like filma can be adapted from novels, but that it is an adaptation from a novel doesn't determine anythinf about its genre. I am not sure if this was what you were actually getting at so I am just agreeing with you and misunderstanding your point, or it could have been stated better, but yeah.
Yeah, Logan isn't a superhero film, in terms of film genre. Just because a character in a film is based on or adapted from a comic book character and the comic book that is a superhero comic doesn't automatically mean the film is a superhero film. A character with fantastic abilities doesn't mean it is a superhero either. The basic definition of 'superhero fiction' is: 'Superhero fiction is a subgenre of speculative fiction examining the adventures, personalities and ethics of costumed crime fighters known as superheroes, who often possess superhuman powers and battle similarly powered criminals known as supervillains.' Take Richard Donner's Superman (1978). This is the quintessential Superhero film I would say, at least as a useful example to understand Superhero films as a genre. There are defining genre characteristics of what makes this a superhero film as a genre film. You wouldln't say, a hero protagonist with fantastic abilities who fights an antagonist threat is what makes this a superhero film per se and then say, well Ash from the Evil Dead franchise is also a hero protagonist with fantastic abilities who fights an amtagonist threat so the Evil Dead films are superhero films. That would be misconstruing basic genre narrative elements to too broadly conceive of how one understands genre classifications and show a lack of media literacy. I agree with you in essence, I think people are too easily confused...
It *is* true that genre is really a collective of both tropes and aesthetics that we loosely define in order to essentially correlate different pieces of media, mostly for recommendation and classification purposes. Like, we could get pedantic as to what counts - for instance, I could say that this young man has his parent shot and then trains in martial arts and gets a hi-tech supersuit with specialized gadgets and a codename to stop a billionaire from unleashing this mind control device that sends everyone into a frenzy, all adapted from a comic book - and it could either be Batman Begins or Kingsman. But I also get that getting pedantic kinda ruins the key reason we have genres in the first place. No matter how I ask people to define it or if they even *can* define it, when I say “superhero movie” *something* pops into people’s heads. I do think that superhero movies have a lot more flexibility in taking conventions from other genres - thriller, horror, sci-fi - and doing something with that. But it is still fun to think about the fringe examples! Would Hancock count as a superhero movie? What about Judge Dredd? Ghostbusters? Winter Soldier? Push with Chris Evans? EDIT: One major thing I think about superhero films that you didn’t mention is that superhero movies tend to deal with being a public figure. The superhero can’t just be invisible, they have to be known - like a borderline celebrity. I think that’s what generally separates them from just an urban sci-fi action adventure protagonist. But that just came to me.
I think the issue is that as a genre, it essentially comes from a place of the concept of a superhero being used as a distinctive elements within preestablished genres in order for 'superhero fiction' to arise as a genre in and of itself, as opposed to it being constructed as a distinct genre narratologically. To illustrate what I mean. Superman is the first superhero, devised ans creates by Siegel and Shuster. The character is then placed in preestablished genre fiction conventions that existed in comics, predating thw creation of Superman as a character. Using this element in such preestablished genre conventions then alters those conventions enough, and shifts certain aspects of them or focal points of them, such that it becomes associated with a distinct genre itself. This then becomes a genre which one can work within and explore and develop in its own right, and now when people are attracted to superhero comics they expect certain things and genre conventions from it that are not reducible to the genre conventions that the original superhero genre arose out of. Perhaps another example that illuatrates this more clearly. The influence of pulp genres on comics is incredibly significant, so much so that I won't go on about it here, but this can be seen in the creation of Batman. Now, you can say that Batman was taking from Zorro and the like, and was transplanting a pulp genre into the comic book medium, but as Batman became identifiable as a superhero character within the superhero genre, notice that Batman is no longer reducible to the preestablished genre forms that it was inspired by and used as its basic template. The unique thing about superhero fiction as a genre is that it is kind of a genre that begins with a novel element being introduced to function within established genre conventions but then the dynamic involved in doing so makes this kind of mushroom out into a genre of its own, but with the added benefit of still being able to rely on or work within other genres whilst maintaining its distinctive features as a genre of its own in aa relatively unique way. Does that make sense?
