Supernatural Invincibility: The Worst Character Concept Ever Concieved
I may be the only one who feels this way... but I feel I need to legitimize my argument, which is so often brushed off with a meager "you just don't understand".
It all started when I was watching Zhang Yimou's Hero the other day with a friend, who is a so-called lover of "Kung-Fu" movies, and I was asked how I liked it. My response was simply "It was really good, but it could have been great were it not for all the flying, floating, and walking on water". He proceeded to brush my opinion off with a simple "You just don't understand the mythology of it all". We then proceeded to argue our points, in which his whole argument was the "why is it ok for American Superheros" bologna, but for some reason he could not comprehend the fact that I have the same bias against Superhero movies, and for the same reason.
His next big argument was that I for some reason hated asian people and this must be the reason i can't take take their mythology seriously... To which i replied by stating that I love the few Kurosawa films that I had seen and that one of their best qualities was that Kurosawa didn't cop-out of good filmmaking by adding a Plethora of tight-rope acts to his fight scenes. Yet, somehow he still wasn't convinced that my argument was legitimate enough.
He then proceeded to bash my love of westerns and spaghetti westerns by somehow implying that a gunslinger being able to hit his target everytime or having impecable aim all the time was somehow even in the same ballpark as my primary argument against neo-kung-fu films. And for some stupid reason I decided to point out the fact that i didn't have a problem with these guys having superhuman skills and swordfighting technique and the fact that gunslingers weren't exactly defying the law of physics or gravity, they were simply better at it then anyone outside of legend could ever be... but there was nothing supernatural about it. So what if the guns were never accurate enough for these guys to be that good... I didn't say I had any problem with the invincible strength and sharpness of some of these swords in these movies or of a superheros weapons. But yet again my efforts were futile.
As I later explained to my friend, I just hate the concept of Supernatural Invincibility. The idea, that someone has special powers or abilities that defy physics and/or gravity or use some sort of magic, will instantly cause me to lose interest in the film. The ones that without this concept could be really great films, like Hero, keep me interested enough with the beauty of the rest of the film for me to still enjoy it, but it definitly takes away from the overall quality of the movie. And here is why: A character who is invincible for reasons outside of his own natural ability takes away the threat of almost anything that will come his way... you know that one of two things will happen: A. His supernatural ability causes him to overcome his threat... or B. Despite his supernatural ability, he gets beat anyway, either for no real reason except dramatic purposes and in a way that you know would never happen to someone with his supernatural abilities or because his oponent was also equipped with supernatural abilities and somehow outdid him... which is obsurd in itself... What entertainment could you possibly get out of a scripted fight between two Supernaturally Invincible opponents?
I am so incredibly disinterested in both of these inevitable conclusions that whenever the hero of the movie has supernatural abilities and conveyes a supernatural invincibility, I lose all hope that I will be seeing a great movie, because in my opinion this is the biggest flaw a film can have.
Although no great movie can overcome such a flaw as Supernatural Invincibility there are a few exceptions that can still come off as only slight flaws.
For example... Superman, although i don't like Superman that much as a movie, the fact that Superman is Supernaturally Invincible isn't the biggest reason. This is because there is an actual physical thing that is his weakness, it's not some girl or some damaging memory... it's a rock, called kryptonite, and the story is just believable enough that it works and doesn't take away from the film... although it's not that great a film to start with... and i could have done without the time travel, that did take away from the film. The other thing that saves the fact that Superman is Supernaturally Invincible from being a major flaw is that he didn't get this invincibility from a nuclear spill or a spider bite or anything like that. He's from another planet... sure it may be overly convenient that he is invincible on earth... but technically he isn't... he has kryptonite, so it all works out.
The other example is the movie in question during this argument, Zhang Yimou's Hero, And only because 99% of the flying, floating, and walking on water happens within stories which you later find out to be not true, so in a way this works, by the end of the film you are not still in the belief that any of the characters are Invicible because of Supernatural reasons... they are just exagerated stories... Yet it still would have been a better film had it stuck with good ol' fashioned swordfighting instead of this neo-kung-fu crap...
...just to clarify... i have no idea what i'm talking about when it comes to the history of kung-fu or superhero movies nor about the mythology of kung-fu like practices... all i know is i don't like that in movies, and i have good reason.
Oh yeah, and just cover my ass... Big Trouble In Little China doesn't count because that is the point... it's all like one big joke... and it's for the sake of being eccentric... not serious and mythological, at least thats the way i see it.
Just realized that this is probably the reason I could never really enjoy any of the Star Wars films... without the Force the movie really is pretty empty... and since i believe the Force to be a terrible vehicle for a movie... there you have it.
Interesting. I think the reason supernatural invincibility tends not to affect me this way is that I usually view the superheroes as having the possibility of not being invincible, from moment to moment. In other words, they have a choice, but because of some combination of will power and ability, they almost always do come out invincible.
