Do you think audiences today like optimism more?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Devin Farici seems to think so. He just wrote a long essay about what the success of the Avengers apparently "means".

http://badassdigest.com/2012/05/20/t...-and-cynicism/

People can try to convey the point that the success of the Avengers points to some national mood or something, but what part of the "zeitgeist" does the billion dollar haul of Pirates 4 point to?

If we had more than one movie to pin this optimism thing on I would get behind the idea but we ****ing don't.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

In reality, the movie going public just likes what they like I think. There is no quantifiable science to it.

That isn't to say you can't make qualitative observations however.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

Devin Farici seems to think so. He just wrote a long essay about what the success of the Avengers apparently "means".

http://badassdigest.com/2012/05/20/t...-and-cynicism/

People can try to convey the point that the success of the Avengers points to some national mood or something, but what part of the "zeitgeist" does the billion dollar haul of Pirates 4 point to?

Yes, let's listen to the Marvel Fanboy in Devin Faraci, and the claim that 'cynicism' has been defeated.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

That isn't to say you can't make qualitative observations however.

True.

I think there is an influence, in terms of what the world is like, what the "zeitgeist" is. I mean, Feraci makes a point about how bright colourful superheroes like Superman were immensely popular during the depression of the 30s. I think there is some truth to that comparison with the Avengers.

But it's impossible to say HOW MUCH influence, at this point anyway.

If TDKR, which is tackling issues about the economic crisis and class warfare disappoints financially, you can add more credibility to the theory. But i doubt it will.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Yes, let's listen to the Marvel Fanboy in Devin Faraci, and the claim that 'cynicism' has been defeated.

How is he being a Marvel fanboy? He isn't criticising TDK.

And let's switch it around, what if he was writing that article about TDK, praising it for tapping into the cultural zeitgeist of it's time, resonating with audiences.

What would you say then?

I mean when TDK is being praised for it's ability to resonate with the terrorist and government weary audiences, it's praised as a great socio-political commentary.

But in this Devin article, which is doing EXACTLY THAT, but also praising Avengers... OH NOEZ!

The hypocrisy is reeking through screen of my laptop.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Being a fan of Marvel doesn't negate one's opinion when it comes to the Nolan Bat-flicks. I mostly agree with his opinion of the Batflicks and look forward to his review of TDKR's.

Devin likes to tweek the extreme Nolanite's because they were so goddamn evil and annoying after TDK broke records. Now every fanbase does it but I think that the Batman fanbase was the worse after TDK. And despite things getting much better there is still this subset of *******s who jump on you if don't worship the Nolan films, you would think people would have grown out of that by now but some didn't.

I completely understand his bitterness and anger towards the Nolanite's because I feel the same way. Do I agree with him tweeking them? No but I don't give a ****. I just don't like this thread being on Superhero Hype because I want piece and I am trying to forgive and forget.

Even taking out the Nolan thing (which I regret mentioning) this thread doesn't make sense to me because of The Hunger Games.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

How is he being a Marvel fanboy? He isn't criticising TDK.

And let's switch it around, what if he was writing that article about TDK, praising it for tapping into the cultural zeitgeist of it's time, resonating with audiences.

What would you say then?

I mean when TDK is being praised for it's ability to resonate with the terrorist and government weary audiences, it's praised as a great socio-political commentary.

But in this Devin article, which is doing EXACTLY THAT, but also praising Avengers... OH NOEZ!

The hypocrisy is reeking through screen of my laptop.

Dude, no.

I suggest you read all of his past articles before you start defending that bully/hack. He's publicly made it known that he despises Batman, and 'dark' CBMs.

Devin only praised TDK because he got humbled. He even apologized and retracted a few statements.

What hypocrisy? There is none. What he's praising from The Avengers is a load, and you know it.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

Dude, no.

I suggest you read all of his past articles before you start defending that bully/hack. He's publicly made it known that he despises Batman, and 'dark' CBMs.

Devin only praised TDK because he got humbled. He even apologized and retracted a few statements.

What hypocrisy? There is none. What he's praising from The Avengers is a load, and you know it.

Didn't he give TDK and 8.5?

I don't think he despises Batman or the films, he despises the Bat fanatics, and who can blame him?

I don't care what his past articles say, i'm talking about this one.

What he is doing is simply attributing some of the success of BOTH TDK and Avengers to the audiences mentality at their times of release. He says TDK tapped into peoples weariness about terrorist attacks and morally ambiguous government methods. He says Avengers tapped into the idea that in these tough economic times people just want to go to the cinema and forget about their mortgages and utility bills for 2 and a half hours.

That is all he is saying. Whether he is wrong or right is irrelevant. He's just a guy with an opinion and he isn't saying one or the other is better.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

Didn't he give TDK and 8.5?

I don't think he despises Batman or the films, he despises the Bat fanatics, and who can blame him?

I don't care what his past articles say, i'm talking about this one.