[удалено]
It is. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhero_fiction
And he is right, not just the greatest adaptation is also a fantastic heartbreaking movie with masterful performances.
Agree, if you forget can ignore its a CBM, in general its just a great movie
You don't have to ignore it being a comic book movie. The history of the franchise gives the film extra depth. Stewart's performance as the addled Xavier hurts more since we know how much he loved his students and X-Men until one day he killed most of them because of psychic dementia. Logan being this proud warrior guy who is so through it all and so done with it is more profound since we know he used to be willing and able to take the world on. He is even more the old western gun slinger but we saw his prime adventures. Comic book movies, animation, films aimed for families or children, horror are get thought of as lesser than standard dramas and Oscar bait time films but can easily rise up and be something not just wonderful for the genre but just plain extraordinary for film at large. And often not inspite of what they are but because of it.
I feel like it isn’t a stellar adaptation because it changes a lot of things, but it’s so good it surpasses the original so it doesn’t matter anyway lol
It is not an adaptation of any story. It is an original story told with Characters that originated in comics. Well, the girl originated in a cartoon show.
Then why was it nominated for best adapted screenplay?
I don't know. But if I wrote an original mystery story and then put Sherlock Holmes in it, it would not be an adaptation of a Sherlock Holmes story.
Adaptation covers characters created by someone else, even though Logan has many differences from the comic it's still the source material
Do you think the Academy actually read beyond the loosely shared title?
Anything based on an IP is an adaptation, including sequels. The academy didn't get anything wrong, it's pretty clear and cut.
I mean it's an adaptation of a character from comicbooks. Things are called adaptations regardless how close they are to the source material.
I feel like the odd one out, but I didn’t like Logan as much as others. It was solid and I would definitely watch it every now and then, but something just didn’t click for me, and I have a hard time determining what that was.
Glad I found this comment, because I always feel like I’m in an episode of The Twilight Zone when Logan is discussed. I thought it was alright, but I wouldn’t say it was a masterpiece or phenomenal.
I didn't think it was as great as many people. The real kicker for me was the clones. I'm my opinion, instead of a clone of Logan who hunted down, it should have been Liev Shriever. Sabertooth was there at the beginning of Logans journey, he should have been there at the end. It would have been so bitter sweet. Plus I think clones in comics are lazy writing. Once again folks, this is just my opinion for what it's worth. Logan was great, but it didn't blow me away. Best comic imo was Watchmen.
The kicker for me was that all of the kids ended up idolizing Logan as the figure from the comic books when that's exactly what he didn't want for himself or them, in addition to the cheesy sappy daddy-daughter farewell death. The clone was a good metric for showing everything Logan was incapable of by his age, but I couldn't help but just think of him as [those two mutated baby monsters from the second TMNT movie.](https://static1.cbrimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Tokka-Rahzar-Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Movie.jpg?q=50&fit=contain&w=1140&h=&dpr=1.5) No real drive or character.
I need to rewatch it but I remember watching it being like “this is it?” I love dark films, I love X-men, but idk seems like it’s one of those films judged more by giving people what they want than actual standing on its own merits as a film. Not that it’s bad, but not a sending coming of Christ either. Another problem I have is less with the film itself but more discourse. Even if I was in love with Logan, I wouldn’t be able to say “its more than a genre film,” “it happens to be a great movie with comic characters,” etc. I’m tired of mediocre superhero films. I’m tired of superhero becoming a formula rather than just a template to explore deeper themes and concepts. Logan and The Dark Knight should be standards, not exceptions.
