TV/Movies Megathread

[celedhring]

Some are certainly 'just so' stories ... but most aren't (though people keep trying to find meaning to them).

Is Jason's search for the Golden Fleece really an mythological explanation for placer gold mining around the Black Sea? ... maybe.

Many - although I will concede that certainly not all - could also be explained as real events given a mythological coat, and then passed down. Jason's story is about him dethroning Pelias and becoming king. Thus his whole legend, and the Argonauts, seem to me a justification of this act that subverted the existing order. Thus with Argonauts one can claim that he had divine support, and the many heroic acts he performed made him deserving of the throne. The legend might mask actual events of whoever the mythological Jason is based around, like a raiding expedition to Asia Minor that brought back many riches that gets transformed into the story of the Golden Fleece.

Then again, superhero films are doing that to a degree. Why did the Allies win World War II? Because Captain America took down the Red Skull. (And since Captain America embodies the virtues that America wants to see in itself, it gives us a mythological justification of why that happened)

Certainly a lot can be learned about the societies making these stories by such details - but the specific claim in the article, that superhero films represent the dominance of "managerial intelligence over the hands-on worker" seems to me, to put it mildly, a stretch.  Sounds a lot more like the author has an axe to grind, than a real insight to deliver.

Oh, on that I can agree. But I'd really be interested in a proper examination of why superhero films are so ingrained in the current zeitgeist.

[garbon]

No but a typical Greek farmer-hoplite might have some passing familiarity with chariots and their basic principles of operation.

Okay but then say with Spiderman, the typical person has a familiarity with spiders and the stickiness of webs. Also would understand the general principles of acrobatics and swinging on a rope. And spidey sense just as a heightened sense of spacial awareness.

The lack of physical reality is shared commonly in both sets (chariots flying through the sky, a man swinging from building to building on ropes made of web like material) even if there are a lot of day-to-day familiar elements included.

[Malthus]

The average Greek peasant was unlikely to have any direct experience with, say, driving a chariot containing the Sun.

No but a typical Greek farmer-hoplite might have some passing familiarity with chariots and their basic principles of operation.

Yes, and a modern office worker today drives a car. But not, it may be added, one like the Batmobile.

A modern office worker actually flies - in airplanes. They are aware of advances in robotics. But Tony Stark's flying suit, or the "Amazon" Wonder Woman's invisible airplane, are a step beyond their actual experience.

Those are just the "sun chariots" of today.

Hell, some of the oddest inventions of Greek mythology are remarkably similar to today's superhero fare. Take for example Talos - encountered by Jason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talos

What is Talos, if not basically a giant killer robot?

"A hero defeats a giant killer robot by exploiting its one technological weakness" (in the case of Talos, a nail that held its molten blood inside) - exactly how different is this from modern superhero fare?

[As an aside, the ancients did in fact build robot-like automatons: https://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/07/programmable-robot-from-60ad.html ]

Jason and Odyesseus may confront strange beasts (really just amalgams of existing ones) but basically they are long distance mariners out in unfamiliar waters - an experience at least some of the listeners of those tales could have directly.

Some of the viewers of superhero movies today have actual experience fighting in various national armies; some of them, I venture to say, post on this board ... but as with ancient Greeks, most did not have any comparable adventures.

Certainly, few Greeks could have ever fought giant killer robots such as Talos.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, and a modern office worker today drives a car. But not, it may be added, one like the Batmobile.

A modern office worker actually flies - in airplanes. They are aware of advances in robotics. But Tony Stark's flying suit, or the "Amazon" Wonder Woman's invisible airplane, are a step beyond their actual experience.

Those are just the "sun chariots" of today.

I think you and garbon are missing the point being made in the quoted piece.  The present day superhero movies don't just involve people doing ordinary things an extraordinary way, like driving a car, but faster and with more doodads, or an airplane that is invisible, or a really fancy jetpack rig, or a kid that can jump high and stick to walls.  Rather it's a massive and continuous sensory assault of fantastic beings doing uncanny and godlike things like levitating and dropping entire cities or fighting vast hordes of space armies with leaders wielding planet destroying weapons. The fantastic is not a metaphor or hook to a broader narrative message.  Rather the spectacle itself is the message, the narrative so far as it maintains a tenuous existence is just some hand-waving to tie together the set pieces of mayhem.

[garbon]

I guess if one sees them as something completely separate from their comic roots.

