On the eve of the release of the new ‘Godzilla’ movie, Baradwaj Rangan muses about the generic nature of Hollywood’s summer blockbusters.
I watched the new Spider-Man movie last week. I use the word “new” cautiously, for it only refers to this Spider-Man instalment being the one that was released most recently. Otherwise, it’s the same old, same old. There’s a secret from the past. There’s a tragedy in the present. A friend turns foe. There’s comedy, as when Aunt May forbids Peter Parker from doing the laundry because the last time he turned everything blue and red. He pauses for a beat and replies that he was washing the American flag. Then there are the villains, who keep coming at him as if on an assembly line. First, there’s Electro, who was bitten by eels and is now some sort of human power supply. (I kept waiting for a joke where someone asks him about his “current employment;” it never came.) Then there’s Green Goblin. Then, just as you thought the film was over, someone straps himself into a steel suit with a horn and calls himself Rhino.
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not a very good one. It’s probably not even a movie – more an adult version of the animated films that come out every month and function as babysitters for a couple of hours. We want to be distracted for a while. We walk into one of these movies. That’s the basic nature of the transaction. It’s like how, in the 1970s and 80s, we used to get masala movies with unfailing regularity. We saw some. We missed some. The ones we saw we felt we could have missed. The ones we missed we didn’t feel an overwhelming compulsion to see at some future point. It was all the same thing, more or less. You could miss The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and watch it when it premieres on TV. Or you could you just wait for The Amazing Spider-Man 3, where we’ll see more of the same, more self-referential gags, more secrets and tragedies, more villains created by accident. Maybe a computer geek will fall into an open manhole and emerge as Drain-O, who threatens to kill the residents of New York City by unleashing a stink.
Meanwhile, Godzilla emerges from the oceans this week. I must say it sounds more exciting that the prospect of a new superhero movie. For one, the last time the giant lizard clomped around our screens, it was 1998. That’s a reasonably long leave of absence. And two, the cast consists of Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn and Bryan Cranston. In other words, there are no superstars. In other words, anyone can die at any time. It’s hard to pretend that Tom Cruise’s life is in danger, but Aaron Taylor-Johnson could end up a midmorning snack and no studio executive is going to have a heart attack. I have nothing against Taylor-Johnson. I actually think he’s quite cool. He married a woman 23 years his senior and incorporated her last name into his own. He probably deserves to be a bigger star. It’s just that he isn’t one yet. And that means he’s fair game.
Otherwise, I expect no surprises from the new Godzilla movie. I’m not enough of a fan of the franchise to react to the trailer the way this person did on one of IMDb’s message boards: “MUTO might be a serious threat, but how is unleashing Godzilla on it remotely close to being a good idea?” I don’t know what any of that means. It doesn’t matter much, either, that unlike in the 1998 film, this Godzilla actually looks like the creature from the Japanese daikaiju (giant monster) films. Apart from a core group of the faithful, most people are only going to care about whether the film lives up to what Frank Darabont, one of the film’s writers (and the director of The Shawshank Redemption), said in an interview: “What we’re trying to do with the new movie is not have it camp, not have it be campy. We’re kind of taking a cool new look at it. But with a lot of tradition in the first film. We want this to be a terrifying force of nature.”
But we can bet that Godzilla won’t be too terrifying. That might mean that the younger viewers would stay away, and that, in turn, would mean that the parents who don’t want to shell out babysitting costs would stay away as well. So, no, the new Godzilla cannot afford to be too terrifying. It cannot afford to be too idea-driven, harping on Godzilla being a metaphor for the impact of atomic/nuclear weapons, because this would mean stretches where the action slows down for conversation, and that’s not what global audiences, many of whose first language isn’t English, are going to be lining up for. This is the reason most of these summer blockbusters look the same – because they aim to satisfy such different markets with a single product. The days are gone when a studio would allow Tim Burton to make his nihilistic and nightmarish Batman movies. In 1992, Batman Returns grossed some $160 million in North America and some $100 million worldwide. Today, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is released worldwide before it opens in America. It had already grossed some $150 million before the first American ticket had been sold. With this kind of potential global profit, no one’s interested in taking huge creative risks. Why break your brain over what’s essentially going to be a babysitter for adults?
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Harish S
May 10, 2014
After what you said about the underwhelming Thor-2, you trash Amazing Spiderman-2 which is comparatively better in many ways?
I get the point that in the Thor-2/Krrish-3 comparative study it was more about getting the heart in the right place amongst the two movies, while here you are spinning an article to show how generic and dull these films can be; but by sympathising with a bland movie (Thor-2) and tearing apart a good rom-com disguised as an average superhero film (ASM2), arent you becoming a victim of ‘rigidly engineering the plot’ as you often mention the writers become (I agree to those views btw) ?
