MorrisonCon: Max Landis, James Gunn Butt Heads At Celluloid Heroes Panel

[CBR News]

During MorrisonCon's heated Celluloid Heroes panel, Max Landis, James Gunn, Darick Robertson and Grant Morrison fiercely debated the term "superhero" in regard to "Chronicle," "Guardians of the Galaxy" and more.


Full article here.

[joeshan]

"Matt is an immature goofball who is forced into a position of responsibility"

So, like Peter Parker, Johnny Storm, Richard Ryder, and any number of other famous Marvel superheroes? Hate to break it to you, Mr. Landis, but you made a superhero origin film whether you want to admit it or not.

[ultraaman]

"The other thing is, superheroes aren't a genre -- they're an ingredient, not a genre," Morrison added.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

[Deep_Sleeper]

Gotta say, I agree with Landis in that...I don't think he made a superhero movie. I don't think anyone would classify Akira as a superhero movie and Chronicle is very close to what Akira was.

He didn't create a superhero movie, IMO...unless anyone with super powers that acts heroic is a super hero movie. He created a movie about people with super powers, but it wasn't a super hero movie. I think one of the things that would have made it a super hero movie is if it had some type of secret identity or special costume. If anything, we have to classify it as a supervillain movie, as the only one to put on a disguise was Andrew.

Chronicle was pretty awesome, regardless of what people classify it as.

[The Fist of Goa]

"The other thing is, superheroes aren't a genre -- they're an ingredient, not a genre," Morrison added.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

I think it's fine to say there is a superhero genre. There clearly is. It's just that the presence of characters with super powers doesn't necessarily denote that the story they appear in as part of the superhero genre.

[JokersNuts]

theres a secret origin, special powers, a costume, a hero a villain, a fight at the end between good and bad that involves flying around and using powers. its a super hero movie through and through. Max Lanis wrote a good movie, but he is such a douchehole. you made a movie with superhero tropes, its no big deal, people liked it, it was good. calm down.

[Kalen O.]

I dunno, reading that article, I'm still not seeing where Landis comes off as a douche. Gunn is the one who makes a big jump in assuming that just because Landis doesn't like to classify Chronicle as a superhero film, that means he's somehow dissing fans of superheroes. Landis clearly loves superheroes. He has a different interpretation of what HE wrote, personally. Why is that so objectionable?

(And for the record, I agree with him. I love superheroes just as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't automatically classify Chronicle as it. Chronicle is about superhumans....but so are plenty of other sci-fi thrillers that I wouldn't call superhero films, like Firestarter, etc. When you boil both down, Push and Chronicle are both about conflicts between ordinary people with psychic abilities.....is Push a superhero film?)

[joeshan]

[QUOTE=is Push a superhero film?)[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would classify that as a superhero film. It was about people with super powers acting heroically. Masks/secret identities/capes are not, IMO, required elements of a superhero film. Alphas is unmistakably a superhero show despite the lack of these elements. I'd put Push in that category as well.

[BrotherUnitNo_4]

Yes, I would classify that as a superhero film. It was about people with super powers acting heroically. Masks/secret identities/capes are not, IMO, required elements of a superhero film. Alphas is unmistakably a superhero show despite the lack of these elements. I'd put Push in that category as well.

At a certain point where would you draw the line? I mean Heroes had no costumes or secret IDs. It's really no more a superhero product than Chronicle.

[Cryptid]

"Matt is an immature goofball who is forced into a position of responsibility"

So, like Peter Parker, Johnny Storm, Richard Ryder, and any number of other famous Marvel superheroes? Hate to break it to you, Mr. Landis, but you made a superhero origin film whether you want to admit it or not.

I think the difference is that Peter Parker's personal transformation is the center of both films that tell his origin story, while the center of attention in Chronicle is the downward spiral of the kid holding the camera. The hero character is tugged along for the ride, without any hint during the final sequence that the film has been his story or that he will now uphold whatever lesson he's learned about the sacred duty that comes with levitating crap. There is no closing meditation on what it means to be Telekinetic Dude.

It doesn't sound like Max Landis is denying the vast amount he has borrowed from super-hero stories. The film checks off virtually every plot beat in something like Spider-Man, but it also turns them all sideways. So, if he wants to say that he's made a comic-book inspired story that absolutely isn't about capes or heroism, and sidelines any kind of hero's journey in favor of a horror-movie finale, then I buy that. On the other hand, if Landis wants to claim that it's a total cultural coincidence that anyone associates his movie with super-heroes, then maybe he shouldn't have released that hilarious promotional video about Superman.

[joeshan]

At a certain point where would you draw the line? I mean Heroes had no costumes or secret IDs. It's really no more a superhero product than Chronicle.

I'm not sure you are understanding my argument, or else I'm not understanding yours. I agree with you - Heroes, Alphas, Chronicle - all are superhero product in my mind. Smallville had zero costumes for years, but no one would say that wasn't a show about a superhero.

I guess to me the determining factor is whether or not the hero of the story has superpowers. If so, I classify it as a superhero story. There are obviously many different ways this can be presented - as blatant as something like Avengers or as subtle as something like Push. Although as someone noted earlier, Chronicle features: characters gaining amazing powers (including flight, augmented strength, TK) after being exposed to an unknown, possibly alien substance; development of/training with these powers; one character's descent into supervillain territory by using his powers for selfish/evil ends and another's rise to hero/protector of the innocent, etc etc. It did all these things in (arguably) different and more subtle ways than your typical Marvel film, but at the same time had enough in common with your classic superhero origin story to fall within the same "genre".