What he is doing is simply attributing some of the success of BOTH TDK and Avengers to the audiences mentality at their times of release. He says TDK tapped into peoples weariness about terrorist attacks and morally ambiguous government methods. He says Avengers tapped into the idea that in these tough economic times people just want to go to the cinema and forget about their mortgages and utility bills for 2 and a half hours.

That is all he is saying. Whether he is wrong or right is irrelevant. He's just a guy with an opinion and he isn't saying one or the other is better.

Except that's the point. Devin has a very shady history as a journalist. So, it's beyond difficult for ANY fan of Batman to take what he writes seriously. He could very well just be seeking attention or knee-jerk reactions from fans but it still doesn't justify what he does as a member of the media. Once crossing that line, you're not a journalist anymore.

I don't disagree with his escapism and reverence points but that article is plagued with nonsense about Christopher Nolan's direction and The Avengers' achievements. I mean, come on, cynicism is defeated because of The Avengers?

You know damn well that's overreaching and overpraise. It's on Nolanite levels (remember the Obama Election claims?).

[The Morningstar]

Of course, but i think he's kinda being satirical. He's over reacting the way the Nolan fanatics are known to over react.

Like, could be a satire piece making fun of those types of people, the ones who think TDK had an effect on the Presidential Election.

[DoomsdayApex]

One would hope it's satire because those type of comments undeniably make him sound beyond incoherent.

[redhawk23]

Farici wears his marvel fandom on his sleeve, and he's been on a huge marvel article binge in recent times. I'm not criticizing him for being a marvel fan, and the number rating aside, he's always been one of the first to rip on Nolan and the Batfilms, writing multiple articles about "Banegate" (the voice discussion from when the prologue came out, his term, not he mine). Before TDK as well he was always quick to rip on the project and despite the 8.5 rating his review at the time was fairly backhanded.

I just think he's a bit quick to read so much significance into the success of the Avengers, even when quite cynical movies are still doing ridiculously well (The Hunger Games for example)


That all said, I can't stand how Farici tries to take a holier-than-thou stance when it comes to any other fandom or fan behavior when he is often the first to act similarly.

For the longest time he ripped on Mass Effect and referring to videogames as an artform, but then a month after the whole ending controversy he starts writing several articles defending the game makers, their writes as authors and ripping the fans. Ugh.

To be honest, the only reason I read Badassdigest is for the author writers there.

[The Morningstar]

Hmm well i didn't know all that.

But yea, the only reason i read it is HULK FILM CRIT. That guy is awesome. He knows his ****, but he's funny and anti-pretentious. I recommend his articles to anyone.

[redhawk23]

FilmCritHulk is one of my favorite internet writers and I've been very glad to see him bust out into more mainstream publications like the New Yorker.


Theres a bit of a difference between analyzing the political subtexts of the Dark Knight and examining a films success as an indication of the national psyche. The latter is very speculative and not really backed up by much. The former is dealing with the content of the film itself and applying critical theory to the work and the artists intent.

[DACrowe]

Talk about fanning a fanboy fight.

To answer the OP, audiences always throughout history like happy endings. They're usually uncontroversial and leave audiences pleased. Also, if the story is told well (be it The Dark Knight, The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, or Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet) they like sad endings or more "Depressing" fare.

Iron Man and The Dark Knight both made bank in 2008. Black Swan and The King's Speech can both clean up during the holidays and January. And yes, there's room for The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises in the same summer.

[Lencho01]

Originally Posted by Spider-Who?

Well, here’s two comments that directly attack the poster and his question:

Then there’s the overall naiveté concerning what “optimism” means and complete ignorance over what the poster is talking about in favor of knee jerk reactions to an imagined attack on TDKR or other such thing…

Ok, so one person said comments like that.

I still think its too early to say anything about audiences liking more optimistic films until we see a case of many of them doing well while less optimistic films fail.

It's the same way I felt when TDK came out and some execs saw it as a sign that all superhero films have to be "dark" and "real." All I see is a film that was marketed very well, had good appeal to the audience, and created great hype to help it make so much money.

Originally Posted by Spider-Who?

It's not cheating. If you're concerned with cheating, then you should be argueing the case the all the BO records ignore inflation of ticket prices, when the records would be far more accurate if they counted actual ticket sales instead.

Avatar is listed as the biggest film of all time, with a $2,782,275,172 BO. But when you look at actual ticket prices, it isn't even in the top 10 (#1 being Gone with the Wind). If you look at highest grossing with adjustment for inflation, again, the biggest movie in US history is GwtW.

I was talking in regards to the theaters who force people to watch films in 3D. That's how one can feel cheated if they don't like 3D, don't care for it, etc. and would rather watch a film in 2D, which is likely to be cheaper for you.

[DACrowe]

P.S. People who say there are decade-long trends are kind of half-right. I'd say the films as a whole in the 2000s were more cynical and less life-affirming/conventionally happy than the bulk of Hollywood films from the 1990s. However, to say that that we're going back to happy feelings again because of The Avengers is silly. Who knows what the tone of films will look like when this decade (which we're still in the first half of year 2 of) will look like. Remember the first huge film after 9/11 was the very feel-good Spider-Man, but despite defining superhero films for most of that decade it surely did not define the tone of cinema.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by The Morningstar

How is he being a Marvel fanboy? He isn't criticising TDK.

