Board 8 > Spiderman 3 wasn't that bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

yeah, '08 is a good year to pinpoint because that was the first time we got two superhero movies in the same year that were critically acclaimed (though i personally didn't care for iron man 1). hellboy II was released that year as well. hell, you can even throw the incredible hulk in there. yeah, everyone agrees it's the weakest of the MCU movies, but it was still decently received and people liked it way better than the previous hulk movie.

the only year before that that comes close is... '02, maybe? spider-man 1 and blade II were both decently received, but obviously not showered with praise like IM1 and TDK. i guess '04 also qualifies. spider-man 2 and hellboy 1 were released that year.
---

Foolmo made a dumb joke about Batman Begins not being considered a super hero movie, but I actually do think Blade is that way. I'd wager most people who like that movie didn't even know there is a Blade comic book character.

But yeah it's mostly just expectations going in-- like there were definitely good superhero movies in earlier eras but those were considered the exception more than the rule.

Now with the MCU, later X-Men/Wolverine movies, Nolan Batman, etc, the general expectation is that superhero movies are generally good rather than bad. 2008 is probably the closest thing to the clicking year there, though I do think movies like X-Men 1/2 and Spiderman 1/2 being a string of decent movies certainly helped lay the groundwork.

Personally I think Batman 1989 is the worst Batman movie aside from Batman and Robin, and that's including the 60s one-- I do think people are softer on it than they should be cause it was the first Superhero movie in forever, and because Jack Nicholson has a sort of notoriety where people tend to default to thinking his movies/performances are good, even if he kinda butchered The Joker (not as badly as Clooney butchered Batman though).

I actually like Batman Returns though, so if I didn't hate Nicholson Joker so much I probably wouldn't mind 1989 either since the style of the movies is pretty similar (Forever is really when they got super wacky). But I don't think people generally hold Returns in the same regard, which is why I say I think people tend to go easy on 1989.
---

I like Batman Returns more than the original Batman. I guess I kind of assumed people thought that was the better one of the two, but maybe not!
---

It's not a joke it's a simple god damn observation. Ask people if they like super hero movies and if they say no ask if they like TDK.
---

Even if there are a lot of people that say that it doesn't really mean anything. A lot of people who aren't really into Space Opera like Star Wars too.
---

yeah, that is a thing that happens. i've asked people if they were going to see some new superhero movie and they responded "no i don't like superhero movies... *pauses for a few seconds* well, i DID like the dark knight." like, i've had this exact conversation with several people.
---

Spiderman 3 isn't just bad. It ruined the last season of That 70's Show in the process.
---

Of course. But there's a difference between claiming Nolan Batman movies have aspects to their execution that extend outside what usual superhero movie fans like and allow them to appeal to a broader audience, and unironically claiming that they're outright not considered superhero movies.
---

If you ask Star Wars fans if they like space operas they will say no most of the time also, so thanks for the helpful comparison
---

Really good movies are often good even to people that aren't the target audience. Go figure!
---

Why are you aggressively agreeing with me
---

Well, there is also the aspect that literally no one has actual superpowers in the Nolanverse. Even Bane is just a big tough guy with a weird mask that administers anesthetic gas.
---

It was pretty bad
---

There are a few superhero movies out there where no one has powers. Even older Batman movies.
---

Not really. You claimed it was not a superhero movie, which is either a bad joke or wrong. I reformed your point into something that actually makes sense.
---

Technically, what he said was people don't think of them as superhero movies. That is slightly different from saying they aren't actually superhero movies.
---

That's still wrong though.

People say "I don't usually like superhero movies but I liked The Dark Knight!" not "I like The Dark Knight but it's not a superhero movie"

Like if anything a movie that appeals to people who aren't usually into superhero movies is going to help the genre gain more respect more effectively than something that's considered "something that's good if you're into superhero movies"
---

Lopen posted...

You claimed it was not a superhero movie,

no he didn't.
---

I mistook the verbiage of a wrong claim he made for a different, but equally as wrong claim, he made. Good job correcting me, guys-- especially after in previous posts I'd said "considered" rather than "aren't" so it's clear I understood the post right and just slipped up on my wording.

Point is identical and stands.
---

Lopen posted...

People say "I don't usually like superhero movies but I liked The Dark Knight!" not "I like The Dark Knight but it's not a superhero movie"

in my experience people don't say "i don't usually like superhero movies," though - they say "i don't like superhero movies period," then contemplate that statement and THEN say "well, actually, i did like the dark knight." this implies that they don't immediately consider TDK one of the "normal superhero movies" in their heads, even if you're right that they ultimately do consider it to be a superhero movie.
---

Ok I think you guys lost me on what you are arguing about
---

They're arguing about semantics at this point so feel free to bail out.
---

VeryInsane posted...

Ok I think you guys lost me on what you are arguing about

whether or not a lot of people don't consider the dark knight to be a superhero movie. not that difficult.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

They're arguing about semantics at this point

no we're not.
---

okay
---

I was wrong Lopen is right
---

Also wow Lopen x Lasa discussions
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Also wow Lopen x Lasa discussions

we've had plenty of these over the years!
---

The whole point is when superhero movies became things that were generally thought to be good by default vs things that were generally thought to be bad by default.

So whether well regarded movies are considered to be super hero movies or not is kind of a big deal and not some mere semantic issue-- if Nolan Batman movies were not considered superhero movies they'd be not moving the needle at all in that regard. If they're considered superhero movies, yet movies that a lot of people who aren't typically into them like, they're doing the opposite and moving the needle a whole lot.

Contrast with Blade, a superhero movie I'm pretty sure actually isn't considered a superhero movie, and yeah, there is a pretty big difference there. Like if Blade was some megahit I doubt it would have changed the perception of superhero movies much, because Blade is not some super well known comic book character-- very easy to just think of it as a action movie about vampires like something like Underworld.
---

i definitely thought of TDK as a superhero movie when it came out. it's actually only with the takeoff of the MCU that i no longer think of it as a superhero movie

dunno if that clicks with anyone else!
---

Is your issue with Batman 89 really just Nickelson?
---

Probably 80% Nicholson.

Rest would probably be pacing. Keeping in mind that I actually like Batman Returns, I'd imagine most of the other common complaints wouldn't resonate with me very well.

Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker really is that terrible to me though. Can't imagine how many people's image of the character were ruined by that movie.
---