Most Enjoyable Comic Book/Superhero Based Films (Top 10)

[GotengoXGodzilla]

Im pretty sure today's directors, producers and writers arent being influenced by those movies, GxG. Theyre generational. Blade Runner is just as important to today's generation of film makers as Wizard of Oz was to the next 1-2 generations.

...Blade Runner is just a better film.

...

Oh, thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

Anyway, no. As a filmmaker, I can say with 100% honesty that Wizard Of Oz, Stagecoach and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington do influence me, and I know I'm not the only one. It doesn't matter how old a movie is. A film made in 1916 can be just as influencial as a film made five years ago. Those films are still influencing filmmakers today as much as they were back in the 40s and 50s. The difference is that, nowadays, the influencing is kinda subconscious, rather than filmmakers saying, "Wizard Of Oz was so great! I wanna make a movie just like that!"

Also, Blade Runner probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for films like Wizard Of Oz and Stagecoach. Not to mention a much older film, Metropolis. As I said, Stagecoach was the beginning of the Western that we know today. Once space exploration became a big thing, around the mid 50s, the Western slowly died, but it gave way to the Sci-fi genre. Most Sci-fis' are essentially Westerns, just set in a futuristic or space setting. Same stories, characters and themes, just different settings. If it weren't for Stagecoach, we wouldn't have the Sci-fi genre as we know it today.

The main filmic inspiration for Blade Runner was Metropolis, a German Silent film from 1927, and Double Indemnity, a film noir from 1944 by an Austrian director. Metropolis for it's unique futuristic style and look, as well as the theme of artificial life being made in the image of humans. Double Indemnity for it's story and dialogue.

Lastly, it's debatable as to wether Blade Runner is better than any of those three movies. There's a reason why films like Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind are often on many top films lists, and that Gone With The Wind is still the highest grossing film of all time (when adjusted for inflation).

[wataru]

As you claim to be a filmmaker, please link me to any website or iMDB of any film you've made?

[GotengoXGodzilla]

As you claim to be a filmmaker, please link me to any website or iMDB of any film you've made?

Sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVInSgzTsrQ

I wrote the screenplay around this time last year, and filmed it in October. It's based off of a 1916 short film by D.W. Griffith, called "The Female Of The Species".

[wataru]

Interesting. Why is it young film makers always want to most of eerie post-apocalyptic film? It's always some quiet, no-soundtrack bit of film with some small tidbit of good ol' boy knowledge (Petra's reason for not firing).

...Blade Runner is still better.

[GotengoXGodzilla]

Interesting. Why is it young film makers always want to most of eerie post-apocalyptic film? It's always some quiet, no-soundtrack bit of film with some small tidbit of good ol' boy knowledge (Petra's reason for not firing).

Well, after I saw "The Female Of The Species", I was really inspired by what I saw. I originally wanted to do a comedy post-apocalypse film, but I thought that it would turn out better if I did just a straight up post-apocalypse. I thought it would be fun, and it was.

...Blade Runner is still better.

That's really not a fair comparison, is it? Even if mine was a full length feature, they're two very different films.

[wataru]

No, I meant Blade Runner is better then Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind and Stagecoach. I dug you're short film. I actually LIKE post-apocalyptic features. Eastwood (from old TK) makes films too, I dig on his stuff though he has nothing out yet...

I find ALOT of the films from the early part of the 20th century very LACKING in real story and making up for it with visuals and star appeal. It's a problem of today as well - in more then one type of media. Some films can blend it flawlessly, some just fail so hard it's sickening. As a major film buff, I cannot get behind movies like Gone With The Wind or Wizard of Oz because compared to the subject matter theyre based on theyre EXTREMELY flawed and wrong. The novels of Oz are not gay singing musicals of color. The Civil War and slavery was not a technicolor romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men.

Theyre not true to the subject. They're not even really adaptations. Theyre basically 'Look at this!' films. The base story is OK but they trample it..

[dogora]

It's based off of a 1916 short film by D.W. Griffith, called "The Female Of The Species".

i think i remember seeing this in school, but i have seen many silent films, nice vid thogh.

i saw v for vendeta again last night, anyone else seen it?

[wataru]

Ive seen V a few times. I dig it but after awhile you get really sick of anti-government anti-hero films.

[Tohosaurus]

It's based off of a 1916 short film by D.W. Griffith, called "The Female Of The Species".

i think i remember seeing this in school, but i have seen many silent films, nice vid thogh.

i saw v for vendeta again last night, anyone else seen it?

I LOVE V for Vendetta.

[GotengoXGodzilla]

No, I meant Blade Runner is better then Wizard of Oz, Gone With The Wind and Stagecoach. I dug you're short film. I actually LIKE post-apocalyptic features. Eastwood (from old TK) makes films too, I dig on his stuff though he has nothing out yet...

I find ALOT of the films from the early part of the 20th century very LACKING in real story and making up for it with visuals and star appeal.