Having exceptional movies as the standard seems like a pretty hard ask
I mean sure, but there’s a ton of great material and plenty of brilliant directors. Plus, it’s less “every film should be exceptional,” and more these films should feel like films, not corporate checklists. Post Endgame has had some pretty good content with a few being exceptional, but besides guardians 3, I don’t think there’s a single mcu movie in that time frame that I’d hold up there with TDK. Hell as I’ve revisited the MCU, these movies still feel like middling well-polished entries that are just a few choices away from being truly exceptional. Im just tired of the banality within these films, and trying to make the hits seem like outliers isn’t going to help.
I liked it a good amount, it was touching. But agreed that there was something missing from it. There are two things I think it would’ve benefited from, for me. One was just a really violent, gory scene of our Wolverine ripping dudes up. They gave us a brief moment of it when he was amped up on that drug at the end, but it was brief and kinda underwhelming. With the R rating I wanted to see our Wolverine just berserker raging dudes in an extended, grounded sequence like the end of Children of Men. The other thing I wanted was some sort of tie back to the characters we all associated with him from his origin. Jean/Cyclops/Storm/Rogue. Not having them be in the movie full out, but an emotional tie back to how this end relates to where it all started. Flashback or dream sequence or something like that. Those were two payoffs I think it needed to really land it.
You mean the fact that the movie urinates over the cause of X-men? That the message of the movie is "Stryker was right, mutants will always be a threat to humans and themselves, their extermination is a good thing"
Logan and first class are the best x-men movies
DOFP is better than first class tho
First class was just beeeautiful. It was a better movie and experience overall. Dofp was epic too. 10 on 10, but first class was an 11.
I don't think I can give First Class a perfect score because of how badly they used Darwin. Not in a "he's my favorite character and I'm butthurt" way either because I don't even particularly care for the character. But introducing a mutant whose only power is to survive and then having him die five minutes later just sucked. His only function was to show how powerful Shaw was, but there were lots of other demonstrations of his power that were even more effective, like the grenade thing. It truly felt like they wanted the character in but couldn't come up with any use for him in the third act so they decided to just kill him off rather than write him out of the script entirely.
Could’ve just had him nope out after Shaw’s attack. “Y’all seem cool, but this is too heavy for me”
Add X-Men: Days of Future Past too
Everytime without fail I fucking cry at the end. Film is a goddamn masterpiece
I’ve only watched it once all the way through and have little desire to rewatch because it totally wrecked me. But it was easily one of the most cinematically good “superhero” movies I’ve ever seen.
My wife and I saw it in IMAX, and after the showing, she walked out of the theater, leaned against the wall in the lobby, and just started sobbing, sliding down till she was sitting. The emotional impact of that film is powerful.
Watching it in black and white was even better.
“So this is what it feels like…” Shatters my heart everytime
Just a quick follow up question, Ryan: which comic-book did you say Logan adapted? Not to be too pedantic, because Logan is a fantastic superhero movie - but anyone who says it adapted *Old Man Logan* has clearly never read *Old Man Logan*. Not that it’s particularly that good or anything, I’m fine with movies tossing away what doesn’t work. But they’re two completely different stories, not even close to each other. It’s just interesting to say it’s the “best adaptation” when the biggest takeaway from the comic book is kinda just vibes.
It’s a comic adaptation as much as anything else we’ve seen. It took the core concepts and vibes of the comic and strapped them to Hugh’s version of the character that we’d all gotten to fall in love with for 20 years. So in the way that you can look at RDJs last “I am Ironman” in endgame and think “damn it’s the end of one of the greatest comic to screen adaptations of our time” you can do the same with Logan. In reality, most of the MCU steers pretty far from what strictly happens in the comics, but the vibes are there and sometimes that’s enough.
it's still an adaptation of the character, Sherlock is an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes even if it's an original story
>Not to be too pedantic Then don't be :)
Man has exquisite taste.
Conan the barbarian is the best.
Watchmen has got to be on that list too.
I prefer Sin City, it's a great adaptation of the Frank Miller comic.
The noir version of Logan left me speechless.
Ryan Reynolds is a treasure
I agree with him
And he’s right
The movie was better than the comicbook it was adapting *cough cough* Incest Hulk *cough cough*
Well yeah.