And let's switch it around, what if he was writing that article about TDK, praising it for tapping into the cultural zeitgeist of it's time, resonating with audiences.

What would you say then?

I mean when TDK is being praised for it's ability to resonate with the terrorist and government weary audiences, it's praised as a great socio-political commentary.

But in this Devin article, which is doing EXACTLY THAT, but also praising Avengers... OH NOEZ!

The hypocrisy is reeking through screen of my laptop.

His argument is that "cynicism" is defeated. I'll agree that in hard economic times people are looking for escapism and the particular escapism of The Avengers (disparate and dysfunctional people putting their **** aside to roll up the sleeves and work together and getting things done because it's the right thing to do) is very appealing.

However, he seems to suggest audiences won't respond to a negative or grimmer film, because he says The Avengers defeated them. So, if TDKR opens to over $180 million its OW and can gross over $400 million domestic, is a darker more cerebral film discredited because it made less than (the 3D-inflated) Avengers? If Prometheus is a hit for an R-rated summer horror/sci-fi film ($140 million+ domestic) does that still mean Avengers has defeated darker films?

Or does it just mean The Avengers tapped into an appealing fantasy along with its novelty of being a superhero team movie and having quality writing, direction and acting? As in, The Avengers may just be a really good movie that hit the right notes but is not the beginning of a trend.

[GothamAlleys]

Ridley Scott recently said it best, that grunge is overdone if he sees one more dark grungy movie hes gonna puke. OF COURSE dark or optimistic movie has no bearing on quality, those are just types of stories, and as someone here said already, its the heart and if the story connects to people that makes a difference. But for the past few years theres so many "dark" movies that its really becoming a silly cliche by now

For me it still make so difference, but so many movies just trying so hard to be dark and broody cause its an in-thing right now

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

If we had more than one movie to pin this optimism thing on I would get behind the idea but we ****ing don't.

Yeah, and my question to Devin Faraci would be this: if America is going pollyanna, then why didn't Thor and CATFA put up massive Avengers (or even Iron Man) style numbers in 2011? If the "zeitgeist" was there, then CATFA should've been a runaway box office smash: it wasn't.

I'll be more inclined to give credence to Faraci's premise if TDKR fails (or even just underperforms), and if Man of Steel marks a return to the Donner-style Superman and turns into a box office juggernaut. Right now, I'm not willing to bet a single dollar on either of those events happening.

In fact, I don't even necessarily see Marvel Studios themselves buying into the "death of cynicism and irony" in the films in their immediate future. IM3 is likely to be the darkest of the three solo IM films, and Thor is probably going to get put through the cosmic wringer next year, too. And I seriously doubt GDT's Hulk TV show is going to be a family comedy.

[Kahran Ramsus]

I find it interesting that Ridley Scott said that since most of his movies are dark and grungy.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

His argument is that "cynicism" is defeated. I'll agree that in hard economic times people are looking for escapism and the particular escapism of The Avengers (disparate and dysfunctional people putting their **** aside to roll up the sleeves and work together and getting things done because it's the right thing to do) is very appealing.

However, he seems to suggest audiences won't respond to a negative or grimmer film, because he says The Avengers defeated them. So, if TDKR opens to over $180 million its OW and can gross over $400 million domestic, is a darker more cerebral film discredited because it made less than (the 3D-inflated) Avengers? If Prometheus is a hit for an R-rated summer horror/sci-fi film ($140 million+ domestic) does that still mean Avengers has defeated darker films?

Or does it just mean The Avengers tapped into an appealing fantasy along with its novelty of being a superhero team movie and having quality writing, direction and acting? As in, The Avengers may just be a really good movie that hit the right notes but is not the beginning of a trend.

I'd agree with the bolded. I don't think Avengers has "defeated" cynicism.

But i do think the guy has made some valid points, and i just find it strange that people are jumping all over him, even though he's not actually criticising TDK.

[The Morningstar]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

I find it interesting that Ridley Scott said that since most of his movies are dark and grungy.

Yea but they almost always are about the light shining through the darkness. His films are mostly about the optimism in dark times. I wouldn't say any of Scott's films are depressing.

I think the perfect example of that is in Kingdom of Heaven, after the bloody final battle at Jerusalem. Then it shows Saladin walking through the palace, and he picks up a cross off the floor and places it back on an alter. Really great, optimistic moment. I read a story where in a viewing in Pakistan or somewhere the whole audience cheered at that moment.

[Gianakin_]

And I still disagree with Devin's implications that Nolan's Batfilms are cynical. That guy is so blindsided, it's not even funny.

[Boom]

Honestly, this is just one of those things that is impossible to figure out.

People choose to see a movie because they want to see it - for whatever reason. Pointing at The Avengers' success and saying "Clearly people are more interested in escapist, optimistic films these days" is a remarkable oversimplification.