If you can look at it like that, you can just suspend disbelief long enough to hold your breath during fight scenes. But I admit, it doesn't always work for me. I was really bored during that fight scene in The Pirates of the Caribbean with the skeletons and was always irritated at those horror film sequels with invincible villains. For Hero, I was able to make it work.
that isn't a bad way to look at it if it works for you... the problem is i have no interest in that possibility or the hardships of going through some choice like that.
grandpa_chum, have you been getting any of my e-mails about the Secret Santa? I haven't heard anything from you since you RSVP'd, and I haven't gotten any CDs from you yet.
shit... i forgot all about that... haven't been on my email for a while either... sorry
It's cool, maybe next year!
Wow! Loved your write up!( So much that I'm endorsing you:) )
I may have an (friendly) argument against this...if you would like to hear it...
lets hear it.
Superheroes have survived the whole second half of the last century and have done nothing but grow in popularity since this decade started. Look at the number of suprhero films released in this decade (and I'm leaving out animated ones, like The Incredibles) - Batman Begins, The Fantastic Four, The Daredevil, Spiderman 1, Spiderman 2, Chronicles of Riddin, Underworld, Van Helsing, Hellboy , Xmen, X2 et al . Why is this happening? I mean prima facie the concept of Superheroes being invincible is ridiculous. They dress in funny costumes and do the most bizzare things (that should make us go hahaha). But then again folks we have a genre that has been an instant success ever since it was created, spawning of many commercial success stories (Marvel Entertainment anyone?). I remember watching the first Superman film with Christopher Reeves and the antique 'special' effects. God ... I couldn't help criticizing it. "Why does this guys have to wear such tight clothes?""Why does he have to wear his (red, yuck!) undies outside his pants?(Maybe he wants to hold up his pants in case his belt should give way..)" "Why should Kryptonite be fatal if it's from his own planet?" "WHY DOES HE HAVE SUPERPOWERS AT ALL??"
Indeed why?
Whatever be the reason, superheroes were supersuccesses too. They caught on.
No matter what anyone said or did, they were a huge phenomenon. Critics scratched their head in amazement. "All the superheroes were their undies outside. What can possibly be so likeable about them?"
Bingo. Thats why they're so popular. They are flawed in one way or other. Just like us. Take Superman for instance. He's fatal towards Kryptonite. Translate that to real world. "I am allergic to (insert objet here). This guy is vulnerable, like me." Aye, this makes him so much likeable. He gives us hope. He gives us courage to fight , despite our weakness.
Another reason why the concept of the superhero has been so successful is that all of us have our stories to tell in theirs. So, ”Superheroes are popular because they tell us about ourselves.”
Let’s take Spider-Man for instance. This struck me recently reading the Ultimate Spider-Man books. While I don’t know what his readership demographic is nowadays (although I suspect it’s in its mid-twenties) he was originally aimed at teenagers. (Peter Parker was a teenager himself in the beginning .)
So here we have a story about a boy who suddenly finds that his body is going through startlingly weird changes. He doesn’t think that these changes are happening to anyone else, and he is certain that nobody will understand what he is going through. If you take out the spider venom, it’s pretty clear what’s going on there, don’t you think?
At the same time, Peter Parker is also bullied and routinely humiliated at school. He is incapable of taking any action against his tormentors and has learned to live with the constant harassment from his tormentors and then one day…
…he doesn’t have to tolerate all that anymore because he can break Flash Thompson’s hand without even thinking about it. Are there any bullying victims out there who haven’t had that fantasy? I know it was one of my personal favourites as a teenager. (It still is hahaha).
This motif is repeated again and again, from Spider-Man to Bazooka Jules. Where the heroes themselves don’t fit that profile (Batman, Superman etc) there is usually a teen or pre-teen sidekick to serve as a proxy for the reader (Robin, Jimmy Olsen and so on.)
The superheroes, contrary to popular belief and scorn, are not really invincible . They just seem to get one drop of sweat after kicking 10 of the bad guys' asses. Hence we wonder " HOLY SHIT! This is crap!". Indeed, it is. But in subconscious thats what all of us would like to be . When we watch them in action, most of us have a willing suspension of belief . Most of us that is. And the rest of us, well, you have to read chum's article to figure it...
That’s what Superheroics are about for me. And that’s why, even though I hate the way they have taken over the medium, and I think they mostly look silly, I can’t help but love ‘em anyway. And that's why we'll be talking about them for a while yet.
that all makes sense... but i guess it's just a preference thing... superheros may tell us about ourselves, but so do a lot of movies that I don't like very much... I'd much rather see a movie about a man who goes through a tough time and comes out on top than a movie about a superhero with the same main idea, it's the same deal with anything far fetched really, i'd rather see the one about a normal man than about a futuristic robot caught in a time warp, that's just me.