CBM
"If you, as a "serious" filmmaker, think you put more love into your characters than the Russo Brothers do Captain America...or I do a talking raccoon, you are simply mistaken." Hit the jump for more of James Gunn's thoughts on the recent wave of superhero movie bashing...
The world of DC films is certainly never boring as fans are now debating the difference between James Gunn and Zack Snyder's movies. But how do they compare as directors? Let's take a look.
How many Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 post credits scenes are there in the movie? Do they hint at the Guardians' heroic future in the galaxy? Read on to find out the answers!
It's been a hot minute since James Gunn and Peter Safran were announced as the co-CEOs of DC Studios. Since then, Gunn has been active on Twitter - maybe to his own detriment.
Shots fired!
But I can understand where he's coming from. Heck, even Birdman played to that tune here and there.
It seems like the snobbish just want to point at the sub-genre as "everything that's wrong with filmmaking today" just because that's the thing to do.
Being in a Media Production course at Uni I can tell you that there is a lot of young film makers who hate on the Super hero genre because it's "Big Old Hollywood" with their "Big explosions" and same old "we're going to save the world" plots. Not everyone does but some people can scoff at you if you mention how much you like Avengers or The Winter Soldier and say how you thought Lincoln, Selma or Boyhood were boring.
It comes off kind of snobbish to me, these are the same guys where for our 10 minute short films they were either about a "Drug user", "An Alcoholic", "A wife beater" or "I'm depressed and hate my life" film...it was so depressing. Yet people looked at me funny because our group did a comedy film about two characters who can't open a safe at the top of an office building and since the lift doesn't work have to carry it down the stairs facing all kinds of obstacles...the catch at the end being the lift actually does work and the safe is empty. Evil eye looks...everywhere, it was unreal. It's a 10 minute film guys have fun with it.
So in my opinion I don't think it's just the Superhero genre, it's light hearted, warm, comedy films which don't take themselves seriously. It's like if you do one of them you are looked at like you do Adam Sandler films.
I really feel people make these serious, drama based films because they are so vain they want to be seen as this serious, professional film maker but for me it's just about having fun and create crazy worlds.
My thing is the this, movies were made to entertain before anything else. The silent films, the animations, etc... their first purpose was to make people laugh or enjoy themselves.
The only "artsy" ones were the ones to simply showcase film was possible, and it was those walk up machines.
The whole art twist is so stupid. There are multiple aspects to a good movie, simply doing a film "properly" is not correct. A good example is "The Tale of the Princess" animation they nominated. Absolutely awesome art and sound, but the animation itself was horrible, therefore it didn't deserve to win.
The Oscars though would be like "but it has good artistic talent!!!"
I have no problem with exploitation or genre pictures, but this argument is just ridiculous. Superhero films are fun because they are dumb entertainment, and there is nothing wrong with that. Very few have the actual depth or dimension of most Oscar contenders. (I would argue that Tilda Swinton, who starred in the comic book adaptation Snowpiercer, deserved a nom)