What is a subconscious?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Why we need fewer Comic Book movies or: why we need to change the system.
- Thread starter Mack the Knife
- Start date
What is a subconscious?
You're going to have to elaborate or stop pretending that what you're saying is obvious.
I thought it was pretty obvious
Just saying the word "subconscious" isn't a point. I get that he's implying that people subconsciously put themselves in the main character's shoes, but why? Also, why do they have to be relatable if you're not doing it on purpose anyway, and how is this any different from any other action subgenre? You actually have to elaborate if you want a discussion, if you just post a short question/statement that implies "lol it's so obvious" the only thing you can hope to accomplish is making yourself sound smarter.
hi
he implies it cause they do and you said they didn't
we don't fully understand how the subconscious works but the more the superhero is like you the more you can put yourself in his shoes because yeah
his argument was extremely obvious and you yourself deduced it already, all the pieces are there it seems you just can't put them together?
he implies it cause they do and you said they didn't
we don't fully understand how the subconscious works but the more the superhero is like you the more you can put yourself in his shoes because yeah
his argument was extremely obvious and you yourself deduced it already, all the pieces are there it seems you just can't put them together?
What he said was obvious, you fucking mental midget.
@DrRobotnik
Yes I know a lot of films use this strategy, but tons of those put an interesting spin on things. A lot of superheroes on the other hand do it over and over and over again, just in different settings and with different powers. Examples: Captain America, Thor, Amazing Spiderman, and Green Lantern.
I got a question: Would you guys say Superman or Spiderman started this formula?
Formula: Step 1: Upset or awkward young man. Step 2: Granted powers. Step 3: Tries to woo love interest. Step 4: Villain arrives. Step 5: Hero defeats villain while either gaining or losing love interest in the process
Yes I know a lot of films use this strategy, but tons of those put an interesting spin on things. A lot of superheroes on the other hand do it over and over and over again, just in different settings and with different powers. Examples: Captain America, Thor, Amazing Spiderman, and Green Lantern.
I got a question: Would you guys say Superman or Spiderman started this formula?
Formula: Step 1: Upset or awkward young man. Step 2: Granted powers. Step 3: Tries to woo love interest. Step 4: Villain arrives. Step 5: Hero defeats villain while either gaining or losing love interest in the process
Thanks. Again, as I said before, this is why these movies are getting old.
So I haven't seen you offer any solutions, care to explain what exactly you would like to see different? So far it's only been complaining about how the current system is a mess. What needs to be cleaned up? What could big studios start doing to make their movies both unique and attractive to the entire world population (and other things studios need to take into account)?
Do they need to change the pacing or plot twists or characters, etc? we're pretty much talking about basic story writing at this point.
Do they need to change the pacing or plot twists or characters, etc? we're pretty much talking about basic story writing at this point.
complaining that superhero movies are getting old stinks of hipster to me. Superman, Cap and Batman have been around since the 40's. The rest of the Avengers and Spiderman since the 60's. All of the franchises are loved by millions - why is it that right now in 2013 after 50-80 years of circulation that they've suddenly hit stagnation?
These characters were starring in blockbusters before most of us were even born and they'll be doing the same long after we've gone - because people fucking love it and the box office results back that up. stop being a miserable git.
These characters were starring in blockbusters before most of us were even born and they'll be doing the same long after we've gone - because people fucking love it and the box office results back that up. stop being a miserable git.
I'd like new twists on the plot to make it more interesting. I think exploring the psyche of a superhero would be very interesting. Also, the studios could do a super hero movie not set in America. I think that would help foreign revenues. It'd be interesting if in the end the villain won. The reason I liked Iron Man 3 is because they took a really ballsy twist in the middle. Characters could have different problems (alcoholism?) that would be risky. Just more differences and not using the same formula would satisfy me. If anyone else has any ideas I'd be happy to hear them.
Please don't use the Kevin Smith argument (ie people love it, the money it makes proves it). is every customer a happy customer? No. Also, I'm not saying superheroes are getting old (as I've said before like twice now). I'm saying the formula is, and needs a few changes.