LikeLike
KayKay
May 10, 2014
” It’s like how, in the 1970s and 80s, we used to get masala movies with unfailing regularity. We saw some. We missed some.”
Yeah, that’s how I feel about these superhero films now. The American version of a “masala” flick churned out by the likes of VJ, Ajith, Akshay or Salman on a regular basis. The equivalent of a McChicken meal where you know you’re getting the grilled chicken patty, sesame seed bun and lettuce that’s gonna look and taste the same whether you munch it in Singapore or Stockholm.
The difference being I have a higher tolerance level for the endless barrage of superhero flicks than I do for the latest “superhero”-like antics of our Stalwart Flag Bearers of Indian Machismo, due largely to a wasted childhood devouring Marvel & DC comics and not enough Jai Shankar movies. In short, to paraphrase something you said in an earlier post, I find their crap more watchable than ours.
With The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I think there’s a decent relationship drama within it’s bloated 2 and a half hour running time (Marc Webb after all, helmed the wonderful 500 Days Of Summer) , which is unfortunately and inevitable sacrificed on the altar of the by-now wearyingly familiar Big CGI Battles with Multiple Villains.
I loved Batman Returns but it’s got a bit to answer for. It started a trend of stuffing sequels with multiple villains that carried on to this day (what is Electro’s Exploited and Ignored Employee backstory but a recycling of Selena Kyle/Catwoman’s tragic arc from Batman Returns?)
Thank God for Emma Stone, the panacea for the ills of this prematurely and needlessly rebooted franchise. Her Gwen Stacy is a delight. That scene where she, miffed at repeated attempts to stop her helping him, yells “Peter!” at Spider-Man in public and then cups her mouth, aghast at her slip. Adorable!
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
May 10, 2014
Oflate I have this new found hate for Hollywood super-hero movies which have the following line somewhere
” a CHOICE”
For eg. “I had to make a CHOICE”
If I find this in the trailer, I shut it off.
I mean, enough already. The obsession with the super-hero having a moral dilemma has been done to death. They should just think of some new kind of inner-conflict now.
LikeLike
oneWithTheH
May 10, 2014
That didn’t come out right 🙂
“[Insert pronoun of choice] [some tense form of ‘to make’] a CHOICE”
LikeLike
Gradwolf
May 11, 2014
This is why I like what Marvel is doing with their shared cinematic universe. The Avengers series has things at stake and a collective myth building. Something like Spiderman has simply lost it by rehashing the same thing over and over again. DC is trying with the Justice League but I doubt it’d be as elegant as what Marvel has done.
Also what Kay Kay said. Without Emma Stone this movie has nothing going for it. Though I liked the playful Spiderman.
LikeLike
venkatesh
May 11, 2014
I have started hating this entire genre ., there is nothing going for it.
Whatever technical excellence was at display usually gets overtaken by the LOTR/Hobbit franchise. The rest of it is juvenile.
LikeLike
KayKay
May 11, 2014
Gradwolf, I too love the way Marvel has been systematically building it’s movies, a meticulous and phased approach leading up to each Avengers movie. It’s the cinematic realization of what Comic Book fans have known and taken for granted for years: that these aren’t merely super-HERO comics per se but literally a super-VERSE where masked avengers can and frequently hop-scotch across various issues and titles.
I remember reading a Fantastic Four comic where The Thing is thrown into prison and gets a copy of the Daily Bugle where one of Jameson’s articles excoriates him. He’s defended by Matthew Murdock who of course is Daredevil. That level of cross pollination so easily achieved in print is made so much more difficult on film thanks to rival studios holding rights to different characters.
This concept that one superhero film can have supporting roles for others can now be realized thanks to Marvel. The fact that Thor 2 can have a Cap cameo and Iron Man 3 is essentially one long narration by Tony Stark to his new found Best Friend Bruce Banner hits all my Geek Sweet Spots:-)
Without access to any of the other Characters under the (rightful) control of Marvel Studios or even X-Men or Fantastic Four (both Fox properties), Sony has no option but to spin out (no pun intended) as many Spidey movies as possible. (Note the setting up of the Sinister Six plot towards the end of Amazing Spider-Man 2 which should fuel at least another couple more entries)
As for Supes Vs Bats…….Fingers crossed……
LikeLike
Bunny
May 12, 2014
@BR: But I thought you absolutely adored the generic masala movies of the ’70s and the ’80s?
LikeLike
Ranga
May 12, 2014
“Maybe a computer geek will fall into an open manhole and emerge as Drain-O, who threatens to kill the residents of New York City by unleashing a stink.”
Reminded me of a character called “Onion” from the days of Richie Rich!
LikeLike
brangan
May 13, 2014
Harish S: Er… But why do you think I should share your estimation of “Thor 2” being bland and ASM2 being a good rom-com?
