|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jan 24, 2018 23:25:23 GMT
Logan leans closer to something like Cowboys and Aliens. Or if you set The Magnificent Seven in modern times so they have cars instead of horses. I mean, if you didn't associate Logan with X-men, changed all their names and gave Logan another power, would you still see it as a superhero movie? I see it as a modern day western that happens to have people with super powers. Like a movie based on an anime where they blend genres and time periods (ex. Cowboy Bebop). Logan goes further beyond that line of genre flipping than The Dark Knight. If I gave the superhero lead of this superhero movie a different superpower, would I still consider it a superhero movie? Yes. And asking me to hypothesize if the film weren't associated with X-Men is a lot, since the film continues themes and character arcs set up in the first eight movies and even references the comic book source material in literal form (which I don't think has even been done before). There is no mistaking this for a non-X-Men movie. No, I'm saying to think of it as a totally different movie that is not based on comics, give the people powers (magic or otherwise), and give it the same story (a dying man, taking care of a mentally ill old man, who's past catches up to him when he finds he has a daughter) and art direction. Would you see it as a superhero movie? Or will you just say yes to go against my point? I mean, it's like saying that Bright is a superhero movie. Push is a movie about a world that has people with superpowers, but that is not a superhero movie. Oh and Logan doesn't reference the source material. It's a world where the X-men are a known unknown. They made them into comics. That comic in the movie is not an actual comic. It was made for the movie. Heroes kinda did the same thing by having a comic book artist predict the future and put them in comics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 0:17:55 GMT
If I gave the superhero lead of this superhero movie a different superpower, would I still consider it a superhero movie? Yes. And asking me to hypothesize if the film weren't associated with X-Men is a lot, since the film continues themes and character arcs set up in the first eight movies and even references the comic book source material in literal form (which I don't think has even been done before). There is no mistaking this for a non-X-Men movie. No, I'm saying to think of it as a totally different movie that is not based on comics, give the people powers (magic or otherwise), and give it the same story (a dying man, taking care of a mentally ill old man, who's past catches up to him when he finds he has a daughter) and art direction. Would you see it as a superhero movie? Or will you just say yes to go against my point? I mean, it's like saying that Bright is a superhero movie. Push is a movie about a world that has people with superpowers, but that is not a superhero movie. Oh and Logan doesn't reference the source material. It's a world where the X-men are a known unknown. They made them into comics. That comic in the movie is not an actual comic. It was made for the movie. Heroes kinda did the same thing by having a comic book artist predict the future and put them in comics. Okay, it references the comics, but not a specific issue that exists. I mean, kind of splitting hairs there. It'd be awfully damn weird for your non-superhero western where everyone just happens to have superpowers but aren't superheroes for some reason to use superhero comics as a major plot point. I haven't seen Push or Bright, but I understand the latter is like Training Day with orcs. Would you say it's not a fantasy because it's more like a buddy cop/race drama? Your argument only really works if Wolverine doesn't act like Wolverine, Xavier doesn't act like Xavier, and the mutants aren't treated like mutants. But that's not the case. It takes comic book superheroes and puts them in a western-like story. No one is arguing differently. My argument is that putting superheroes into different genres isn't new, on film nor on paper, and that the superhero genre is so diverse that it doesn't even have a set structure outside of "movies with superheroes in it". I'd be interested in hearing how you yourself actually define a superhero movie. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jan 25, 2018 0:49:34 GMT
No, I'm saying to think of it as a totally different movie that is not based on comics, give the people powers (magic or otherwise), and give it the same story (a dying man, taking care of a mentally ill old man, who's past catches up to him when he finds he has a daughter) and art direction. Would you see it as a superhero movie? Or will you just say yes to go against my point? I mean, it's like saying that Bright is a superhero movie. Push is a movie about a world that has people with superpowers, but that is not a superhero movie. Oh and Logan doesn't reference the source material. It's a world where the X-men are a known unknown. They made them into comics. That comic in the movie is not an actual comic. It was made for the movie. Heroes kinda did the same thing by having a comic book artist predict the future and put them in comics. Okay, it references the comics, but not a specific issue that exists. I mean, kind of splitting hairs there. It'd be awfully damn weird for your non-superhero western where everyone just happens to have superpowers but aren't superheroes for some reason to use superhero comics as a major plot point. I haven't seen Push or Bright, but I understand the latter is like Training Day with orcs. Would you say it's not a fantasy because it's more like a buddy cop/race drama? Your argument only really works if Wolverine doesn't act like Wolverine, Xavier doesn't act