Are there any major Hollywood stars of this century who haven’t been in some superhero or supernatural powered film or show? Just wondering.
shareBill Murray has never been in a superhero movie this century. Neither has Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sylvester Stallone, Danny Devito, Robert DeNero, Joe Pesci, Daniel Stearn, Maculay Culkin, or Eddie Murphy.
shareStallone was in at least one of the Guardians of the Galaxy films. DeNiro was in Joker. Danny DeVito was the Penguin, albeit before the turn of the century, but as that seems like an arbitrary cutoff point, it's worth mentioning. As for the others, perhaps they too have shown up somewhere in a superhero film?
share[deleted]
I thought the TC was asking if they played a super powered character in the 21st century. Danny DeVito played a super powered character in the 20th Century. Not the 21st. Though he has not been in a movie in years. I forgot about Sylvester Stallone in Guardians 2 though he did not really do anything in it. Also Joker should not count since the TC specified a superpowered person which DeNero was not. Not to mention that it is not a superhero movie. He/she specifically said Superhero/supernatural movie and Joker is neither.
shareTrue that double true
shareThough for me, I read it more as people who are stars in the 21st century, not films of the 21st century, and being in a superhero film as opposed to being super-powered in a film. And I'd consider Joker to be a superhero film in that it's a spinoff of Batman, though strictly speaking no one in the film displays super-powers. By the same token I think of Nolan's Batman films as superhero films, though we never encounter a super-powered being.
shareDaniel Day Lewis
Kate Winslet
Leonardo DiCaprio
Kate Winslet played a witch, I think, in Mary and the Witch’s Flower.
Would it be a stretch to say DiCaprio had some special “powers” in Inception?
That's a Japanese cartoon movie (anime) and she didn't play the character but merely lended her voice for the English adaptation.
Inception is about infiltrating people's minds using technology. It's science-fiction and not fantasy which is what superheros are
"It's science-fiction and not fantasy which is what superheros are"
It depends on the superhero. Iron Man, for example, is science-fiction. In fact, most superheroes are science-fiction, albeit, not particularly plausible science-fiction.
Iron Man's "science" is about as realistic as Star Wars which is considered Fantasy
shareStar Wars is sci-fi/fantasy, and the fantasy element is "the force." All of the technology in Star Wars falls into the sci-fi category. It doesn't matter how realistic the science is (unless you're trying to break it down into varying degrees of "hard" and "soft" sci-fi). If the in-universe explanation is scientific in nature, such as bathed in gamma rays or bit by a radioactive spider, then it's sci-fi.
share"The Force" is what binds the the "science" in Star Wars. Tony Starks "science" behind his supernatural technology that allows him to defy basic physiques is no different than Superman's supernatural or the Hulk's supernatural abilities.
None of this matters as this does not address anything from "Inception" which deals with manipulated dreams and thoughts. Leo doesn't do any of the supernatural things in real life as we learn at the end of the movie.
"The Force" is what binds the the "science" in Star Wars."
No, it doesn't. Yoda claimed that the force is an energy field created by living things; technology doesn't consist of living things. Uncle Owen's moisture vaporators for example, aren't controlled by the force, they are controlled by a binary computer language, like your device you use to type messages on this website. That's science-fiction.
"Tony Starks "science" behind his supernatural technology that allows him to defy basic physiques is no different than Superman's supernatural or the Hulk's supernatural abilities."
Wrong. Neither Superman nor the Hulk are given supernatural explanations. They are both given science-fiction explanations. Bruce Banner was bathed in gamma rays, which is a scientific explanation, as opposed to, e.g., being turned into the Hulk by a wizard, which would be a supernatural/fantasy explanation. Superman's powers are explained by the effect that Earth's yellow sun has on him, which is also a scientific explanation. The Iron Man technology isn't supernatural either; it's the result of R&D, not e.g., sorcery. The science doesn't have to be valid or even plausible for it to be science-fiction, which is why the word "fiction" is in there. Some science-fiction is plausible ("hard science-fiction"), but plausibility isn't a requirement.
"None of this matters as this does not address anything from "Inception" which deals with manipulated dreams and thoughts. Leo doesn't do any of the supernatural things in real life as we learn at the end of the movie."
It matters because you used a false premise (superheroes are strictly fantasy) to support your assertion that Leonardo didn't play a superhero in Inception (because it's sci-fi not fantasy). I don't consider his role to be a superhero role in that movie, but not because it's sci-fi. It being sci-fi is irrelevant to the question of whether or not his character was a superhero.
So you agree with my assertion that Inception is not a super hero movie. Got it
share"So you agree with my assertion that Inception is not a super hero movie."
Yes, but your reasoning is invalid, as I've already explained. Inception being sci-fi has nothing to do with whether or not it's a superhero movie, given that most superhero movies are sci-fi (in whole or in part) to begin with.