I highly doubt that the superhero movie is a genre that warrants such intensive analysis; frankly, the genre's never really been an industry leader in terms of innovation. Superhero movies were never designed with the intent of breaking new ground - they were designed to deliver cheap thrills and gaudy visual effects, five bucks a pop, to a working class whose lives were about as formulaic as the OP claims superhero movies are now. Having accepted that premise, I think that the reason the superhero movie has remained a perennial favorite is because society has and always has had a cultural soft spot for feats of heroism. Almost every culturally significant work of literature - from the Iliad to King Arthur to Macbeth to Atlas Shrugged - features characters that are - in one way or another - larger than life.
Having said that, it's important to note that I am in no way comparing the Iliad to The Avengers. Most superhero movies are high budget detritus targeted at the very lowest common denominator, but even that detritus has a place. No matter how shitty the movie is, all of us, on some base level, will self-insert into the shoes of the hero. It's this basal instinct - insecurity, rather - that makes the superhero movie one of the safest genres in the industry. I realize a lot of this argument depends on generalizations and cardboard psychology, and for that I apologize, but I hope you at least see my general point. There's something really appealing - romantic, even, about vigilanteism and the whole "one man against the machine" deal, especially in this post-9/11 world of drone strikes, conspiracy theories and underground intifadas, that leads even those of us who would deny it to identify with the characters in the movie - and that is where the superhero movie's universal appeal stems from.
I don't want to sound too Jeremiah-esque in my diagnosis of the situation, but would I be entirely wrong if I said the surge of popularity in superhero movies is society's way of compensating for the lack of heroism in the real world? I'm not saying that the formularization and commercialization of the genre is symptomatic of a larger societal decay, or anything, nor am I claiming that it is the superhero movie that keeps the overworked, alienated worker or the bullied high school kid from walking in to work/school with a pipe bomb. Superhero movies and other related media simply have a place in society that no other genre can fill, and if it's formularization that keeps these movies afoot, then I welcome it.
Having said that, it's important to note that I am in no way comparing the Iliad to The Avengers. Most superhero movies are high budget detritus targeted at the very lowest common denominator, but even that detritus has a place. No matter how shitty the movie is, all of us, on some base level, will self-insert into the shoes of the hero. It's this basal instinct - insecurity, rather - that makes the superhero movie one of the safest genres in the industry. I realize a lot of this argument depends on generalizations and cardboard psychology, and for that I apologize, but I hope you at least see my general point. There's something really appealing - romantic, even, about vigilanteism and the whole "one man against the machine" deal, especially in this post-9/11 world of drone strikes, conspiracy theories and underground intifadas, that leads even those of us who would deny it to identify with the characters in the movie - and that is where the superhero movie's universal appeal stems from.
I don't want to sound too Jeremiah-esque in my diagnosis of the situation, but would I be entirely wrong if I said the surge of popularity in superhero movies is society's way of compensating for the lack of heroism in the real world? I'm not saying that the formularization and commercialization of the genre is symptomatic of a larger societal decay, or anything, nor am I claiming that it is the superhero movie that keeps the overworked, alienated worker or the bullied high school kid from walking in to work/school with a pipe bomb. Superhero movies and other related media simply have a place in society that no other genre can fill, and if it's formularization that keeps these movies afoot, then I welcome it.
i love a good short essay on smogon. really shows that the people here are quite intelligent when they want to be.
as-is, though, i wouldn't think that 9/11 or something of that ilk did it for everybody; not everyone is in the united states, after all, though one can easily feel the need for a hero or a sense of stability even without an attack like that. everyone has their own personal battles.
moving on, however, i would agree with much of your analysis; i would also like to point out that many people had dreams of grandeur as children, though as they aged they dropped their dreams due to being told that they were being unrealistic over time. i would believe, however, that many people still have those dormant dreams of being firefighters/police officers/hockey players/dancers/etc in their minds, though they are too scared to act upon them due to the possibility of rejection of not only their employers, but their peers as well. however, the superhero movie, with the protagonist overcoming their obstacles and [usually] achieving their dreams, it brings a sort of self-fulfillment due to the self-insertion that you described. the fact that a lot of them loved superheroes as a child doesn't hurt; as such, the movie brings out their inner childhood, which many long for.