I was perfectly fine with the story of Wizard Of Oz. It made sense. Oz is, in a lot of ways, comparable to Wonderland: It doesn't follow a whole lot of logic, if at all. The story is basic, but it really doesn't need to be anything more than that. I honestly think that if the story was a bit more complicated (not sure how they could make that so), there wouldn't be as much rewatch value, or to put it simply, the film wouldn't be as good.

It's a problem of today as well - in more then one type of media. Some films can blend it flawlessly, some just fail so hard it's sickening. As a major film buff, I cannot get behind movies like Gone With The Wind or Wizard of Oz because compared to the subject matter theyre based on theyre EXTREMELY flawed and wrong. The novels of Oz are not gay singing musicals of color. The Civil War and slavery was not a technicolor romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men.

Theyre not true to the subject. They're not even really adaptations. Theyre basically 'Look at this!' films. The base story is OK but they trample it..

Well, here's how I think of that. Back in the '30s, people didn't look at films as much more than an escapist fantasy. A gateway to worlds that they could never imagine. They didn't really care if what they were looking at was unlike their own world, or how they imagined it to be in books (historical or fictional), because what they're seeing is so enjoyable.

So what if it doesn't follow the original source material? Or if it's not portraying historical accuracy to a tee? It's still enjoyable to watch. Also, sometimes filmmakers have to take certain liberties with the original source material, to make it more appealing to mass audience. They put musical numbers in Wizard Of Oz because musicals were a big hit at the time. They didn't follow historical accuracy in Gone With The Wind, because if they had, nobody would have gone to see the movie.

Also, Gone With The Wind was based off a book that had a romance of beautiful belles and swashbuckling men during the Civil War. That book won a Pulitzer for Fiction in 1936. David O. Selznick thought it would make a great movie, and decided to make it in technicolor. Because, why not?

Civil War movies in general tend to be "High Risk, Big Payoff" movies: There's a huge chance that no one will want to go see the movie, because it's one of the darkest parts of American history. However, there's also a chance that everyone will want to go see, if it's done well. Gone With The Wind wasn't even the first film to do this. That would go to Birth Of A Nation, another film by D.W. Griffith. That was not only one of the first Civil War films, if not the first, but also the birth of feature length films. Before Birth Of A Nation, the longest film ever was roughly 22 minutes, the length of one reel of film. Birth Of A Nation, however, was over three hours long. Griffith went from city to city showing his film (that was the best way to do it back in the '10s and early '20s) and had an overwhelming success on his hands. And just like Gone With The Wind, Birth Of A Nation doesn't really follow historical accuracy.

Point is, when it comes to something like the Civil War, you can't be too accurate to what actually happened. Otherwise, you're going to drive your audience away. I'm sure that there are films out there that tried to accurately portray the Civil War, but how much you wanna bet that those films turned out awful?

[wataru]

No, the point is - Gone With The Wind is a romance movie based off a historical romance novel about a time when romance was the last thing on Johnny Reb's mind as he lay out in the cold marshes with no shoes, shirt or ammo freezing his ballsack off with the Uni's were telling him what to do with his plantation.

You want to see a historically accurate Civil War film? Watch Glory.

Wizard of Oz IS like Wonderland. But the movie is a technicolor shadow of the novels.

Are these films BAD? No. Are these films GOOD? Sure. Are these films accurate? Hell no. Is Blade Runner better? Yes. Why? Because it is what it is - a steampunk dystopian sci-opera semi-action drama. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek. It's not Hillstreet Blues, Blue Steel or Body Heat. It's a movie that IS what it IS and isnt some film maker saying "Let's just do this shit...",

Theyre just like what Lucas is doing (did) to his films. Story second, whateverthefuckwecanjamintomaketheaudiencesayWOW!

[GotengoXGodzilla]

You want to see a historically accurate Civil War film? Watch Glory.

Matthew Broderick in a Civil War film? No thanks.

I can just see him now: "That's a lot of blacks."

Wizard of Oz IS like Wonderland. But the movie is a technicolor shadow of the novels.

See, I don't think its fair to compare a movie like that to it's novels. A movie deserves to stand on its own merits. To be viewed without being compared or drawn to other works, even if the film is based off of another work.

I also highly doubt that the books are as good as the movie. Wizard Of Oz is constantly on several top films lists, including AFI and Sight & Sound, as well as loved the world over by millions of people. I've yet to meet a person who hasn't at least seen Wizard Of Oz. The books on the other hand, I've hardly heard anything spectacular about them. I'm sure they're good, but they're really not as well known.