like Xavier, and the mutants aren't treated like mutants. But that's not the case. It takes comic book superheroes and puts them in a western-like story. No one is arguing differently. My argument is that putting superheroes into different genres isn't new, on film nor on paper, and that the superhero genre is so diverse that it doesn't even have a set structure outside of "movies with superheroes in it". I'd be interested in hearing how you yourself actually define a superhero movie. What I'm saying is that it doesn't reference the comics, but uses the fact that the X-men legend became popular. It's like someone making fictionalized stories about 9-11 first responders and giving them adventures and superhero suits. Yes, these people existed, but like Logan said, it didn't happen like that. That comic can be seen more like and inside Easter egg joke to comics fans. And why would that be weird that they have comics in a world where people have powers, but they aren't superheroes? It's called hero worship. Fantasizing about something that isn't like that. Bright is what is called urban fantasy. It modernizes the fantasy genre. It's like taking Lord of the Rings and putting it in today's setting. So, yes, I wouldn't call Bright fantasy. But they aren't superheroes. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller, but it is still a superhero movie first. Justice League is an alien invasion movie, but it is still a superhero movie first. Logan (and even The Wolverine) flip that. Logan is a western using people with super powers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 1:02:05 GMT
Okay, it references the comics, but not a specific issue that exists. I mean, kind of splitting hairs there. It'd be awfully damn weird for your non-superhero western where everyone just happens to have superpowers but aren't superheroes for some reason to use superhero comics as a major plot point. I haven't seen Push or Bright, but I understand the latter is like Training Day with orcs. Would you say it's not a fantasy because it's more like a buddy cop/race drama? Your argument only really works if Wolverine doesn't act like Wolverine, Xavier doesn't act like Xavier, and the mutants aren't treated like mutants. But that's not the case. It takes comic book superheroes and puts them in a western-like story. No one is arguing differently. My argument is that putting superheroes into different genres isn't new, on film nor on paper, and that the superhero genre is so diverse that it doesn't even have a set structure outside of "movies with superheroes in it". I'd be interested in hearing how you yourself actually define a superhero movie. Bright is what is called urban fantasy. It modernizes the fantasy genre. It's like taking Lord of the Rings and putting it in today's setting. So, yes, I wouldn't call Bright fantasy. But they aren't superheroes. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller, but it is still a superhero movie first. Justice League is an alien invasion movie, but it is still a superhero movie first. Logan (and even The Wolverine) flip that. Logan is a western using people with super powers. Was that a typo? How are they not? Captain America is more a spy than Logan is a cowboy. And you dodged my last question there. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jan 25, 2018 1:10:22 GMT
Bright is what is called urban fantasy. It modernizes the fantasy genre. It's like taking Lord of the Rings and putting it in today's setting. So, yes, I wouldn't call Bright fantasy. But they aren't superheroes. Winter Soldier is a spy thriller, but it is still a superhero movie first. Justice League is an alien invasion movie, but it is still a superhero movie first. Logan (and even The Wolverine) flip that. Logan is a western using people with super powers. Was that a typo? How are they not? Captain America is more a spy than Logan is a cowboy. And you dodged my last question there. Yeah I realized that and edited. You must have seen and clicked on the unedited just before. Even before "Logan", Logan was a cowboy. lol Hugh Jackman even imitates Eastwood for his portrayal of Wolverine. And as for your last section. Logan is a western with a sub-genre of superhero. Whereas a movie like Winter Soldier is a superhero movie with a sub-genre of spy thriller. The only reason that Logan even gets a sub-genre of superhero is because the character comes from a superhero comic. Again, having powers in your movie does not make it a superhero movie. I did not dodge your last question. You just didn't understand it I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jan 25, 2018 3:01:40 GMT
No, I'm saying to think of it as a totally different movie that is not based on comics, give the people powers (magic or otherwise), and give it the same story (a dying man, taking care of a mentally ill old man, who's past catches up to him when he finds he has a daughter) and art direction. Would you see it as a superhero movie? Or will you just say yes to go against my point? I mean, it's like saying that Bright is a superhero movie. Push is a movie about a world that has people with superpowers, but that is not a superhero movie. Oh and Logan doesn't reference the source material. It's a world where the X-men are a known unknown. They made them into comics. That comic in the movie is not an actual comic. It was made for the movie. Heroes kinda did the same thing by having a comic book artist predict the future and put them in comics. Okay, it references the comics, but not a specific issue that exists. I mean, kind of splitting hairs there. It'd be awfully damn weird for your non-superhero western where everyone just happens to have superpowers but aren't superheroes for some reason to use superhero comics as a major plot point. I haven't seen Push