This is an interesting topic. So I thought I would give it its own place.
Stardust wasn’t a comic tho-
Oh man! Chris Rock got divorced!
I would call Kingsmen a superhero take on spies. Certainly the Kingsmen and their opponents are presented as superhuman.
I liked the bit when they flew and used the heat vision.
This argument continues because there are obvious superhero traits but also a lot of action films essentially have unrealistic elements that humans couldn’t really manage. Is James Bond a superhero, when he drives an invisible car and does impossible stunts? I shall leave it up to others to decide.
Bond definitely veered into sci-fi at times but he himself was always presented as essentially having realistic capabilities. Certainly peak capabilities but nothing as ridiculously extreme as the Kingsmen. There were plenty of stunts in Kingsmen that wouldn’t have felt out of place being performed by Daredevil or Spider-Man.
Maybe Die Hard is a better example. They pushed things so far in that series that McClane was doing things that no human could do (when the whole point of the original concept was that he was just a regular guy in a bad situation).
Superhero or not?
John McClane is related to Wolverine.
But them so are most modern action heroes. They get knocked around in ways that should break bones and cause concussions.
‘Die Hard’ is almost realistic, McClane is pretty much exhausted by the end of the film. Since then though, that sort of thing has been far less common.
Definitely superhero. That was one of the major complaints about Die Hard 4. That he had essentially become a superhero at that point.
Every time the hero gets punched in the face shows no visible effects he’s being a superhero then. Indiana Jones should be a bloody mess eating through a straw in Raiders.
On the other hand, Vin Diesel and chums went from being regular guys who were great drivers in the first Fast & Furious to being Avengers-in-Cars a few movies down the road.
And nobody minded because The Rock.
Sigh… yes, everyone is aware that action movies take liberties with what a person can survive. That’s not what I’m talking about here though. The stunts in Kingsmen had more in common with The Matrix or Spider-Man than it did with Die Hard or most Bond films. Hence why I called it a superhero take on spies.
So The Matrix is a superhero movie?
Are you sure?
Oh yeah plenty of people have pointed out that F&F has become a superhero series. I’m not sure where the comment about minding comes from though. I’m not suggesting it’s a negative thing at all. I didn’t mind that Kingsmen is a superhero version of a spy movie. It’s what helped make it such a fun breath of fresh air.
Because of the Rock.
I like him in most things, but I think he’s ruining the franchise.
… not any more.
I just meant in comparison to how people generally disliked what happened to John McClane over the course of the Die Hard series, which I guess speaks volumes to how great the first movie in that franchise was as much as anything else.
One thing I think we can all agree on: Batman isn’t a super-hero, right? I mean, normal man with training and gadgets (like James Bond), right?
Rumour has it that The Rock and Jason Statham are getting their own spin-off movie, so possibly you’ll be able to enjoy the next F&F movie without them depending on how that all plays out (especially with the other rumours about The Rock and Vin Diesel having issues).
I think that the shift in “power level” in Die Hard wouldn’t stick out as much or would be softened if the situations/conflicts weren’t also ratcheted up.
McClane going superhuman would be cool if the setting and situation was more grounded.
Pretty much Die Hard 3. I’m describing Die Hard 3.
Oh definitely. I think the core of Die Hard appeal is McClains battery average joe status.