[The Minsky Moment]

Hell, some of the oddest inventions of Greek mythology are remarkably similar to today's superhero fare. Take for example Talos - encountered by Jason:

And that's another difference.  The heroes of the Greek tales by and large are really ordinary people, albeit with extraordinary skills.  Jason or Odysseus or even Perseus are regular human beings with extra pluck, courage and cleverness.  The "super" beings are creatures or persons in opposition, to be overcome, typically using ordinary human wit.  There are gods of course, but their position is ambivalent at best - occasionally helpful, more often malevolent, and most of all just observing.  Heracles is an exception I guess although really strength is his only "super power".

[garbon]

Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are ordinary people, no? They just happen to have a lot of money as funding.

[Malthus]

Yes, and a modern office worker today drives a car. But not, it may be added, one like the Batmobile.

A modern office worker actually flies - in airplanes. They are aware of advances in robotics. But Tony Stark's flying suit, or the "Amazon" Wonder Woman's invisible airplane, are a step beyond their actual experience.

Those are just the "sun chariots" of today.

I think you and garbon are missing the point being made in the quoted piece.  The present day superhero movies don't just involve people doing ordinary things an extraordinary way, like driving a car, but faster and with more doodads, or an airplane that is invisible, or a really fancy jetpack rig, or a kid that can jump high and stick to walls.  Rather it's a massive and continuous sensory assault of fantastic beings doing uncanny and godlike things like levitating and dropping entire cities or fighting vast hordes of space armies with leaders wielding planet destroying weapons. The fantastic is not a metaphor or hook to a broader narrative message.  Rather the spectacle itself is the message, the narrative so far as it maintains a tenuous existence is just some hand-waving to tie together the set pieces of mayhem.

This is "the point" of the quoted piece? It isn't actually written there.

What the thing actually says is that, unlike ancient myths, early cowboy movies, or war movies, the modern audience has no direct experience of the stuff done in superhero films.

Leaving aside how many in previous audiences actually experienced the life of a cowboy or soldier ... the premise is simply wrong off the bat: the audience for Greek myths had no particular greater experience of (say) being attacked by giant killer robots (like Talos) than modern audiences. 

Perhaps the full article says more, but I see absolutely nothing in the quoted article claiming that "...  the spectacle itself is the message, the narrative so far as it maintains a tenuous existence is just some hand-waving to tie together the set pieces of mayhem."

[The Minsky Moment]

Tony Stark?  An empty suit.

[Oexmelin]

It seems clear that the piece quoted by Tim focuses on film, and that the evocation of Greek myths is there to assert quickly (for the sake of the argument) the continuous existence of substitution fantasies. The rest of the contrasts established are with genre movies, not classical mythology.

[Malthus]

Hell, some of the oddest inventions of Greek mythology are remarkably similar to today's superhero fare. Take for example Talos - encountered by Jason:

And that's another difference.  The heroes of the Greek tales by and large are really ordinary people, albeit with extraordinary skills.  Jason or Odysseus or even Perseus are regular human beings with extra pluck, courage and cleverness.  The "super" beings are creatures or persons in opposition, to be overcome, typically using ordinary human wit.  There are gods of course, but their position is ambivalent at best - occasionally helpful, more often malevolent, and most of all just observing.  Heracles is an exception I guess although really strength is his only "super power".

That's not really a very meaningful difference.

The greatest heroes in Greek myth were, literally, demigods. You have already mentioned Heracles. He was, literally, the son of Zeus (which is why Hera hated him) - he had super-strength, like Superman. 

It is true that some were just ordinary men with extraordinary gifts or gadgets - Bellerophon had his flying horse - but then, so are some modern super heros: for example, Batman is an ordinary man; Tony Stark is an ordinary man (in a robot suit), etc. These are just ordinary men with extraordinary gifts.

How is Tony Stark not an "ordinary person with extra pluck, courage and cleverness"? True, he has a flying suit he made, which has powerful weapons - but then, Perseus had winged sandals and a God-given silver shield for attacking the medusa. 

[celedhring]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

[Malthus]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A boring theory: an already-existing body of visual lore in the form of comic books creates a built-in audience and relieves the film-maker of the difficulty of making up compelling new stories and visuals. They can just keep plundering the existing stash.

[celedhring]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A boring theory: an already-existing body of visual lore in the form of comic books creates a built-in audience and relieves the film-maker of the difficulty of making up compelling new stories and visuals. They can just keep plundering the existing stash.

Comic book sales are very low though. The built-in audience is negligible. I think this answers the question from the POV of Hollywood: "Hey, we make a ton from those movies, and we have all of these characters and stories we can draw from, let's make a conveyor line of this crap". But why the audiences keep coming for more despite so many iterations on the same theme?

[mongers]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A not very mature nor imaginative audience?