KayKay: Oh certainly. ASM2 wasn’t unwatchable or anything. But just hugely generic. I don’t have much patience for movies that have many villains and not one of them is the lest bit memorable.
Oh, but I love love love Batman Returns 🙂 The “kiss under the mistletoe” moment is one for the ages. It showed — so delicately — how tortured being a superhero/supervillain can be without huffing and puffing and making a big production of it, like the Nolan films.
Bunny: I like the genre — which is different from saying I liked “generic” films. I like a lot of those films, sure. But there were so many of them that were quite random/missable.
LikeLike
abvblogger
May 14, 2014
Such a sense of emptiness & pessimism about this genre’s movies. And rightly so.
But since you mention the Nolan movies, wouldn’t you classify Dark Knight (2008) as one that broke the generic mould? It had conversation & characterization… a memorable villain who asked a few uncomfortable questions in a fashionably subversive way. And it did extremely well in global markets too. Let me try to dig up the data on the US gross vs foreign gross for it… yes, 534 mil vs 469 mil respectively. Pretty even.
LikeLike
Saurabh
May 15, 2014
Say whatever you want about the movie, but Hans Zimmer’s soundtrack was thrilling.
LikeLike
Santa
May 15, 2014
@ABV: You stole the words right out of my mouth. I would hardly classify the Nolan films as ‘superhero’ films. A touch of crime-drama perhaps, but that doesn’t quite fully capture their spirit either.
In the comics themselves, Batman is not known for any super-powers. His strengths are his above-average combat capabilities and above-average intelligence (to put it mildly). Even these two ‘superhero’ aspects are barely touched in the Nolan films, which rather tend to focus on the personalities, motivations, and psyche of its characters – and thankfully not in the lame manner in which ‘Batman Forever’ did so. This might make for some occasional heavy-handed dialogues and commentary, but one can certainly not fault them for falling into the genre trap.
LikeLike
Ceaser
May 15, 2014
abvblogger:It had conversation & characterization… a memorable villain who asked a few uncomfortable questions in a fashionably subversive way
c’mon is that what u expect from comic book films, giving a godfather treatment to these comic books is terrible.There are meant to be a lot of fun.Its just plain boring and self indulgent.now every superhero movie has jumped on this bandwagon of being ridiculously serious. ha, 1 longs for the christopher reeves superman films.pity even the james bond films has bcom damn serious with all those existential and oedipal complexes worked into the character in the last skyfall.
LikeLike
Harikrishnan Raveendran
May 15, 2014
@BARADWAJ RANGAN,
Batman was a product of post world war 2 conditions and film noir.Gotham is depicted as a place full of despair.Maybe thats why the “tormented protagonist”.Nolan’s films, from memento to dark knight rises,were always grim,sad,pessimistic ,.There is even in a line in “the prestige”,roughly,”the world is full of misery”,in the climax scene spoken by hugh jackman character.The usual norm of superhero movies in general was a kind of lightheartedness and a notion that at the end ,everything will be fine.He changed it and made the batman movies relate to the cynical present times.In “batman begins” it is said that inorder to fight criminals he has to maintain a certain anger,certain toughmindedness,certain coldness .The dark knight rises shows the effect of this .His butler Alfred wishes that he hung his cape,have a family and lead a normal life ,find happiness.At the end,Bruce achieves this .For me ,it is one among the few instances Nolan ends something on a positive note.Even the trailer of his new film “Interstellar” does not promise a conventional sc-fi space drama.
LikeLike
Mambazha Manidhan 2.0
May 15, 2014
ASM2, I missed the starting 10 min.
But, Paul Giamatti as a super villain? I couldn’t take him seriously. He is a fantastic actor and all, in fact one of my favorites (American Splendor), but seeing him angry in a rhino suit just didn’t work for me. Casting is a magical interaction between the actor in the real world and the character from the unreal. And, I think the unreal world has its own set of rules.
For instance, Madhoo as Nazriya’s Step Mom was a superb bit of casting in the recent Vaayai Moodi Pesavum, but casting a ‘serial uncle’ opposite her partly ruined it for me. I just don’t see it.
I guess if you are flouting the rules, it better be something as remarkable as Kamal Haasan opposite Kovai Sarala in Sathi Leelavathi.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 15, 2014
abvblogger: I have said this before and will just have to say it again.
You write well.
LikeLike
abvblogger
May 16, 2014
@Santa, yes, I’m hoping BR will tell us why (whether) he believes Dark Knight 2008 is genre.
@Caesar, the question is not whether one wants characterization & conversation. The question is, what is there left without those? The scorched earth of special effects masquerading as story. A movie can waste your time but it ought at least to engross you, and hold you in some narrative tension. The only real tension one feels in a typical Bond movie is the tension of waiting for the bathroom break. If you’re going to chuck character, then your plot has to be scintillating. Think Incredibles (1) or Matrix (1).