[joeshan]

I think the difference is that Peter Parker's personal transformation is the center of both films that tell his origin story, while the center of attention in Chronicle is the downward spiral of the kid holding the camera. The hero character is tugged along for the ride, without any hint during the final sequence that the film has been his story or that he will now uphold whatever lesson he's learned about the sacred duty that comes with levitating crap. There is no closing meditation on what it means to be Telekinetic Dude".

"It doesn't sound like Max Landis is denying the vast amount he has borrowed from super-hero stories. The film checks off virtually every plot beat in something like Spider-Man, but it also turns them all sideways. So, if he wants to say that he's made a comic-book inspired story that absolutely isn't about capes or heroism, and sidelines any kind of hero's journey in favor of a horror-movie finale, then I buy that. On the other hand, if Landis wants to claim that it's a total cultural coincidence that anyone associates his movie with super-heroes, then maybe he shouldn't have released that hilarious promotional video about Superman.

Well, at the end he saves the city from the supervillain who is threatening it and then flies off to....what? I actually don't remember. Improve his powers? Investigate where they came from? Be a better hero? Regardless, sounds pretty superhero-y to me.

I actually think you're arguing my point better than I am. I never said it didn't put twists on the genre or that it was a Marvel-movie clone. But I think your above paragraph quite nicely indicates why everyone thought it was actually a superhero movie.

[Kalen O.]

I dunno, I'm still not seeing where Landis has ever denied his script borrows from comic books or that there are associations with superheroes. He just doesn't consider it a superhero film, and is essentially making the distinction that if you don't draw a line somewhere, you're saying any story with superhumans who act heroically is a superhero story. And considering most stories in general have the main characters acting heroically, that's essentially saying pretty much any story with superhumans is by default, a superhero tale.

The distinction for me, and I think Landis, is that the 'super' in superhero needs to apply to the heroics as much as the powers. After all, one of the biggest superheroes of all time, Batman, HAS no powers, so clearly, superhuman can not be the defining aspect of superheroism. I mean, if you look at all the big comicbook superheroes, its their personal credo's that set them apart every bit as much as their abilities.

Batman - inspiring fear in the hearts of evil-doers
Spiderman - with great power comes great responsibility
X-Men - protecting a world that hates and fears them
Wonder Woman - sent to bring the Amazon ideals of peace and love to the world of man
Superman - protector of his adopted world
Iron Man - once he sold weapons, now he uses that same technology to protect the world from his own weapons and others like them

And so on, and so on. In contrast, the 'hero' of Chronicle gains powers with his two friends, they spend most of the movie goofing off with them, and then in the climax, he fights his friend/cousin. It's a very human conflict, just with superhuman powers thrown into the mix. Defending civilians is presented almost as an afterthought....the conflict between Matt and his cousin isn't about saving the world, its about their personal grievances and differences. EVERY story with the exception of stories about villains gives us someone to root for. No matter what genre, you're going to see the main character acting heroically because that's what people want to see. But that's not the same thing as characters making a conscious choice to dedicate themselves to saving and rescuing innocents, ie actual superheroics, and that's where the distinction being made lies.

Someone brought up Alphas and Heroes - I'd call Alphas and Heroes both superhero shows, because they're both about people with superhuman abilities whose whole core concept revolves around using those abilities to stop crimes, help people, and defend innocents against other superpowered individuals. In contrast, I don't consider PUSH a superhero film because it was about superhumans in conflict with each other for personal reasons that had nothing to do with protecting innocents and were entirely motivated by self-interest.

[joeshan]

Or you could view Chronicle as a classic origin tale - kid gets superpowers, starts off using them in silly/selfish/immature ways, eventually must step up and act like a hero in order to save the city and/or stop the bad guy. That's a superhero story to me, even if it differs in the way it eventually gets there.

You might be right about Push, honestly I don't remmeber anything about it other than Chris Evans and Dakota Fanning were in it. Regardless I am enjoying this intelligent debate that is also helping me avoid actually working today.

[Sighphi]

is Push a superhero film?

Yes, I would classify that as a superhero film. It was about people with super powers acting heroically. Masks/secret identities/capes are not, IMO, required elements of a superhero film. Alphas is unmistakably a superhero show despite the lack of these elements. I'd put Push in that category as well.

I dont really remember the film but.... did they actually act heroically or where they just trying to survive?

Asked by Landis if he felt his movie was going to be cast-dependent or if Gunn had more freedom to adapt what he wanted, Gunn responded frankly. "It's not cast-dependent. We could make the movie with unknowns if we wanted to.

Lulz, yeah right.
With this movie Marvel is going to just say, "Screw it, go on, have fun. See you when it's finished."

"I think the most successful comic [movies] tend to be like Batman or the Avengers, where there's fifty years of material to work from so they create a new story. With 'Watchmen,' you made a movie from a finished, complete story and it doesn't work!" Morrison said, panning the idea of slavish devotion to a comic when adapting it to the big screen.

Huh? One example of a work that has and ending not working doesnt really make your point. Since... there have been endless flicks based on things that have years worth of material and ended up horribly wrong.