i don't believe that the op is trying to say that the entire formula should be eradicated or replaced, however. i would think that instead, they mean to innovate the classic plotline while still keeping it recognizable. that's how i interpreted it, at least.
as-is, though, i wouldn't think that 9/11 or something of that ilk did it for everybody; not everyone is in the united states, after all, though one can easily feel the need for a hero or a sense of stability even without an attack like that. everyone has their own personal battles.
moving on, however, i would agree with much of your analysis; i would also like to point out that many people had dreams of grandeur as children, though as they aged they dropped their dreams due to being told that they were being unrealistic over time. i would believe, however, that many people still have those dormant dreams of being firefighters/police officers/hockey players/dancers/etc in their minds, though they are too scared to act upon them due to the possibility of rejection of not only their employers, but their peers as well. however, the superhero movie, with the protagonist overcoming their obstacles and [usually] achieving their dreams, it brings a sort of self-fulfillment due to the self-insertion that you described. the fact that a lot of them loved superheroes as a child doesn't hurt; as such, the movie brings out their inner childhood, which many long for.
i don't believe that the op is trying to say that the entire formula should be eradicated or replaced, however. i would think that instead, they mean to innovate the classic plotline while still keeping it recognizable. that's how i interpreted it, at least.
^Hit the nail on the head.
Well, my psche idea is that how do superheroes think. How do they have react to real tragedies that they were unable to stop. A fun idea I thoght for a movie was while a superhero was saving a cat from a tree, a school bus of children fell into the lake and drowned. How would the here react? How would the city treat him for having such a tragedy occur?
Oh yeah i've changed my avatar twice now. I'm looking for one to stick with for a few months. Not sure if Cage from Raising Arizona is working for me.
Edit: Decided on Dr. Strangelove.
Great post by the way Xenu.
Well, my psche idea is that how do superheroes think. How do they have react to real tragedies that they were unable to stop. A fun idea I thoght for a movie was while a superhero was saving a cat from a tree, a school bus of children fell into the lake and drowned. How would the here react? How would the city treat him for having such a tragedy occur?
Oh yeah i've changed my avatar twice now. I'm looking for one to stick with for a few months. Not sure if Cage from Raising Arizona is working for me.
Edit: Decided on Dr. Strangelove.
Great post by the way Xenu.
I've kind of noticed that you only make like two posts a month, and usually they're just sarcastic one-liners but all of a sudden you come out with a rather deep analysis of the topic discussed in this thread and I'm suddenly very taken aback.
I see your point, but because of this I can't take your point seriously.
Funny, you say it's obvious but then he made this huge elaborate explanation, when if it was obvious it would've been maybe a paragraph at most. But I guess I'm the stupid one for not getting three paragraphs out of one word. It really wasn't obvious, neither of you would've typed out anything like that if you were the ones explaining it.
And superhero movies inherently don't because...
The actual problem is that you're applying this really broad formula and saying "it does this, that means they're all the same thing." Just stop with the formula bullshit and watch the movie.
That's the problem: when I watch the movies I see the formula a ton.
Holy shit. The Hero's Journey is a commonly used formula in storylines.
This must be breaking news to all the other 5th century civilizations.
You see it's funny, because you can tell it's hyperbole when you realize the Hero's Journey is much much older than the 5th century.
This must be breaking news to all the other 5th century civilizations.
You see it's funny, because you can tell it's hyperbole when you realize the Hero's Journey is much much older than the 5th century.
Well forgive me for saying that after decades of marginalization and nonacceptance, it's small consolation that superheroes have upgraded to "very lowest common denominator".
To digress heavily, I honestly believe that movies have replaced television as the lowest common denominator art form (that's assuming we're ignoring reality tv for one reason or another, there are many good reasons to). Television used to be the most easily consumable medium, but now all the good shows have such strong continuities that it places much more responsibility on the consumer. It's the length of a tv series, or a book, or even some video games, that allow them to have stronger continuities, more characters development, and a better balance of entertainment and thought provocation.
