Starrett 1

A. R. Starrett
5/18/17
English 3
Norton N1

A common complaint about modern cinema is the glut of franchise films sweeping into
theaters, with superhero movies being a remarkably common target. But what really is a
superhero movie? Two extremes of what could be considered examples are James Gunns
Guardians of the Galaxy and Alejandro Gonzlez Irritus Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue
of Ignorance). Both examples would, by many definitions, constitute superhero films. But they
could also easily be termed as something else entirely.
Guardians of the Galaxy more easily the fits the mold of a classical space opera, a la Star
Wars, rather than a traditional superhero movie. And it doesnt really contain aspects
traditionally associated with superhero movies: only two characters ever identify themselves
with code-names, and only late in the film do any main heroes concern themselves with saving
civilians; their motivations are largely limited to profiteering or revenge, which are obviously not
at all heroic goals. Superpowers arent very common in the narrative, either. There are aliens and
cyborgs that perform superhuman acts, but most action scenes are driven by characters being
physically above-average while fighting with various types of guns and knives; the closest the
film comes to addressing superpowers are when characters use semi-magical artifacts (such as
the Infinity Stone that drives most of the plot), or when aliens like Groot do what comes easily to
their species. Honestly, its unlikely it would even be considered a superhero movie if it werent
named after a comic book and produced as a part of the larger, superhero-centric Marvel
Cinematic Universe.
On the other hand, theres Birdman, a black comedy based largely on the experiences of
star Michael Keatons work following his run on a series of Batman movies in the 80s and 90s.
Yet, while a superhero is critical to the narrative, its far less of a superhero movie than
Guardians is, mainly because it isnt about superheroes. Its about creativity and filmmaking,
and a superheroic character is present as the physical embodiment of the main protagonists fears
of selling out and resentment of his own past. But the fact that this character is a superhero is
largely irrelevant to the narrative; its about superheroes in the same that Pixars Up is about a
balloon salesman. The character of Birdman as a Batman pastiche could easily be replaced by,
say, a James Bond pastiche, and the narrative wouldnt have to fundamentally change to account
for this, nor would the themes or even aesthetic. Superheroics (or, at least, the concept of them)
are secondary to the actual plot.
But even beyond these superhero movies that really arent, what about the
non-superhero movies that really are? Its been said by many (often derisively) that many
modern action movies are just cleverly disguised superhero romps: films like The Fast and the
Furious franchise, the latter Die Hard movies, arguably even Steven Spielbergs Catch Me If
 Starrett 2

You Can. So are superheroes really been destroying modern cinema? Or are they really what
movies always wanted to be?