or Bright, but I understand the latter is like Training Day with orcs. Would you say it's not a fantasy because it's more like a buddy cop/race drama? Your argument only really works if Wolverine doesn't act like Wolverine, Xavier doesn't act like Xavier, and the mutants aren't treated like mutants. But that's not the case. It takes comic book superheroes and puts them in a western-like story. No one is arguing differently. My argument is that putting superheroes into different genres isn't new, on film nor on paper, and that the superhero genre is so diverse that it doesn't even have a set structure outside of "movies with superheroes in it". I'd be interested in hearing how you yourself actually define a superhero movie. MCU fans define superheroes movies with jokes and explosions, because that is how marvel makes them. however if you pick up the average good xmen book or batman book, things are a lot different. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2018 3:13:25 GMT
Was that a typo? How are they not? Captain America is more a spy than Logan is a cowboy. And you dodged my last question there. Yeah I realized that and edited. You must have seen and clicked on the unedited just before. Even before "Logan", Logan was a cowboy. lol Hugh Jackman even imitates Eastwood for his portrayal of Wolverine. And as for your last section. Logan is a western with a sub-genre of superhero. Whereas a movie like Winter Soldier is a superhero movie with a sub-genre of spy thriller. The only reason that Logan even gets a sub-genre of superhero is because the character comes from a superhero comic. Again, having powers in your movie does not make it a superhero movie. I did not dodge your last question. You just didn't understand it I guess. I asked you to define what a superhero movie is to you. Two posts later, you still have not done so. Winter Soldier is about a spy who uncovers a conspiracy in the government while fighting an old comrade who's been brainwashed. It brings to mind Three Days of the Condor, Manchurian Candidate, All The President's Men, Bourne, and a half-dozen others before I think of anything with a superhero in it. And I think "literal spy" trumps "Clint Eastwood impression". |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jan 25, 2018 3:20:36 GMT
Was that a typo? How are they not? Captain America is more a spy than Logan is a cowboy. And you dodged my last question there. Yeah I realized that and edited. You must have seen and clicked on the unedited just before. Even before "Logan", Logan was a cowboy. lol Hugh Jackman even imitates Eastwood for his portrayal of Wolverine. And as for your last section. Logan is a western with a sub-genre of superhero. Whereas a movie like Winter Soldier is a superhero movie with a sub-genre of spy thriller. The only reason that Logan even gets a sub-genre of superhero is because the character comes from a superhero comic. Again, having powers in your movie does not make it a superhero movie. I did not dodge your last question. You just didn't understand it I guess. I think your recent comments is the reason MCU movies lost so much credibility. Have you seen Batman:Gotham by Gaslight animation? its a batman animated movie but has a Victorian Noir background setting and guess what? it is still a superhero movie. the term superhero lore is not defined by costumes, fighting scenes, cartoonish look or thin plots and lack of good drama. that is a Disney MCU thing, since that was the formula that made MCU the most money. And we wonder why DC animations is killing it right now as all MCU cartoons head for cancellation. Logan is a superhero movie as much as it is a western. superhero movies combined many genres as long as the source material was thematic and did the same. New mutants will be a superhero movie as much as it will play out as a psychological horror. Deadpool is a superhero movie as much as it was a satire comedy. Deadpool even mocked all the superhero cliches seen in mcu movies, DOFP was a superhero movie as much as it was a drama sci-fi thriller or a dystopian movie. Batman Begins, TDK was a superhero movie as much as it was a cop drama. Don't confuse any of these movies to the typical generic superhero movies like avengers or iron man. Please just say what formershamd does. they are all ashamed. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jan 25, 2018 3:30:41 GMT
Yeah I realized that and edited. You must have seen and clicked on the unedited just before. Even before "Logan", Logan was a cowboy. lol Hugh Jackman even imitates Eastwood for his portrayal of Wolverine. And as for your last section. Logan is a western with a sub-genre of superhero. Whereas a movie like Winter Soldier is a superhero movie with a sub-genre of spy thriller. The only reason that Logan even gets a sub-genre of superhero is because the character comes from a superhero comic. Again, having powers in your movie does not make it a superhero movie. I did not dodge your last question. You just didn't understand it I guess. I asked you to define what a superhero movie is to you. Two posts later, you still have not done so. Winter Soldier is about a spy who uncovers a conspiracy in the government while fighting an old comrade who's been brainwashed. It brings to mind Three Days of the Condor, Manchurian Candidate, All The President's Men, Bourne, and a half-dozen others before I think of anything with a superhero in it. And I think "literal spy" trumps "Clint Eastwood impression". Winter Solider for 2/3 of the movie played out as a generic good spy movie because of the over predictable plot but still a step up from the average mcu movie. winter solider crumbled in the end because of the ooc fight explosion scenes and predictable plot. they could have done better with Bucky and Alexander Pearce story arc by not making it too obvious. You asked him to define the term but he won't. he has a big pattern of factually lying . so don't waste your time, but its good to see you are not buying into the bs. to him superhero movies is how mcu makes them but one has to wonder why the mcu movies did more harm to the superhero genre than helped it, to the point that a person now needs to make an anti mcu movie to score a big oscar nomination or have their comic movies taken seriously, even film directors like Bryan Singer and Christopher Nolan said the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 3:35:16 GMT
