Episode 145: Post 911 Superheroes

[Gilberto]

Sean and Lynn finally get around to talking about Superheroes in a Post 911 world. Have we been crying out for heroes? Did Buck Rogers emerge just in time to save us from the Great Depression? Did Superman come to Earth to counter the rise of the Nazi Party? Have heroes throughout history always arisen just when we needed them in comics and on screen? And if so, why do we have so much trouble creating new ones now?

Episode 145

[wilson]

I think that you're reading way too much into this "post 911" thing. I think that it's a matter of the technology finally existing to make the superhero movies look believable (which I think Lynn said early in the show). There were superhero movies following Batman (1989)...Punisher, Spawn, Captain America, The Phantom, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (which was fun)...but they just weren't good. They didn't look realistic and were badly written, which I think killed the genre, somewhat.

But then X-men comes out and utilizes the CGI to make characters and situations that otherwise couldn't have been brought to the screen. X-men happened before 911...Hollywood saw the money it made and jumped on the genre once again, this time with better results. Spiderman, Hulk, Daredevil, Blade 2, and Superman (amongst many others)were all in development or production before 911.

Also, comic book movies fall into that same "safe" category as sequels, reboots, and remakes. It's a known name that already has a fanbase. All the studio has to do is put some money into it and they know they can get a return.

I don't doubt 911 may have some minor push in audiences coming to see a movie where the good guy wins and saves us from all the woes and troubles we couldn't possibly solve otherwise, but I think it's silly to think it caused any great motivation for these movies to be made. It's as simple as money, cowboy.

[Scary Gary]

I agree that superhero movies were on the uprise prior to 9/11. I think it was more the technological breakthrough coupled with the success of the X-Men, as Wilson pointed out. I think the influence of 9/11 was more so in the plots of the stories.

[Glip]

I think it was after The Matrix, considering the way it had a fairly new way of using CGI and filmography that must have been inspirational to movie-buffs to give their ok to new superhero movie ideas.
Although...on the other hand I don't believe I saw those 'bullet-time' slow-mo shots in any superhero movie.

[Gilberto]

I don't dispute that technology inspires epochs in how stories are told. The very first superhero serial boom was as attributable to the advent of talking movies as it was to historical influences. The question is: Are audiences more receptive to superheroes in a post 911 world? CGI's been viable since the early 90's, but for nearly a decade studios shied from superheroes for fear that audiences wouldn't gravitate to the story. But they certainly are now, and not because of the technology. Superman Returns and Green Lantern were visually strong, but they failed to connect at a story level, while Christopher Nolan's interpretation of Batman didn't need CGI spectacle in order to work as a story. Audiences buy into real heroes. The fact that superheroes have been on the screen since they were invented demonstrates that.

And the other (more metaphysical) question is: Don't we always seem to develop the technology necessary to bring heroes to life when we need it? So which process is pushing which?