Marvel now many took out. More precisely, not even Marvel itself as such, but the dominance of their film comics. Film adaptations are full of stamps and even self-copying (I still laugh at how similar the plots of the third “Thor” and “Black Panther” are, and how much they differ in implementation), and the conveyor feed of content simply tired some viewers, and a trip to the cinema for a fan of comics turned from a holiday into a routine. But then deconstruction burst onto the stage of film adaptations again — and this time it appeared on time and in a big way.
漫画仍图画书,没有一个纠纷t, but the stories themselves have become darker, sharper, tougher. The focus shifted partly from superheroes, already full of teeth, to stories about creatures without any superpowers-more often they were inspired by fantasy, horror, pulp fiction, post-Apocalypse. The culmination of this period was the release of two very iconic works – “Guardians” by Alan Moore and” Return of the Dark Knight ” by Frank Miller. With them, in General, and began a new era – “dark”, and this word in primarily denotes character stories.In that period, the term “deconstruction” came to comics — if you take the definition, it is ” understanding through the destruction of a stereotype or inclusion in a new context.” However, many of those who were inspired by Moore and Miller, decided not to dig deep and focus only on simple moments-rigidity, graphic sex, and such a dark presentation of the material. Although in fact deconstruction was rather a philosophical thing, entrenched in the perception of the image of the superhero as such, and severed limbs, rape and so on-so, tinsel to enhance the effect and lull vigilance. Now deconstruction is called everything that is at least a little different from the simple, oak, straightforward and kind superheroics, but the most vivid and clear examples still try to follow the General idea: they show what superheroes would be if they existed in a world almost indistinguishable from ours. How would they be able to fit into ordinary reality, what problems would be faced.
电影适应当时的漫画也会遇到了解构。1989年，蒂姆伯顿采取了他的“蝙蝠侠” - 哥特式，即使是Michael Keaton的主要角色，也远离了一个不可动摇英雄的形象，他开始破坏陈规定型基础的主要角色。漫画的读者来解释事件的解释，并在这里观众的电影院预期真诚，无牙超级英雄，并收到了其他东西。And they liked it.In the 90s, the only more or less successful adaptation of comics was just a sequel to Burton’s “Batman” – most of the films did not go even to teenagers, which was directed (well, there was still a “Mask”, which from the comic original increased bloodiness horror as far). And then the noughties came, and the movie comics went mainstream.
谢谢你这是布莱恩歌手，奇怪的歌手推出了一个成功的电影特许经营权“x-men”（直到最近在福克斯的权利）。However, in parallel with The “x-Men” in 2001 came “Invulnerable” M. night Shyamalan, who and the mood and approach is strikingly different from the creation of singer.Shyamalan’s film was not a comic book adaptation, but its plot revolves around superheroics, its image, canons, stamps, which are full of such stories. I recently revised it, and this slow, slow, quiet film in contrast to the traditional riot of colors, explosions and action — eternal friends of stories about superheroes — really vividly shows the deep philosophical essence of the process of deconstruction. But after “Invulnerable” it again almost forgot in favor of external manifestations-comicality, darkness for the sake of darkness, not quite moderate cruelty.
我们去了：在Pisarevskiy“Incredibles”被嘲笑为“Hulk”的超级英雄属性的属性，在“Hulk”aniic Bana上展示了世界上最不安全的超级英雄在世界上有可怕的家庭问题，在“汉考克”将史密斯无法控制当有人被拯救时对城市造成的损害，在马拉诺斯基“巴尔曼纳赫”之间，政府和野蛮之间存在沟通问题，电影“踢屁股”的英雄在某种程度上在某种程度上追随守望者，但我堕落而不是黑色幽默的意识深度。守护者的电影适应于2009年发布，并且诚实，这是一个糟糕的时间。Zack Snyder尽可能准确地将漫画放在电影上，生动地展示了这样的“超人” - 他们是否有超级大国或者在普通人中的普通世界中，并不重要，并通过他们的存在摧毁这个脆弱的世界。他跟随其他漫画适应的同一条线 - “300斯巴达人”，“钢铁人”，“蝙蝠侠V超人”。它结果很好，但......
