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. The overarching plot is closer in structure to a classic western like The

Magnificent Seven than The Dark Knight, to use one comparison. 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
 Starrett 2

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, which arent concerned with them in any way whatsoever.

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 a number of

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

You Can are closer in structure and intent to superhero stories than anything else. So are

superheroes really been destroying modern cinema as well as the cities on the screens? Or are

they really what movies always wanted to be?