Okay, it references the comics, but not a specific issue that exists. I mean, kind of splitting hairs there. It'd be awfully damn weird for your non-superhero western where everyone just happens to have superpowers but aren't superheroes for some reason to use superhero comics as a major plot point. I haven't seen Push or Bright, but I understand the latter is like Training Day with orcs. Would you say it's not a fantasy because it's more like a buddy cop/race drama? Your argument only really works if Wolverine doesn't act like Wolverine, Xavier doesn't act like Xavier, and the mutants aren't treated like mutants. But that's not the case. It takes comic book superheroes and puts them in a western-like story. No one is arguing differently. My argument is that putting superheroes into different genres isn't new, on film nor on paper, and that the superhero genre is so diverse that it doesn't even have a set structure outside of "movies with superheroes in it". I'd be interested in hearing how you yourself actually define a superhero movie. MCU fans define superheroes movies As something unashamed. Which Fox has yet to give us. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 3:36:32 GMT
Yeah I realized that and edited. You must have seen and clicked on the unedited just before. Even before "Logan", Logan was a cowboy. lol Hugh Jackman even imitates Eastwood for his portrayal of Wolverine. And as for your last section. Logan is a western with a sub-genre of superhero. Whereas a movie like Winter Soldier is a superhero movie with a sub-genre of spy thriller. The only reason that Logan even gets a sub-genre of superhero is because the character comes from a superhero comic. Again, having powers in your movie does not make it a superhero movie. I did not dodge your last question. You just didn't understand it I guess. Have you seen Batman:Gotham by Gaslight animation? Yeah, not impressed. Their Killing Joke adaptation wasn't much good either. You DO know that the Disney Spider-Man cartoon got renewed? Ashamed. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 3:37:44 GMT
Winter Solider for 2/3 of the movie played out as a generic good spy movie because of the over predictable plot You want predictable, look at DOFP. You know as well as I do that Logan got the Nom out of pity. |
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jan 25, 2018 5:28:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 12:37:39 GMT
Jackman and Stewarts' last time in the saddle. Same reason Unforgiven was treated like it was the first Deconstruction of the Western when truth be told it was first deconstructed with "The Wild Bunch". But since Unforgiven was Clint Eastwood's last Western it was treated like it was something more special. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 25, 2018 13:18:14 GMT
Wait, The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay?  Unfortunately no. There was some extreme prejudice towards the film at the Oscars. It was denied Best Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay nominations, which many critics even agreed it's bullshit. I guess they just didn't like the idea of a Comic Book Movie being Oscar worthy. |
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jan 25, 2018 17:06:24 GMT
Jackman and Stewarts' last time in the saddle. Same reason Unforgiven was treated like it was the first Deconstruction of the Western when truth be told it was first deconstructed with "The Wild Bunch". But since Unforgiven was Clint Eastwood's last Western it was treated like it was something more special. So you’re saying the The Dark Knight Rises also got a nom because...oh wait! |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 17:43:06 GMT
Jackman and Stewarts' last time in the saddle. Same reason Unforgiven was treated like it was the first Deconstruction of the Western when truth be told it was first deconstructed with "The Wild Bunch". But since Unforgiven was Clint Eastwood's last Western it was treated like it was something more special. So you’re saying the The Dark Knight Rises also got a nom because...oh wait! It wasn't even seen worth enough to warrant a pity Nom. Plus, Logan is seen as the ending to the FoX-Verse that started in 2000 so it had more time behind it compared to Nolan's mere trilogy. |
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jan 25, 2018 17:54:54 GMT
So you’re saying the The Dark Knight Rises also got a nom because...oh wait! It wasn't even seen worth enough to warrant a pity Nom. Plus, Logan is seen as the ending to the FoX-Verse that started in 2000 so it had more time behind it compared to Nolan's mere trilogy. Source? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 25, 2018 17:56:39 GMT
It wasn't even seen worth enough to warrant a pity Nom. Plus, Logan is seen as the ending to the FoX-Verse that started in 2000 so it had more time behind it compared to Nolan's mere trilogy. Source? The Academy isn't going to outright admit they give Pity Nominations. |
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jan 25, 2018 19:44:41 GMT
The Academy isn't going to outright admit they give Pity Nominations. I’m talking about Logan being the end of the franchise. |
|
