Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[est]

Saw a trailer for this the other day.  It looks like an excellent "things exploding" movie.  Anyone else excited to see a drunk, nigh-impervious Will Smith throwing kids into the upper stratosphere for smart-mouthing them and stopping a runaway train by standing in front of it?

[Boro_Bandito]

Hancock is a perfect example of GENERIC EVOLUTION. Generic evolution is a syntactic variation of the semantic elements that define a genre, most notably the Iconography, Character, Narrative Structure and Themes. In lamens terms, it is the knowlegable manipulation of the material that makes a movie, in this case the superhero movie, to fit contemporary culture and tastes. According to Thomas Schatz, a well known generic theorist, every genre goes through four stages of generic evolution, the last of which is baroque, which is the stage at which reflexivity overrides the core ideals of the genre. Other movies like Super Hero Movie(or whatever it was called, by the guys who made Scary Movie) represent the parody, or really in there case a farcical view of the genre. Hancock seems to be more of a Post-modernistic view of the superhero genre, because it really doesn't seem to show a knowledge of the genre's history or traditions, or even really refer to the history of the sub-culture of comic books that the superhero movie came from in the first place. It's just a superhero movie based on the set of guidelines that other superhero movies has built, its media made from media, not from a source material (the comic books).

Do I actually understand what the hell I just said?! Only vaguely, goddamn Genre Theory class. The movie looks like it'll be good for some action entertainment and some laughs, and I'll fully be able to judge the movie on itself, not on its predecessesor or a comic book or novel that it's based on. That usually is a good thing. I'll go to see it in theaters, and unless its really bad I probably won't have anything bad to say about it. Things that go boom, woo.

[Jimmy the Squid]

I saw a trailer for this on Friday, I reckon it's going to be pretty good. A superhero movie that I can only compare to the genre itself rather than any source material sounds like fun and I'll be honest, I like Will Smith and judging from the trailer this is a nice departure from the "serious" films he's been doing lately.

[Surgoshan]

1)  Boro, try going through your post and expanding some of the more abstruse terms, providing definitions.  Then for every term which has multiple meanings in different fields (I doubt 'reflexivity' means the same thing in generic theory as it does in linguistics, for example), do the same.  Provide one or two examples where needed.  Then divide it up into paragraphs.  Do that and not only will you start making sense, but you'll have provided a good introductory post for a much more in-depth discussion of the genera which, more likely than not, will be buried in a few days if it ever gets off the ground.  In any case, you'll probably have gotten more out of the class.

2)  I want to see this movie.

[sean]

Phil I am sorry but what the fuck are you talking about? Can you explain in stupid people terms? All of that went straight over my head.

Anyway, unless this thread tells me this movie is amazing when it comes out I will probably pass and wait for DVD. I remember seeing a trailer when I went to go see Iron Man and thought "eh."

[Blue Kitty]

"Do you remember Walter, the gray whale that you rescued?"
"No"
*shows the youtube video of him throwing the whale back into the ocean*
"Green Peace does"

[Ikrik]

I think this might be the first Will Smith vanity film that I will enjoy. His vanity films (I Am Legend, I Robot, Hitch) have all been sleepers for me but there's something about Hancock that just looks pretty cool.  That and the fact that his foil is Jason Bateman who has been all kinds of awesome. 

Boro.....I understand what you said.....even if you didn't.  Superhero movie was a farce on superheroes and Hancock is more "post-modern."  that's pretty much all you needed to say. 

My only problem with the trailer was the fact that some of flying effects look REALLY cheesy....but time will tell if that's on purpose or not.

[Johnny C]

Sometimes I just don't get this forum.

[Dissy]

I saw a trailer for this on Friday, I reckon it's going to be pretty good. A superhero movie that I can only compare to the genre itself rather than any source material sounds like fun and I'll be honest, I like Will Smith and judging from the trailer this is a nice departure from the "serious" films he's been doing lately.

Actually, I have heard that this is supposed to be a really dark, and serious film.  Stat.Rape was just dropped from the film earlier this month, as well as a whole host of other "bad" scenes, just to make it an "R" rating.

That being said, fuck yea Black Superman!

[De_El]

What annoys me is that in the press and stuff for this movie they act like it's a revolutionary new idea for super heroes to have flaws and fall apart.

[KvP]

I don't think it's the flawed superhero thing that's supposed to be new. It's the fact that the populace actively resents and hates the guy. There are elements of that in Batman and Spiderman, maybe, but they're usually appreciated by somebody.

[Ikrik]

I don't think it's the flawed superhero thing either.  I think it's the fact that he thinks he can do whatever he wants with his powers, that he can abuse them however he wants and doesn't care. 

[De_El]

"Hancock" is probably two steps past safe. This time Mr. Smith, who shares a penchant for pushing the envelope (think of “Ali,” undertaken when he was still an action-comedy star), plays a superhero who swills bourbon, hates his job...

But I suppose it is kind of different.  I don't know.

