Man of Steel Vs. Guardians of the Galaxy

So I haven't been writing in my blog for a long time, but I thought now might be as good a time as any.  I'm not going to get into why I haven't been bloggin.

It seems, much to my dismay, that Man of Steel has officially lost the culture war.  Not because it didn't do well at the box office--it did--and not just because Guardians of the Galaxy did better than it in the U.S. box office (as of this writing, GotG has yet to catch up in the worldwide box office, but it will).  No, the reason we can say it lost the war was because so many people seized upon this as pay dirt.  Whether it be Superman-hating Marvel zombies or the old codger fans who want to view Man of Steel as some dark sign of the times, they seized upon it.  For pointing this out, I've been accused of lumping those two groups in, but I will acknowledge that they have ultimately different goals.  But the simple fact is that now that the film has defeated Man of Steel--even though so many others didn't--that it's a victory for them and a missed opportunity.

Rocket Raccoon: When he kills people it's cute.
© 2014 Marvel Entertainment

What's so great about Guardians of the Galaxy?  Well, one guy made an interesting point that the movie was "fun."  Meanwhile, on another board, somebody offered that the film was "fun."  Still, someone else had an entirely different take on the film which is that it was "fun."

Indeed it was, but the fact that this rivalry is to the point where even the guy tearing my ticket was like, "you're wearing a Superman shirt to a Marvel movie?" kind of sucks the fun out of it.

But what of Man of Steel?  Well, sadly, the film will apparently suffer the same fate as such hits as Batman Forever, Daredevil and the Fantastic Four movies, which is to say that history will be rewritten to make it sound like a flop and the opinion that the film was bad will achieve a certain axiomatic status.  Saying it wasn't bad will mean you're not a "true geek" and that you "don't get it."

This is the first time Superman has ever been
depicted as standing outside at nighttime
while it was raining.
© 2014 Warner Bros.

When I aired the fact that the self-styled purists were ragging on the film, I was accused of "lumping them together," even though I never said they were the same thing.  If by "lumping" he simply meant pointing out the fact that they were on the same side in this debate, saying I was doing so, was pointless.  If he's under the impression that the times I've lost my temper with fellow fans is his issue, then he has no idea of the torment I have wrought upon many a hater before deleting my posts for fear of it coming up in a search engine.

Because one cannot predict all the clever ways in which my words--no matter how straightforward they are--will be twisted, let me simply state that none of this is to say that 1) not liking Man of Steel makes you less of a fan, 2)  you do not have the right to criticize said film no matter how wrong you are on the facts and armchair psychology you use as a foundation, 3)  that the film is without flaws or that 4) because of a particular style used by the filmmakers a film is instantly either better or worse.

In any case, Superman-haters tend to fall into one of three categories: the unwashed trash which I don't need to elaborate on, the trendy hipsters who seem to treat Marvel and D.C. like sports teams and with that, everything is a rivalry, and of course the psuedo-intellectuals who never seem to tire of saying "Superman is boring because he's too powerful so you can't challenge him and therefore no drama can ever happen and thus you can't relate to him," and blah blah blah.  Man of Steel is only the latest to disprove that notion--whether you liked it or not--but it doesn't matter when it comes to the dogma of Superman-haters.

But there's a dogma to many of those who hate Man of Steel which explains why so many of them either a) never saw it but griped and pissed and moaned about it, or b) (and a can turn into b very easily) did see it--perhaps not on opening night--and went in with an eye toward hating it no matter what.  It also explains why they act like pussy-willows every time somebody defends it with any force, but feel they can say the most horrible things about those who do enjoy or defend it.

The dogma is this: because of the failure of Superman Returns--viewed by them as a "proper" Superman film due to its homages, jokes and relatively bright color scheme regardless of... well... y'know--Warners realized they had to make a "dark" Superman movie to cash in on the "dark trend" that was essentially limited to Chris Nolan's trilogy of Batman films, but don't tell them that.  So they hired Nolan to produce and Zack Snyder to direct.  There was potential for this to be a dark sign of the times, sure.  My point is that I just don't think it was.  I don't think that it made him an anti-hero, and the only moral ambiguity is that the military thought he might be a threat.

"The killer in me is the killer in you" Billy Corgan, 1993
© 1980/2014 Warner Bros.

Why be fair and say, "well, this wasn't as bad as I had feared," when you can just spear people who did like it as "not real fans" and make snide comments about the film, the filmmakers and the actors?

The film was rewritten in the reviews of critics who said there was no humor (there were a few funny lines) and that they never actually call him Superman (in a humorous exchange between General Swanwick and a pilot, he specifically refers to him as such) and no matter how many times you point it out, these poetic truths stick.

No matter how much you challenge the idea that him killing one guy--who he had similarly killed in the comics and regretted--they just kept on keeping on.

What results is that the film is being considered a failure despite being more successful in the U.S. box office than any film from this year except GotG (though I imagine the next Hunger Games film will top it) and so saying you liked it will result in derision within a subculture that's supposedly about embracing guilty pleasures.

You win, we lost and of course, Superman lost.
©2013 Warner Bros.

The question is this.  Now that we know that the most popular films are bright, colorful superhero films that don't take themselves too seriously, do we get to lament the "camp trend?"  Can we lament that they "don't take the characters seriously" as people did about the '60s Batman, as opposed to how Nolan's Batman was--according to some fans and even pros--"abandoning its comic book roots" or "ashamed to be a superhero film?"

May we now lament that anyone who is rude to us is "denying us of our opinion," or hide behind our opinion when attacking others?  When someone loses our temper with us, can we act like that person is the biggest bully in the world and compare him to some jerk we knew in high school?

Can we bemoan what a sad sign of the times it is that every superhero has to be a snarky wiseass, while ignoring Captain America and Thor as major exceptions?

If a Marvel film does worse-than-expected box office, can we point and laugh?  Claim that we've somehow "won?"  Yell "take that!?!"  Can we act like we could run the company better?

Chances are, no, we can't.  A dogma like the one concerning Man of Steel being a dark sign of the times and thus the people who hate it are heroic victims, is hard to overcome.  Other "fun" superhero films--Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Lego Movie from this year--didn't do as well, but the fact that one did means they've "won."  And if it hadn't, they'd get to shout down the benighted masses.

The Lego movie was extremely popular, but in raw numbers,
not as successful as Man of Steel, but if you like this Superman
better, fine.
© 2014 Warner Bros

This "heads I win/tales you loose" thing belongs to them and them alone.  Meanwhile, the haters will just keep on keepin' on, cuz you know, it's not like this Superman film was popular or proved them wrong or anything.  They can keep feeling tough or cool or smart or whatever, because the purists have kicked the cane out of his hand.

© 1986 D.C. Entertainment