Something I hear a lot of today from film fans is, "There's nothing new at the cinema!" It's true that we live in an age of endless remakes, sequels, prequels and the dreaded "reimagining". I am going to make a bolt statement though and say that WE, the movie going public, are complicit in this. Sometimes I think we get EXACTLY what we deserve! We claim that we want something new and something different, yet what I hear from people usually flies right in the face of this. In addition, on any given weekend, the latest sequel or prequel or remake will usually be the number on film. Yes, yes, I know that this is generally because of the 16 year olds in the audience who don't know any better, but the fact remains that the majority of the movie-going audience is NOT made of up this demographic! It's the 29-50 year olds who usually have the money to spend to go to the movies more regularly.
Anyway, enough of the setup. Here is an example of what I am talking about.
If you want to criticize "Man of Steel" because of the plot, or the effects, or the acting, or what have you, then so be it, but if you're going to sit and compare it to something that came before, I think it's not fair and you're wasting your time. Listen, I love Superman and Superman II as much as anyone, but I also liked "Man of Steel" and guess what?? My head DID NOT EXPLODE because of this perceived dichotomy. (Now there's a word you don't get to use every day.) I just cannot believe that this is what people complained about.
I'm glad that "Man of Steel" took a darker tone. Again, as much as I love Superman and Superman II, I always hated the fact that they portrayed Clark Kent as a bumbling goofball most of the time. Yes, a little humor is good, but there are plenty of "dark" story arcs in the comics.
"Superman Returns" came out and people complained that it was boring and that it was too much of a duplication of previous films. I happen to agree with them, but then some of those same people complained because "Man of Steel" was NOT like the previous films. I simply don't get it. I am beginning to think that there is a segment of film "fans" (and I use that term loosely) who are simply not happy with anything, and they thing constantly bitching makes them seem cool and edgy. Well, it doesn't. It just makes you seem bitter.
Here's another case in point. When it was announced that JJ Abrams would be at the helm for the next Star Wars installment, there was a sense of joy from some people and a sense of dread from those who do not like him. Either way, that's not what got to me.
What drove me nuts was that there was IMMEDIATE speculation as to whether or not Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and/or Carrie Fisher would be back to reprise their iconic Star Wars roles. Within a week or two, it reached a fever pitch that has now, thankfully, died down. Well, here's what The Horror Nerd thinks. WHY?? Why do we necessarily need those characters back? Why can't the Star Wars saga so in a new direction, but within the same, established universe? OK, if you want to bring back Luke Skywalker to sort of "anchor" the story arc, then so be it, but I assure you that THIS film fan will be perfectly fine if I don't see Han Solo or Princess Leia anywhere.
Again, if you did not like the film, that's fine, but to bash it because they didn't take the comics and simply translate them to the screen to me is just silly. Again, why in the world should this diminish your love of the comics?