[Boro_Bandito]

1)  Boro, try going through your post and expanding some of the more abstruse terms, providing definitions.  Then for every term which has multiple meanings in different fields (I doubt 'reflexivity' means the same thing in generic theory as it does in linguistics, for example), do the same.  Provide one or two examples where needed.  Then divide it up into paragraphs.  Do that and not only will you start making sense, but you'll have provided a good introductory post for a much more in-depth discussion of the genera which, more likely than not, will be buried in a few days if it ever gets off the ground.  In any case, you'll probably have gotten more out of the class.

I did that on purpose guys. By leaving it in one paragraph and basically going through a list of generic terms I was creating something that you weren't even supposed to read. Just skim over and say "big words, lol." I understand the concepts more than I've said, but taking an hour and a half to expand that out to 7 or 8 paragraphs was not my goal.

[a pack of wolves]

I don't think it's the flawed superhero thing that's supposed to be new. It's the fact that the populace actively resents and hates the guy. There are elements of that in Batman and Spiderman, maybe, but they're usually appreciated by somebody.

Dai Nipponjin did this really well, the protagonist of that was despised by the populace. I'm not sure if it got a general release anywhere outside Japan but he makes a very convincing washed-up superhero, the last of his dynasty/franchise. With Hancock I keep trying to not be disappointed when I see it mentioned and find out the discussion isn't about Tony Hancock. As a film I think it looks pretty dull and uninspired but will probably have a few alright gags in it and some pretty effects.

[KvP]

I also forgot about Hulk. Pretty sure everybody (including Banner) thinks he's a grave threat to everyone and everything around him.

[est]

Guys, it's gonna be a fucking action movie, not a piece of epic cinema.

[Surgoshan]

"You gotta think about Cliff and the cliff and the cliff and the Cliff are the same!  It's too cerebral!  We're making a movie here, not a film!" - Kit Ramsey, Bowfinger

[RobbieOC]

Guys, it's gonna be a fucking action movie, not a piece of epic cinema.

But it is trying to do something relatively different in the superhero (movie) genre, and therefore it is opening itself up to more criticism than any Spider-Man movie would have, because of the postmodern twist it is taking on things. I do think there's a point where it can be over-analyzed, but the reason they are making this movie is because it's "new and different" and therefore it is unrealistic to expect people not to treat it differently. Also, as much as people will try and deny it, the race issue is huge in this movie. Why does the alcoholic superhero have to be black? Why can't a superhero that is also a bum be white? Why is Hollywood racist? Those questions will be asked, and again, it is unrealistic to expect anything else.

That said, I do agree with you, est, I just think a request like that is going to fall on a lot of deaf ears.

[Surgoshan]

Why does the alcoholic superhero have to be black?

They're saving the alcoholic white superhero for Iron Man 2.

[est]

I am pretty sure you fucked that quote up, but whatevers!

Anyway, what I am getting at is that I am not sure if the makers of the movie are trying to do something revolutionary here or just trying to make a fun movie that is slightly different from the norm and if you think about it is based roughly around "what would happen if Will Smith's bad-boy kind of action hero character was a superhero?"  I am trying to figure out if this is a Will Smith vehicle or if the idea was there before Will Smith was even thought of.  Is this an original screenplay or is it based on something?

[De_El]

It's an original screenplay.

[RobbieOC]

But for most people it won't matter if it's a Will Smith movie or something else. It's part of the whole "the artist is dead" idea. The original intent won't matter, it's the subtext. Superman was white and wasn't an alcoholic, but Hancock is black and is an alcoholic. It's not a school of thought I agree with completely, but there are a lot of people who follow it, regardless.

I think the movie looks quite good, after watching the official movie trailer. The effects look fine to me, and I've always been a fan of Will Smith and Jason Bateman, so it gets my vote on both of those fronts. I really think this could be a really great movie.

[Boro_Bandito]

Ha, est, you bring up a good point. I think the movie really is meant to just be a fun-actiony type of thing, but yet it's also got plenty of stuff that can be read into for those that want to delve to those possibly unintentional depths. It's an Accidental Post-Modern Superhero movie! (which I personally thing is a sub-genre of the Western anyway, or just a sci-fi/fantasy hybrid of it)

[LordNagash]

Looks interesting, though that whale would be very dead.

[De_El]

I gotta say, RobbieOC, you keep bringing up this thing about the fact that Hancock is black and an alcoholic while other screen super heroes weren't, like it's this thing that will cause major controversy, but you're the first source I've heard of that's made any note of it.  Is this a discussion that's playing out somewheres on the internet?

[KharBevNor]

I thought this was going to be a thread about

[RobbieOC]

De_El, I could be premature on it. And it may never happen. But it seems to me like something that should be looked at, I guess. Let me explain that better.

