Best superhero movie of all time? (Nominations thread)

If sub-par effects are disqualifying, then most of these films are disqualified. Will you believe a man can fly? Not through watching the original Superman; those effects are totally janky by today's standards! Still an important movie (not that great, though; the plot is pretty dumb, with a stunningly lazy deus ex machine used to get Superman out of having to make a truly horrifying decision. One that The Dark Knight has the courage to follow through on). I have a lot of love for this film (Christopher Reeves; Margot Kidder; that soundtrack!), but it's kind of overrated, IMO.
Yeah, the effects aren't great these days, but Reeve's physical performance is what sells it. Not just how he changes mannerisms in each persona, which is borderline magical in itself, but the way he transitions from walking to flying and vice versa looks so natural that you hardly question that he could just take to the air at any moment - and while the bluescreen work in flight is janky, he never looks like he's just dangling there and uses posture changes to convey the differences in how he's flying.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, the effects aren't great these days, but Reeve's physical performance is what sells it. Not just how he changes mannerisms in each persona, which is borderline magical in itself, but the way he transitions from walking to flying and vice versa looks so natural that you hardly question that he could just take to the air at any moment - and while the bluescreen work in flight is janky, he never looks like he's just dangling there and uses posture changes to convey the differences in how he's flying.
No arguments from me! Reeves will never be topped in that role. And that film gets Superman in exactly the way that Snyder's films don't.
 

I though that Bloodshot was more of a "body repair nanites" thing, than actual cyber?
Well, it could be argued that the nanites are a cybernetic implant, as some of the different iterations of the character could control other machines by touch using these implanted nanites.

I was more making reference to the "average Joe" archetype, as most cyborg-based characters are normal humans before augmentation.
 

If sub-par effects are disqualifying, then most of these films are disqualified. Will you believe a man can fly? Not through watching the original Superman; those effects are totally janky by today's standards!

Bad special effects are certainly a disqualifying item in my book. However, I also don't only judge special effects by whether they are simply realistic or not. IMNSHO, whether the special effects are "good" or "bad" depends on a couple of factors.

- Do the effects properly convey the narrative that they are supposed to. Basic film making here, but important to consider.

- Do the aesthetics of the effects match the look and feel of the rest of the movie; are they visually consistent. Effects that are jarringly different from the style or feel of the film draw attention to the effects in a bad way. For movies that are supposed to be "realistic", this is where you want effects to look "realistic", but it's important to remember that "realistic" is a relative term. I don't care if effects look "old" as long as they look like the same age as the rest of the film, and match the rest of the cinematography.

- Probably the most personal - Do the effects convey the emotions that they are supposed to. Like blood in a horror movie: too little doesn't tell you anyone is hurt, too much is silly, but there's a "just enough" amount to convey the fear or grossness that is needed (and sometimes that amount may be different than what is realistic).

Consider RoboCop. ED-209 is literally janky. It's stop motion animation against live action. Of course some people will say that it doesn't "hold up" to modern effects. But to me, it's perfect. The motion matches perfectly with Peter Weller's Ivan-The-Terrible-style exaggerated movement. The aesthetic blends well, especialy with the other tech and in-universe media that we see in the film. The effects are obviously unrealistic and dated, but I still say they're great, fun, and highly effective.

Putting all that together, I have to say that I agree with @OB1 any others that complain about Black Panther, because there really are some jarringly bad moments. It's not simply that the CGI looks bad, it's that it's blatantly a lower tier of special effects from other things we see in the MCU, which is a jarring aesthetic mismatch. The visuals are even inconsistent with other depections of the same characters in other parts of the same movie. To give credit where it's due, though, I will say that even the effect that are bad do a good job of conveying the fight; the blocking, action tracking, and mise-en-sen are still well done.
 

While I greatly enjoyed both Black Panther and the Dark Knight, I don’t think either is perfect. Every time I watch Dark Knight I’m riveted when Ledger is on screen and bored when he’s not; it’s an amazing performance.

For Black Panther the third act is the worst kind of superhero-fights-evil-version of himself CG slop, which is so disappointing after Killmonger’s wonderful depiction in the majority of the movie. I should also say while Jordan is the highlight of the movie, Andy Serkis’s scenery-chewing Klaw is also fantastic, and it’s a real shame they offed him.

I don’t know what I’d vote for, but I have a lot of affection for X-2, though I haven’t watched it in a while and am unsure if it holds up.
 

Andy Serkis’s scenery-chewing Klaw is also fantastic, and it’s a real shame they offed him.
It never ceases to amaze me how long it took for the MCU to let any villain other than Loki survive the end of a movie. They put so many great characters and performances into the woodchipper for no apparent reason.

Imagine a world where the new Black Panther was Killmonger and all the stories that would make possible.
 
Last edited:





Remove ads

Top