Are these films BAD? No. Are these films GOOD? Sure. Are these films accurate? Hell no. Is Blade Runner better? Yes. Why? Because it is what it is - a steampunk dystopian sci-opera semi-action drama. It's not Star Wars or Star Trek. It's not Hillstreet Blues, Blue Steel or Body Heat. It's a movie that IS what it IS and isnt some film maker saying "Let's just do this shit...",

Tech Noir/Sci-fi Noir is how I would describe Blade Runner

Anyway, I still say that Wizard Of Oz, Stagecoach and Gone With The Wind are better films, because those three films changed so much about how films were made. Wizard Of Oz changed how fantasies and musicals were made, with it's elaborate sets, costumes, effects and technicolor, as well as jump starting the career of Judy Garland. Stagecoach changed westerns from being B-movies and looked down upon to a well-received genre, which in turn would help create the sci-fi genre, jump started the careers of John Wayne and John Ford, and would go on to help create Citizen Kane. Gone With The Wind changed how epics were made, began the producing career for David O. Selznick, and is still the highest grossing film of all time.

And as I've said, I don't think Blade Runner would exist if it weren't for films like Wizard Of Oz and especially Stagecoach. Or at the very least, it wouldn't exist in its current form. That's how influential these films are. They're still influencing films today, through what they mean to the history of filmmaking.

Theyre just like what Lucas is doing (did) to his films. Story second, whateverthefuckwecanjamintomaketheaudiencesayWOW!

...Wait, what?

I don't think you can use George Lucas for films like Wizard Of Oz and Gone With The Wind, when they came out nearly 40 years before Lucas started making movies.

[Proofpoochie]

I fail to see what this pointless arguement has to do with Superhero films but, whatever.

[GotengoXGodzilla]

I fail to see what this pointless arguement has to do with Superhero films but, whatever.

It snowballed from talking about how 1994 was a bad film year, because it was the transitional period between Burton's Batman films and Shumacher's Batman films, which I completely disagree with.

[wataru]

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are shit compared to Burton's work.

And I can compare Star Wars to Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz. Because using YOUR arguement - they changed how films were made - because Star Wars DID change how films were made. And sadly this change 20 years later caused Lucas to change how HE made films and he skreeonk over the original trilogy and then gave us the story-shitfest, CGI-jerk off prequels.

Let's say I make a movie, Gone With the Wind style (a bright romance gay little musical) but use the story of the genocide in Africa, or Black Hawk Down, or Hurt Locker. It's not going to work because it's not accurate. These films had a theme and the theme was in GWTW the Civil War and in WoO - a fantasy world and a quest in a strange scarey world. Both failed to portray their core. They DID however portray their medium well. But Blade Runner did both perfectly (and to be honest, since you've not seen The Final Cut of Blade Runner, you cannot compare them).

[GotengoXGodzilla]

Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are shit compared to Burton's work.

...That doesn't mean 1994 was a bad year for films.

And I can compare Star Wars to Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz. Because using YOUR arguement - they changed how films were made - because Star Wars DID change how films were made. And sadly this change 20 years later caused Lucas to change how HE made films and he skreeonk over the original trilogy and then gave us the story-shitfest, CGI-jerk off prequels.

...Star Wars still changed the way films were made, and is still influencing the way films are made nowdays. Sure Lucas won't stop changing the film, but he can't change film history.

Let's say I make a movie, Gone With the Wind style (a bright romance gay little musical) but use the story of the genocide in Africa, or Black Hawk Down, or Hurt Locker. It's not going to work because it's not accurate.

It's also too soon.

These films had a theme and the theme was in GWTW the Civil War and in WoO - a fantasy world and a quest in a strange scarey world. Both failed to portray their core.

Wait, what?

Gone With The Wind and Wizard Of Oz didn't fail at anything. If they did fail at something, we wouldn't be talking about them right now.

But Blade Runner did both perfectly (and to be honest, since you've not seen The Final Cut of Blade Runner, you cannot compare them).

...I've seen Blade Runner. I know the plot, I know what happens, I know the characters, I know the history behind the film, I know what the film talks about in terms of what it means to be human and whatnot. I don't care if I haven't seen ever single cut of the film, because I've still seen Blade Runner. I typically only watch different cuts of films that I actually enjoy.

Also, I completely forgot about another very influencial film from 1939: Rules Of The Game. Yeah, 1939 wins.

[wataru]

1939 had one good thing going for it - mah daddy was born.

And yes, 1994 was a turning point year for film because BF and B&R were the shit rolling downhill of the Batman franchise.

[GotengoXGodzilla]

1939 had one good thing going for it - mah daddy was born.

And yes, 1994 was a turning point year for film because BF and B&R were the shit rolling downhill of the Batman franchise.

I remember hearing about a documentary on TCM a few months ago, entitled "1939: The Greatest Year" (or something like that), in which they talked about all the great films from 1939 and how each one changed films forever.

I still fail to see how 1994 is bad for the reasons you state, when there was no Batman related movie in 1994. If you want to get upset at the year of movies for the beginning of bad Batman films, then get upset at 1995 when Batman Forever was released. And even if you still don't like 1994 for that reason, there's still way more great things that 1994 has to offer, for reasons I've already said.

[wataru]

1994 gave us House Party 3 and Junior. That's enough reason.

[GotengoXGodzilla]

1994 gave us House Party 3 and Junior. That's enough reason.

1994 also gave us Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption, Hoop Dreams, Forrest Gump, Ed Wood and Red. I'll stick with 1994.