It shouldn't be an issue that he's a black superhero, because there are lots of those these days, and I like to think that we're getting to a point where that isn't an issue anymore (redundant). But, I'd put money down that at some point it will come up, and it's the kind of thing that should be met head on and not dismissed, because dismissing that kind of issue is exactly the kind of behaviour that perpetuates it. I know that sounds ridiculous, believe me, and maybe I'm still analyzing things too much because I just took a Film as Lit class, but it seems like an interesting thing to me, and I don't think it should be ignored. This is, quite possibly, the wrong forum to bring it up on, though.

My main point was, this is the first major black superhero in a movie. It seems strange that he is facing these issues before the famous white alcoholics, like Tony Stark that someone mentioned earlier.

[Surgoshan]

My main point was, this is the first major black superhero in a movie. It seems strange that he is facing these issues before the famous white alcoholics, like Tony Stark that someone mentioned earlier.

Blade.  He got a whole trilogy.  It was in a few theaters.

[Ikrik]

......Blade? Sure..if you really want to call him a superhero. 

As for black superheroes in general how many can you name?  I went to Wiki and I tried to see all the ones I recognized:
Green Lantern 3
Captain America?
Bishop
Storm
Blade

So........saying that Hancock is the first real black superhero in a movie is a good point. 
RobbieOC....where are these black superheroes that you're talking about?

[Surgoshan]

......Blade? Sure..if you really want to call him a superhero. 

He's got more superpowers than Batman, and he was orphaned even younger than Batman was.  And he kills vampires, which apparently makes him more unambiguously good than, say, Frank Miller's Batman.

[Blue Kitty]

As for black superheroes in general how many can you name?  I went to Wiki and I tried to see all the ones I recognized:
Green Lantern 3 John Stewart
Captain America
Bishop
Storm
Blade

How the hell did you not get Luke Cage/Power Man?

[a pack of wolves]

So........saying that Hancock is the first real black superhero in a movie is a good point. 

No, there was Steel with Shaquille O'Neal. It was terrible but Steel was always an intensely dull character anyway so that's not surprising.

[ThePQ4]

I think that should be altered to say "black super hero staring in his/her OWN movie"...just an observation.

Anyway, my sister wants to see this. I'll go along with her, but I'm not like overly excited about it or anything. It looks like it should be good though.

[Boro_Bandito]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107563/



Also I believe an original screenplay, from 1993. A horrible comedy/superhero movie, but proves that Hancock is not the first of its kind, just [probably] infinitely better.

[ThePQ4]

I dunno...black comedy films themselves just aren't funny. That's not meant to be racist or anything, I just really don't "get it", I guess.

[CamusCanDo]

How the hell did you not get Luke Cage/Power Man?

Also Black Panther.

[KickThatBathProf]

And Black Vulcan if you've ever watched Harvey Birdman or Justice Friends for an extended period of time...

...in your pants

[manu]

Guys, it's gonna be a fucking action movie, not a piece of epic cinema.

lies >.> this movie will make teh babies cry and change lives forever.

I'm psyched, looks like good fun.

[Jackie Blue]

Sometimes I just don't get this forum.

[Surgoshan]

Okay, the existence of black superheroes and black superhero movies aside, we're talking about Will Smith.  I really doubt he'd be willing to star in a movie that he felt was a negative portrayal of a black man or that played on stereotypes in a negative fashion. 

[E. Spaceman]

Bad Boys?

[est]

The difference between a "superhero" movie and an action hero movie is almost negligible.  There's been plenty of black action heroes, a lot of which have been played by Will Smith.  I am willing to bet that when I eventually watch this movie it'll just feel like another action movie.

[Muppet King]

How the hell did you not get Luke Cage/Power Man?

Also Black Panther.

Also War Machine.

[Lines]

Am I the only one who thinks this movie looks kind of dumb?

[Mazlow01]

I am really excited about this movie. From what I can tell the trailer has really only shown scenes from the first 20-30 mins of movie. There was an extended trailer in front of Indiana Jones and it gave you a little more info on the plot. I think if you are expecting alot of drunk super hero stuff you will be disappointed, but I could be wrong.

[PacoSees]

Looks funny and pretty well-done in terms of actors that can fill the roles of "gruff devil-may-care superhero" and "goofy good Samaritan publicist".  The only thing that's made me somewhat less interested (not enough to not see it) are the rumors flying about the re-shot scenes like something about passing a bottle of bourbon to a kid just for a rating.  I think that if they're true, they nixed a bunch of great comedic things, but they do have to sell it, right?  We'll find out when it comes out "Unrated" on DVD.

[MusicScribbles]

Has anyone seen this yet?
I mean, the concept is really interesting, and sounds like it would make a fun movie, but I'm reading nothing but bad reviews for the thing.
Also, since movies are so expensive now, I feel like I have to screen what I watch, so that I can come away from most things with a "That worth the ten dollar admission." Read: I am poor.

So, opinions. Let's have them.

[Eris]

http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,20173.0.html

[MusicScribbles]

Really? Well...shit.
That one was dead anyway.