Superheroes

I wasn’t very interested in seeing Hancock, but it wasn’t a waste of time. It started off as an interesting, original superhero film. John Hancock (played by Will Smith) has superpowers but a bad reputation with the public. Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is a public relations executive who offers to reinvent Hancock’s image after Hancock saves his life. Charlize Theron plays Mary, Ray’s wife. Major plot spoilers below the image.

I like the idea of a superhero who helps out but doesn’t really care about others. Hancock saves people and stops disasters, but he doesn’t make it nice and tidy. He wrecks buildings and he causes traffic jams. It’s a nice change from Superman creating fine-tuned order out of chaos. (Watch the scene in Superman Returns where Superman zips around Metropolis during the earthquake, blasting broken glass with his heat vision and catching falling parts of buildings before they hit the pedestrians on the street below. It’s cool and only Superman could pull that off, but it’s too neat.) Granted, we don’t know why Hancock even bothers, but it’s nice to see a super-powered person who gets his hands dirty.

The movie could have stayed on that thread–a superhero who needs to reinvent his image, who needs to have a better reputation with the public and answer to the damages he causes. It’s similar to that guy suing Mr. Incredible for saving him when he didn’t want to be saved. It can be comical and it’s different. It makes you think about how superheroes would function in the real world. Will Smith could have easily pulled that off, but even he couldn’t make the rest of Hancock entertaining.

It should have ended with the new and improved Hancock, polite and available to lend a helping hand in his spiffy suit. The movie drags on though. The lame mythos, the soap-opera side-plot between Hancock and Mary (lost lovers with a dash of amnesia mixed in) and the forced sacrifices the characters have to make feel like excuses to have a few fight scenes and blood.

Hancock deserves some credit for a different take on superhero movies, but the last third of the movie should have been cut.

Since I saw Iron Man last week, I’ve been thinking about a few differences between Marvel and DC comic book movies. I like movies from both and I’m not saying one side is necessarily better than the other.

For the sake of brevity and to keep me from rambling too much, I’m not counting sequels. The Dark Knight comes out in July and Spiderman and X-Men both had successful sequels. But I’m not talking about those–just the first installments.

Here’s the list of why I think Marvel is more willing to take risks but still respects the comic book origins of its characters.

1) Marvel jump-started the superhero movie genre with X-Men.

I think most people consider Spiderman the beginning of the current trend of comic book movies because it was so successful, but mutants were in theaters two years earlier with X-Men in 2000. We had the Superman movies in the late 70s and early 80s, and Marvel brought back spandexed heroes in the 21st century.

2) It’s okay to change the costume, but be sensible.

Brandon Routh’s Superman and Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman donned darker colored suits than their traditional bright costumes, and that worked out well. Hugh Jackman’s wardrobe went a step further by replacing Wolverine’s yellow suit with black leather. This change might have offended classic fans, but it was a smart move. Silver-screen Wolverine in sunshine yellow just wouldn’t have been as intimidating. Or nearly as cool. Marvel knows when comic book and cartoon colors won’t translate to real life.

3) Main characters can be serious and funny in the same movie. Really.

Every comic book movie to date has its bright and dark moments, but I think Marvel does a better job of balancing the two sides. Peter Parker’s geekiness and the younger X-Mens’ lack of control add some comic relief to their movies. “But wait,” you say, “Clark Kent’s dorky. That’s funny sometimes.” That’s not enough. You need smart, funny dialogue. A broad sense of humor that appeals to a lot of people.

Iron Man has it: Tony Stark’s snarky, sarcastic personality, his flops in developing the suit, his quirky robots. Comedic timing in there throughout the movie.

Sure, Clark’s a dork, but I’m not laughing when he gets stabbed with Kryptonite seconds after Lex mocks him. I am, however, cheering on Iron Man even as he’s fighting a machine 3 times his size. Batman Begins has it’s moments, but I mostly remember rain, sewers, and Batman’s cape billowing across the screen. Uplifting moments have to stick out if you’re going to remember a movie’s light-heartedness.

4) Changing minor things is okay, but please leave major aspects of the character alone.

I can make this point brief. Giving Spiderman organic webbing is (arguably) cool. Giving Superman an illegitimate son is (definitely) not.

5) You can appeal to more than superhero fans. (Yes, it can be done.)

Marvel movies do a great job with giving the audience a brief origin story and necessary background information with plenty of time left for an awesome movie made of action scenes, character development, suspense, humor, and a little romance. We see Peter Parker get bitten by the spider, and then he gets his powers. Does the movie have to tell us how his parents died? No, so it doesn’t. Tony Stark builds his iron suit while being held captive, but we don’t hear anything about his mother (and that’s okay). We meet the heroes and then they’re off to save citizens and fight crime.

DC has a different method. We see Bruce Wayne watch his parents’ murder. We see he’s afraid of bats, and he becomes Batman to overcome his fear and fight crime in Gotham. That’s really great, but is all of that introduction necessary? Even with the movie reigniting the franchise? I don’t know. I would have been fine going into the movie knowing this Batman was slightly different from past incarnations. I wouldn’t need multiple scenes to explain it to me. Then there’s Superman Returns. Good fun if you’re a long-time Superman fan and enjoy spotting all the references to past incarnations of the Man in Steel. The film’s crew obviously spent a lot of time working those references in, but that work will be appreciated only by a small audience who already loved Superman. What good are those homages to the casual viewer?

The scene where Superman catches Kitty’s speeding car is well-shot and exciting. But how many people know that Superman’s stance as he lowers the car to the street is a throwback to Action Comics 1, the first comic book in which Superman appeared?

Or for another example, how many people saw the bartender near the beginning of the film and thought he looked familiar? Superman fans know the actor is Jack Larson, and he portrayed Jimmy Olsen in the 1950s live-action Adventures of Superman series (with George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent).

6) Marvel makes movies for its lesser-known heroes.

DC have given us Batman and Superman, and that’s great. But everyone knows Batman and Superman, so their movies both had a pretty good chance at success. Marvel, however, takes its chances with lesser known characters (or at least looks past its most popular franchises). Marvel gave us the X-Men, Spiderman, and the Hulk, but it also gave us Daredevil, the Fantastic 4, and Iron Man.

DC could risk a little more. They’ve got Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Hawk Girl, Green Lantern…all those characters have potential to be great movies. So where are they? I really want to see a live-action Batman Beyond. With Inque. Hey, I can have high hopes.

Comic book movies are in right now, and they’re successful at the box office among a broad audience. Marvel seems to know what its doing with its characters. I’d like to see DC step up and give us more characters, smart (and tidy) plots, action, and humor. The films can be deep and thoughtful at times, but really, I want to be entertained. Give me super-powered escapism and I’ll enjoy every minute of it.

Superman Returns screencaps are from Follow Tomorrow