‘self-indulgent and boring’ is exactly right about Nolan’s first and Nolan’s last. But the middle just clicked, like excellent filling in an otherwise soggy sandwich. Has there been a villain in superhero cinema like Nolan’s Joker? Urban myth has it that playing the character changed the actor. I can believe that. As for the comic book element, I think it struck just the right note of deliciously over-the-top villainy. Who but a comic book villain would burn a pile of cash, because ‘the city needs a better class of criminal’? Who but a comic book villain would give voice to the questions that run through our minds, but only the mad can ask openly? He questioned the goodness of man, our social craving for the status quo, and our incessant attempts to order a chaotic world, in one movie, without a single ponderous speech.
@Rahini: You make me blush! Thanks again 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
May 17, 2014
abvblogger: I wrote about it as a crime drama — but that, too, happens to be a genre.
“And like the earlier film, this one too is weighted down by its elephantine ambition of crafting a textured crime drama, and not just a routine good-versus-evil saga.”
Mambazha Manidhan 2.0: It’s interesting to see the posts you decide to honour with your presence/comments 🙂
LikeLike
Ceaser
May 17, 2014
abvblogger, man u r very persuasive 🙂 , some of what u say does resonate especially about the joker character, yes he puts across his points without ponderous speeches, but take him out and what u got is the same boring indulgences of 1st and 3rd movies.just takes those long meditations between bruce wayne and harvey dent or Alfred, about vigilantism and existentialism and all , oh cringe worthy. my point is that its absurd to take these xtreme serious tone with these characters, the moment these guys put on these weird laughable superhero suits &costumes , all this serious philosophical bull turns plains funny.Its an exercise in absurdity, better of hanging on to the hammy pulpy roots of these characters and worlds.
As for Bond, the first 3 brosnan bonds were good,It struck the right balance between good fun and plot\character dynamics.. And so was Casino Royale . But Sam mendes completely sucked out all the fun from the movie, turning it into the next serious oscar contender. 🙂
LikeLike
abvblogger
May 18, 2014
@Ceasar Totally agree with you about the non-Joker characters being jokes 🙂 It’s not even genuine character development or dialogue. Their navel-gazing is not credible… it’s almost petulant to be a millionaire fighting crime and then to complain about it constantly. But notice that the moment you bring a really villainous villain, it starts to work a lot better.
Maybe that’s what superhero movies need. They need supervillains. Real ones, not silly ones who claim they want to destroy the world, when really, we know they’d be just fine robbing a bank quietly without costumes or fuss.
LikeLike
KayKay
May 20, 2014
Oh, I absolutely agree about Batman Returns. In fact, the Burton Bat flicks have grown in my esteem over the years, it’s aesthetics approximating a true comic book brought to cinematic life as opposed to Nolan’s Bat-verse that sought to ground it in so much realism you lost sight of the fact that Batman was first encountered within the panels of an illustrated book printed on cheap paper, and not a Dostoyevsky novel. I enjoyed The Dark Knight trilogy as gripping crime dramas (which happened to feature a caped and cowled crusader) but Batman and Batman Returns were truly great comic book movies. Anton Furst’s stylish evocation of Gotham beats the dry on-location shoots of Pittsburgh any day. And the Tumbler as a replacement for the Bat Mobile? Please.
I merely brought up Batman Returns since it seems to be the trend-setting forerunner to the multi-villain sequels, that’s now been reused to the point of tedium.
And since you mentioned Godzilla, hope we get to hear your thoughts on it.
I.Loved.It! A monster movie that truly gets what makes Godzilla the iconic creation he is.
LikeLike
Shankar
May 20, 2014
I remember watching the 1998 Godzilla and being pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it. I’m hearing mixed reviews about the new one…hoping to see it tonight in a theater that has X-Plus (guess it is essentially called Dolby Atmos elsewhere)…60+ speakers etc. I’ll let you know what I think about it.
I’m waiting for the day when some one will make Phantom on screen…ignore the half baked efforts in the past…someone who can give it the true superhero treatment! 🙂
LikeLike
brangan
May 21, 2014
KayKay: Have a piece on the big guy this weekend. And the film didn’t do much for me — sorry 🙂
Shankar: They did make a movie on the Phantom with Billy Zane. It was terrible.
LikeLike
KayKay
May 22, 2014
B, that’s ok, it’s been one of the more divisive blockbusters even among my circle of movie buffs 🙂
And regarding some of the comments here on how tired and generic superhero films have become, I can say, with tremendous relief, that X Men: Days Of Future Past restores some much needed excitement, credibility and sheer enjoyment to the whole genre.
A textbook example of what can be achieved with good writing, a great cast and genuine affection and respect for the source material.
LikeLike