但是当时，Marvel推出了它的机器，以产生娱乐，讽刺，同时认为观众喜欢更多的斯奈德象征。随着奇迹适应的焦点，对解构的哲学实际上并不留下，但是它有点触及 - 在电影中“第一个复仇者：反对派”冲突的本质也包括超级英雄是如何不受惩罚的：可能，有必要以某种方式调节它们，因此它会更容易和更安全，但也许，让他们自由成为匿名的，并且突然他们将开始攻击.truth，整个这种不确定性，诸如其他的不确定性图片，排名相当一小部分的电影 - 迟到仍然赢得邪恶，以及所有的偏离。学位无法管理：在来自Marvel的最终胶片中，而是反思的食物，观众将简单的道德和问题与世界产生简单。从这个经过验证的计划，只有在第三个“钢铁侠”中略微离开，在那里主角被击败，遭受了重点，不相信自己，不知道如何处理他的生活 - 他怀疑他的英雄主义。这部电影很有趣，特别是成功的不是因为简单的观众想要一个简单的幸福结局。至少，这么多的想法。但是，11年来，丰富多彩，明亮的奇迹有很多，并且解构是一种很好的出路。
这是一个如此长的介绍。现在，几周前，亚马逊发布了“男孩”的第一季。不要与TNT的创作混淆：新的“男孩” - 由炸药发布的相同名称的漫画书的电影改编。更准确地说，它最初是为DC漫画创建的，但在故事中公开利用并从角色的最漂亮的方面展示，非常喜欢DC司法联盟的主要角色，使出版商起飞并发送了作者寻找这个想法的另一所房子。他们所做的。对于超级英雄的现代观众来说，电影适应“男孩”是一种新鲜空气的呼吸。在这里的历史中心两个团队：一个 - “七” - 由美国最好的超级英雄组成，另一个 - 那些“男孩” - 超级英雄讨厌。每个人都有自己的仇恨原因：例如，一个超快速的超级英雄拆除了一个女孩，把她变成了血腥的尘埃，甚至没有停止道歉。现在最津津乐道：这里的超级英雄 - 不是那个人的表现自己的。他们都是，人们都可以说，由大众百万法纳。 As it turns out in the process, the entire industry superheroics rotten commercialized-heroes surrender cities in lease, to boost status region, their use in pressure on politicians, them telling staged skirmishes with enemies, because to skirmishes real they find themselves virtually not adapted, Yes and in a whole improvement quality of life world superheroes worries much less, than percent with profits from sales comics, advertising contracts and other husks. From the inside, starlight looks at the superhero party-a new member of the top team, “Seven”, who dreamed of being a sincere, bright, unconditional superhero since childhood, but suddenly fell into a harsh reality.
Yes, here, as in most deconstructed plots, there is a good old ultra-violence-in the frame there is a disgustingly creative dismemberment, artificial blood flows in cubic meters, bones break with a juicy crack. But behind this tinsel lie several very deep ideas-from a closer to the surface of the story of rampant commercialization, for which the essence of heroism itself is lost, to deep personal dramas, teeming with cockroaches and complexes, through, again, the revision of the image of the superhero, his place in the world described in the series (there even religion could
The authors very accurately withstand the ratio moralizing and bloody frenzy throughout virtually the entire receives more superficial treatment. Perhaps, only in the beginning bend with cruelty, probably, aspiring at once to frighten off gentle violets, and in the ending begin to roll down in a melodrama, but in time finish a season. Yes, they largely depart from the original, seeking to make the comic, which was published from 2006 to 2012, more relevant. And they do it amazingly organically. If the comic, released nearly 15 years ago, was an irony on the industry, then the series is a spit in the face of all of Hollywood, the entire dream machine that laid big and fat on laws, morals and mere mortals. The main thing — the loot flowed.And this in itself is ironic: the “Boys” now rating on IMDB 8.9, around enthusiastic comments, and many bought a subscription to Amazon Prime just for the sake of this series.