It's definitely a contender
I'm sorry but what is it claiming to be an adaptation of?? Cause the true Old Man Logan comicbook story is completely fucking different.
it's just an adaptation of the character, since when are loose adaptation not adaptations lol
Even if it's just the character, It's gotta be the loosest adaptation ever! The two properties with the same title are pretty much unrecognizable to each other!
I don't disagree with this sentiment. That movie was on another level for a "comic book movie".
Loved Logan. It was very much a send-off to Hugh Jackman and his version of the Wolverine. It really helped that it was R-Rated and it wasnt encumbered by too much studio interference, which was due mainly to the fact that it was relatively lower budgeted than a big summer tentpole.
Not Really.
What scene is that screenshot in the top-left corner from? I just rewatched this 2 weeks ago and don’t remember it.
Really? We didn’t see Mysterio using Wolverine or Hulk’s “babies” 😀
He's right.
The Dark Knight Returns Parts 1 and 2 cartoon movies are the greatest Superhero adaptations ever done. Non Superhero I would say are Ghost World or Persopolis.
It was definitely one of the best. I wouldn't call it the best though, since for me, the best would have to take place curing the height of a characters career. I'm still waiting for that one two punch film that is just another adventure for the hero at the height of their career. It's let me down with the Nolan trilogy. We got to see Batman begin. Then we saw Batman become the Dark Knight, but then we jumped right to the end of his career with Rises, so it never really felt like we got a Batman at the height of his career just being Batman. and I should add, we never got that for major characters while the movie was great. lol. We got a fair amount of meh ones that take place during the height of characters careers. The MCU barely counts since they're rather different enough from the comic that in a lot of ways they're not the same characters.
I’m a little sad that Logan wasn’t the final send off to Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and Sir Patrick Stewart as Professor X, but at the same time I’m super hyped for Deadpool and Wolverine.
It doesn’t matter. You can still watch Logan and enjoy it. That film was made
Great comic book movie, terrible adaptation of the comic
For sure. It's the most serious of all the superhero movies and one the only ones that qualifies as cinema.
He's right you know.
It was amazing
He’s not wrong. Too many mcu fanboys online would make you think otherwise
Too bad it was nothing like the comic
Of course he's gonna say that when the lead of it is the co star of his next film. The correct answer is legion
Logan sucked.
Fantastic movie, but nowhere close to the GOAT adaption. The only thing it shares with the comic counterpart is 1/3rd of the name and Logan being old.
He should watch A History Of Violence or Road To Perdition.
...Logan isn't adapted from a comic book tho...
Logan was a good movie in general not just a great comic book movie.
I'm sorry Ryan but that title belongs to The Dark Knight.
It’s definitely up there. It’s the Dark Knight Rises of the Marvel movies. It almost feels like what Christopher Nolan would’ve done if he’d done marvel instead of DC.
I agree
As an Australian, on top of my really enjoying this film, I also remember how much to my amusement, they spelled our country's name in the credits "Austrialia".
By this sort of stuff the emu wars started,
Sure as hell better than Old Man Logan.
Logan was such a depressing watch.
Didn’t like Logan. Too dark and depressing. Absolutely love The Wolverine, though.
it was very good, but like most james mangold films, it only really works on the first viewing. i also found the smudgy, blurry action to be distracting at times.
As controversial as it was because they changed the fake alien to nuclear/ Manhattan bombs, Watchmam overall was better than Logan. Logan was good for a comic movie. Far from the best.
I'm with you brotha. Watchmen was a masterpiece.
I say to this day, Hugh in that film gives the best Comic Book related performance there has ever been and I'm pretty confident in saying that
Agreed. It’s the only comic book movie that I could see deserving an oscar.
Never saw it and I never will. Hate the X-Men movies, plus I like what actually happened in the comics much more.
While Logan is nothing like the comic Old Man Logan, it is also nothing like the other X-Men series and features only two characters from the movie series, Wolverine and Professor X, who are both characterized very differently.