Tying this back into Marvel, what they are doing right now is creating a true movie continuity. Are any individual movies that great on their own merits? Not really, but even though the next Thor looks only ok it's still the movie I'm most excited to see because I still want to see where all this is going. I'd call that being an industry leader in innovation; hell I'm ashamed that as a DC fan I don't think my guys have the chops to the same thing.
I don't know why you're being so hostile, DrRobotnik. I don't really get how you're basically saying I'm being patronizing. I'm not saying that people are too stupid to see the differences between various superheroes. But since you apparently don't believe in sociology, there's nothing I could really tell you about what I am saying.
My fantasy illusion comment was a very general comment about the hero trope. As xenu and Shiruba alluded to, the hero trope is decidedly a fantasy illusion dating back millenia. In fact, it's one that's really powerful in people's minds, to the point that it severely warps people's interpretations of real life history. Yet, real life simply doesn't work that way.
I agree that it's naive to dislike movies simply for following tropes. The whole point of tropes is to repeatedly do what works. It's just that, when one doesn't automatically enjoy a superhero movie, one has to find a different, more compelling reason to watch it. The OP mentioned The Dark Knight, and I agree that that movie was quite refreshing. It's not just about Batman saving Gotham, but about the issues of human psychology and people's ability to choose not to succumb to evil. That is a trope in itself, sure, but it's a great trope and not one that's routinely executed so well in a superhero movie. Plus, it deconstructs the hero trope pretty convincingly.
Hell, my most distinct memory of Spider-Man 1 is when people start throwing shit at the Green Goblin during his fight with Spider-Man.
My fantasy illusion comment was a very general comment about the hero trope. As xenu and Shiruba alluded to, the hero trope is decidedly a fantasy illusion dating back millenia. In fact, it's one that's really powerful in people's minds, to the point that it severely warps people's interpretations of real life history. Yet, real life simply doesn't work that way.
I agree that it's naive to dislike movies simply for following tropes. The whole point of tropes is to repeatedly do what works. It's just that, when one doesn't automatically enjoy a superhero movie, one has to find a different, more compelling reason to watch it. The OP mentioned The Dark Knight, and I agree that that movie was quite refreshing. It's not just about Batman saving Gotham, but about the issues of human psychology and people's ability to choose not to succumb to evil. That is a trope in itself, sure, but it's a great trope and not one that's routinely executed so well in a superhero movie. Plus, it deconstructs the hero trope pretty convincingly.
Hell, my most distinct memory of Spider-Man 1 is when people start throwing shit at the Green Goblin during his fight with Spider-Man.
Then what are you saying?
No, I do believe in sociology. What I don't believe in is some random dude on a Pokemon forum generalizing hundreds of millions of people with absolutely nothing to back up what he's saying, and then calling it social science. You're just guessing things, not even following the scientific method or even making an observation, just guessing, and then acting like a scientist. You want to know why I'm being hostile? It's the exact opposite of what you think; it's because I have a great deal of respect for social sciences, which is why it pisses me off when people use "sociology" and "psychology" as synonyms for "generalizing".
So, please, elaborate on your statement.
Which still makes no sense in this context because a lot of these heroes lead awful lives and/or aren't relatable to the average person. And don't even bring up the subconscious thing, the idea that the main character is literally always the viewer is retarded. Experiencing something through the eyes of someone and replacing them with yourself are two completely different things.
Spiderman is relatable to people trying to just get by. Captain America is related to people who won't give up. Hulk is relatable to people with anger management problems or heavy frustrations. Batman is relatable to people who have lost someone near and dear to them. Superman is relatable to people who have trouble fitting in. Hell, even Green Lantern (from the movie) is relatable to bullheaded guy who gets beat up a lot. The only ones I can really think that aren't relatable to a large group is Fantastic Four, Iron Man, and Thor. He's not saying it's always relatable to the viewer, but often it is. Please try to give some respect to others opinions and ideas and not call them "retarded".
Hey guys we're back! Let's keep the conversation going. Please share your opinion and ignore DrRobotnik's (unless he's bringing something relevant and polite to the conversation).