As a matter of fact, you're wrong. It's Surtur, not Hela, who is attempting to destroy Thor's home world, and he succeeds. Thor fails. Hela kills nearly all the Asgardians, destroys Thor's hammer, and rips his eye out, and Surtur annihilates Asgard. Thor escapes with a few stragglers, and they set out in hopes of finding a place to start over. The film ends with Thanos finding them. He slaughters them all.
The point is, if you dismiss any film with a "good guy defeats the bad guy" story at its core, you're going to dismiss a lot of great films. You'll be left watching My Dinner with Andre or My Breakfast with Blassie and maybe some Spalding Gray films, but some of cinema's finest films have good vs. evil at their core. It's what happens around that story that matters, and it's why Casablanca, Thor:Ragnarok, Spider-Man:Homecoming, and myriad other films are so enjoyable.
You're twisting my comment which I don't appreciate.
Most superhero movies settle for mediocrity because they figure the fans will watch them anyway and they are on a schedule to make x amount of films within a time limit for maximum profit. It's not about the art. It's about the profit. They settle into the same tired good vs bad trope which is boring and predictable.
"Imprisoned on the planet Sakaar, Thor must race against time to return to Asgard and stop Ragnarök, the destruction of his world, at the hands of the powerful and ruthless villain Hela. "
I've been avoiding most recent superhero movies because I knew I would be bored by that predictability. Even your explanation of the Thor film was boring me. Hero lives, villain dies. I don't care.
Exception. The Joker. I consider it in the superhero genre, but it's art. They worked hard to make something very different. The movie is character driven - not action driven like most superhero movies. Many original ideas and concepts in this film. I literally had no idea how this movie was going to end. Great job from the actor, director and cinematographer. Best movie I've seen in 2019.
I don't see how I'm twisting your comment. You initially dismissed superhero films because they are, in your words, "Bad guy does something bad. Good guy stops him. The end. That's not a story." That's most films.
Interesting to note, Casablanca, the film we've been discussing, was made at the height of the Hollywood studio system, where films were churned out on a schedule to make x amount of films within a time limit for maximum profit. Sometimes such restrictions lead to great art, as in the case of Casablanca, and many superhero films, and many films across genres.
I think you're being too dismissive and making blanket judgements against films you admit not to have seen.
There's nothing original about watching the third reboot of Spiderman.
Casablanca was original and had a story.
You've abandoned your first two reasons, and now believe because it's a reboot it has no merit? I can think of plenty of other examples of reboots that were as good or better than their original-- The Maltese Falcon and The Man Who Knew Too Much immediately come to mind-- but at this point it seems clear you're simply anti-superhero films, and don't really have a defendable reason for your position. Let's agree to disagree?
The Spiderman reboots were done within a few short years of each other which made it unnecessary. Why not just continue the story with the same actor instead of retelling the origin ad nauseam? Yeah, yeah, he was bit by a radioactive spider. WE KNOW, ALREADY!
One of my favorite films was Superman (1977). But, at that time it was rare, new and fresh. Now there are so many, it's been beaten to death.
My problem is the lack of creativity and originality of superhero movies. If you're satisfied by watching the same thing ad nauseam, more power to you. I don't watch TV procedurals, family shows or doctor shows for the same reason.
The Mandalorean is interesting to me because I can't figure out where the story is heading or where that kid came from. Not predictable yet anyway and Filoni is good with storytelling.
I want a good story like Tyrion said in "Game of Thrones".
It's clear to me that you haven't seen the Spider-Man films, and are judging them based on what you guess them to be. Neither of the two new films have even touched on his origin. We don't even know that he was bitten by a spider, though we can assume it. Same with his uncle-- I don't believe he's even been mentioned. The audience is left to take for granted that the origin story is what we know it to be.
I enjoy good movies, and I dislike bad movies. I like movies that keep me guessing, that give me insight into the human condition, that make me think about who I am or who I want to become. I don't care a bit about the genre of such films. When I watched the two recent Spider-Man films, I felt something, and that's all I can ask for from a film.
Unless you have actually watched the films, and done so with an open mind rather than watching to nitpick and call out anything you dislike, I don't think it's reasonable to say they lack creativity or originality, or that the only offer the same thing as previous films of their genre.
I saw the first two Spiderman trilogies in the theater. That was enough.
Many people I speak to are bored with the superhero movies too and stopped going to see them. Disney has a habit of churning them out like a factory widget and DC movies are just bad with a few exceptions.
If I'm bored watching a two minute trailer then I'll be extremely bored trapped in a theater watching a two or three hour movie.
Notice how I didn't criticize the comics/graphic novels. That's because they offer more creativity. If a movie was made based on Superman: Kingdom Come or Superman: Red Son then that would be worth seeing.