Growing up a pretty major movie and comics geek, I always envisioned the day that my favorite comic superheroes would get big-screen versions. Sure, Superman did his thing in the 80s, but there was always something of a disconnect: as great as Christopher Reeve was, he was still in some sense bound by cinematic conventions of the time. Sacrifices to comic lore had to be made, so Brainiac became a supercomputer and Bizarro became the result of a literal split personality caused by ersatz Kryptonite, both created by…Richard Pryor. Instead of Darkseid or some other awesome supervillain, the baddie in “Superman IV” was…some made-up Superman clone played by a male model with long fingernails.
Sometime after Tim Burton’s “Batman” films drew us a little closer to the realities people like me longed for, when we grew up and graduated college and had kids in whom we instilled values like “Han shot first,” studio heads started listening to us, and movies like the “Dark Knight” and “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” sagas started popping up with more frequency. Soon, the Internet began promising it wasn’t (and didn’t have to be) enough, and we needed info on what’s next, and what’s next after that.
And the San Diego Comic Con became an annual Geek Mardi Gras.
Things hit their peak a few years ago, when, a full year in advance, the entire main cast of The Avengers hit the stage in Hall H and told us how awesome their superhero crossover movie was going to be. They were right, of course, and though it’s obviously not like that all the time (I submit to you “Spider-Man 3,” the “Fantastic Four” movies, and “Green Lantern”), we are able to get, and consequently form opinions about, the quality of a movie before we ever see a single frame of it (or, perhaps, little more than a single frame of it). It was then that it was clear to most everyone that this annual July shindig was more than cosplayers getting together to spend money and get some autographs. Suddenly what was big business was now a huge cultural phenomenon.
And message boards and blogs light up, a solid portion of the comments bemoaning the crappy job filmmakers are doing creating the movie, others alight with excitement, while others bemoan that we have an opinion of a movie we haven’t even seen yet. Yes, the Internet’s legacy is that wecan have arguments about our arguments with each other in (what passes these days as) a public forum.
So who is at fault? Is it “The Internet,” that independent collection of interconnected computers? Is it “The Media,” i.e., the people, like me, sitting behind those computers?
Or is it (…again like me), those who sit on the other side of those computers, gleefully devouring these nuggets of artificially, focus-group-approved information like Mogwai offspring taking down a plate of Billy Peltzer’s leftover chicken legs? I’d also submit maybe all of us are to blame, and that, maybe, just maybe, “blame” is an inaccurate word, designed to elicit a judgment from those reading it that what we are doing is somehow wrong or shameful.
So why don’t we just call it what it is? Fun. Those with the foresight to know whether they’ll like a movie based on its director or leading actor, or a few photos, or a video clip, or the font they use for the title treatment, good for you. If it prejudices you irrevocably from enjoying the movie, that’s what you deserve. Others of us can go see it and judge for ourselves.
So, if you’re so inclined, hit those blogs and boards and sites, eat up your chicken and form your cocoons. When you come out, we’ll be here waiting to react to your stupid opinions.
