Superman Returns is kind of a different beast. I don't look at it as a good, bad or mediocre film. I look at it as a big mistake in every aspect. The film plays off more as a love letter to Superman's previous greatness without him being great in the new film. What's worse is that he doesn't get to do anything great so instead the film shows Superman stalking Louis Lane to having fathered a bast*@! son with her. I don't recall anyone asking for that in a Superman Movie.
I dunno. I realize I'm in the minority here, but I enjoyed Returns, in spite of its shortcomings. I didn't take as much issue with the whole "stalking Lois Lane" thing, since I saw that as being more about his internal conflict. My main issue was with the use of Luthor in the old comedic sense rather than in a truly menacing sense, and the recycling of the "land" angle. >shrug<
Green Lantern...coming from a basic unoriginal hero mold with out of place conflicts. That doesn't mean I hate the film, I just find it completely forgettable.
Minor point here, but are you referring to the character's internal conflicts (IE: the "daddy issues" thing) or do you mean plot points that basically jumped around and came out of nowhere, like, Hal suddenly having a beef with Kilowog due to some training incident we didn't see or somesuch? I still haven't seen the movie, so I'm not sure.
As for the unoriginal hero mold...well, there's a reason why that mold is so commonly used. It actually touches on something that most men deal with to some degree or other in terms of their relationship with their father. Having your dad -- throughout your life and ESPECIALLY when you reach adulthood and are, presumably, a "man" (with all the loaded meaning of that word) -- tell you he's proud of you and loves you is probably one of the most important and most meaningful things to happen in any man's life. If your dad isn't there to do that for you, or you have a strained relationship with him, well, that's fodder for bigtime drama.
Now, I grant you, it doesn't take a ton of energy to come up with a plot point like that, nor does it take a ton of creativity to go back to that well as your hero's big flaw, but this is part of human mythology. I mean, there's a reason why Joseph Campbell talks about the "hero with a thousand faces" often confronting and overcoming (either by force or some other way) a father figure, and why the hero typically has a mentor of some type.
If you're bored with it and you're looking for more heroines to go through their own journeys, well, hey, I don't disagree with you. I think compelling heroines are few and far between, and it's a LOT tougher to write a good story about a super-powered heroine than it is to write about a super-powered hero. I have similar "Oh, sure, take the EASY way out" criticisms of Joss Whedon's propensity to drop 10-ton cartoon weights on anyone in a happy romantic relationship in his works, for what it's worth. I tend to think it's harder to write a compelling relationship that DOESN'T inevitably end in bitter heartbreak or someone being killed by flying lumber, and yet doesn't devolve into sappy "We're always happy" nonsense. But I can't deny that there's powerful drama to be found in a well-told story of love lost, just as I can't deny that there's powerful drama to be found in a well-told story of a man who grew up without a father and how he's reacted to the world as a result. So, yeah, it's common and can often be trite, but if it's done well, I still think it can be worthwhile.
It's not vitriol, and I'm not being a nerd, I'm being a film critic. I think pop culture has a lot to offer. More than alleged "high art" in many cases. But shallow movie making is shallow movie making. You can have good pop culture that doesn't leave you feeling guilty in the morning.
I also think you can have pop culture that you personally enjoy from a "cotton candy" perspective. You know it's mostly hot air, but dammit, it still tastes good to you, so once in a while it's nice to have cotton candy that you find tasty. My own problem with the "cotton candy" response is that it seems that far too often that's ALL that gets made, and frankly, a diet of nothing but that is ultimately unsatisfying. For me, anyway.
I'm more interested in the bet I made that this movie won't break even. I think my odds are looking pretty good.
Another question. Why do you (seem to) take enjoyment from that? Is your issue with the underlying material -- which, by the way, I think COULD be done really well and be made highly entertaining -- or is it that you are sick of the genre as a whole, or what? Personally, I tend to hope more that a blatantly pandering manipulative "branded product" movie (a la G.I. Joe or Transformers) fails miserably, more because I'm hoping that (A) audiences will wise up to that, and (B) that Hollywood will start doing something other than regurgitating brand names slapped onto otherwise mediocre films. But that's just my own particular bugbear. Is your issue here with THIS movie in particular or with this KIND of movie or something else?
