Burned Out With Comic Movie Genre

[Iceman]

If it's a disappointment the whole DCCU will be a drag on the genre (like the announced Spidey-universe films look after TASM2 came out). But if BvS is amazing it would give the whole genre a massive boost.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

No sir.

Article headlines like "Over 40 DC & Marvel Movies Will Hit Theaters In The Next 6 Years" tend to give me goosebumps.

http://screenrant.com/dc-marvel-movie-schedule-2015-2020/

 

[Saitou Hajime]

With studios now flooding the market with superhero films in response to how much success Marvel has had, it will take a toll on the genre and drag everyone else down with it.

Eh, I don't really see it. If 2014 is any indication, I think what will eventually arise is a "survival of the fittest" type situation where only the truly great films will thrive, the average will flounder, and the crap will get flushed. It will help to truly separate those who are in it to do this genre justice, and those who are just trying to jump on the latest hot bandwagon.

 

[spider-neil]

With studios now flooding the market with superhero films in response to how much success Marvel has had, it will take a toll on the genre and drag everyone else down with it.

To be fair, Marvel jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much success Spider-Man and X-Men had.

 

[psylockolussus]

To be fair, Marvel jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much success Spider-Man and X-Men had.

Or Disney, if the X-Men movies, Spider-Man movies, the 1st Fantastic Four film and the first Iron Man film weren't successful at the box-office. I seriously don't know if they would have bought Marvel in the first place.

 

[DA_Champion]

It's the nature of economic bubbles that they overexpand prior to popping, as opposed to calmy stabilizing at the peak market level.

WB making more movies, Marvel going up to three movies a year, Fox making movies out of Deadpool snd Gambit, etc... situation critical.

What these companies may or may not realize is that these products have to evolve. These are kids' products, and each of their fans grows one year older and more mature, every year. Meanwhile, their younger brothers will have different tastes.

 

[spider-neil]

People can moan about Spidey, FF and X-Men being the hands of outside studios but you have to look at the position Marvel were in when they sold those rights, inches from bankruptcy. But for Sony and Fox, Marvel in all likelihood would not exist today.

 

[spider-neil]

It's the nature of economic bubbles that they overexpand prior to popping, as opposed to calmy stabilizing at the peak market level.

WB making more movies, Marvel going up to three movies a year, Fox making movies out of Deadpool snd Gambit, etc... situation critical.

What these companies may or may not realize is that these products have to evolve. These are kids' products, and each of their fans grows one year older and more mature, every year. Meanwhile, their younger brothers will have different tastes.

To be fair, it is harsh to have a go at company for continuing to be 'kiddie' when you enjoyed their 'kiddie' products as a kid. They can look you in the eye and say you had no complaints when you were a kid. What I would say is, I can fairly expect them to produce content for both demographics (young and old).

 

[DA_Champion]

People can moan about Spidey, FF and X-Men being the hands of outside studios but you have to look at the position Marvel were in when they sold those rights, inches from bankruptcy. But for Sony and Fox, Marvel in all likelihood would not exist today.

Aside from that, If Marvel had the rights to Spider Man and X-Men we wouldn't be getting movies about Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel only has the capital (human and financial) to produce 2 or 3 movies a year, so it's a win for them to have some of their IP farmed out. Further, it helps maintain some diversity to their portfolio, since it prevents all the products from having a single feel.

To be fair, it is harsh to have a go at company for continuing to be 'kiddie' when you enjoyed their 'kiddie' products as a kid. They can look you in the eye and say you had no complaints when you were a kid. What I would say is, I can fairly expect them to produce content for both demographics (young and old).

I'm not harsh at the companies for marketing to kids, that's a legitimate business strategy, see my praise of Frozen. I'm stating that it's a difficult business strategy since kids grow up. A specific kid will have an evolving age with time, and a specific age bracket will have an evolving population of kids with time.

You can argue that this has been true for the comics for 70 years, but in the case of the comics there are hundreds of comics being printed every month, which allows more experimentation and diversity within the medium, so old styles can organically die and be replaced by new styles, leading to the different comics "ages" transitioning in a relatively seamless manner. In contrast, movies made at 200 million a pop do not afford much room for experimentation, and thus there is a risk of the market evolving beyond the product.

 

[DA_Champion]

What about the Avengers did you find awful?

I don't find the Avengers awful, but it's:
- Got an unoriginal plot composed of pieces done (sometimes better) elsewhere, in particular it borrows heavily from Buffy season 7 (noted by myself), The Dark Knight (noted elsewhere) and Transformers 3: The Dark of the Moon (noted elsewhere);
- The cinematography was weak;
- No attempt at a good musical score ;
- We're somehow supposed to cry when Agent Coulson dies, which is not earned ;
- The use of a nuclear warhead over Manhattan didn't make much sense given the physical weakness of the Chittauri and that the military tried nothing else first;
- The Chittauri were not threatening at all ;
- An excess of one-line zingers gives the feeling that it's fourth grade ;
- It doesn't have much in terms of themes or commentary ;

But in spite of that, I think it's worth watching once, and for some people, twice.

 

[spider-neil]

Aside from that, If Marvel had the rights to Spider Man and X-Men we would n't be getting movies about Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel only has the capital (human and financial) to produce 2 or 3 movies a year, so it's a win for them to have some of their IP farmed out. Further, it helps maintain some diversity to their portfolio, since it prevents all the products from having a single feel.

Agreed and Agreed. I would say though, Spider-Man's universe and tech look identical to Marvel's, to me. There is no reason whatsoever Sony shouldn't be loaning Marvel Spider-Man even if they receive no money in return. They (Sony) could use the attention and Marvel get to use a character who (IMHO) is pivotal to the Civil War plot line. Arad (how I hate that guy) says if Spidey appeared in a Marvel movie he would have to be central, well, with Civil War he would be or at least he would be one of the central characters. X-Men and FF are too Fox entrenched at this point.

I'm not harsh at the companies for marketing to kids, that's a legitimate business strategy, see my praise of Frozen. I'm stating that it's a difficult business strategy since kids grow up. A specific kid will have an evolving age with time, and a specific age bracket will have an evolving population of kids with time.

You can argue that this has been true for the comics for 70 years, but in the case of the comics there are hundreds of comics being printed every month, which allows more experimentation and diversity within the medium, so old styles can organically die and be replaced by new styles, leading to the different comics "ages" transitioning in a relatively seamless manner. In contrast, movies made at 200 million a pop do not afford much room for experimentation, and thus there is a risk of the market evolving beyond the product.

I look at Batman '66 now and laugh (for the wrong reasons) I 'HATE' this version of Batman but as a kid I loved it and was gripped with every cliff hanger. Would it be fair for my adult self to deprive my 7 year old self the experience of seeing this kiddiefied show because my tastes are now different? The exact same argument can be made for Ewoks (not Ja Ja Binks as even my 7 year old self would have hated him).

 

[spider-neil]

I don't find the Avengers awful, but it's:
- Got an unoriginal plot composed of pieces done (sometimes better) elsewhere, in particular it borrows heavily from Buffy season 7 (noted by myself), The Dark Knight (noted elsewhere) and Transformers 3: The Dark of the Moon (noted elsewhere);
- The cinematography was weak;
- No attempt at a good musical score ;
- We're somehow supposed to cry when Agent Coulson dies, which is not earned ;
- The use of a nuclear warhead over Manhattan didn't make much sense given the physical weakness of the Chittauri and that the military tried nothing else first;
- The Chittauri were not threatening at all ;
- An excess of one-line zingers gives the feeling that it's fourth grade ;
- It doesn't have much in terms of themes or commentary ;

But in spite of that, I think it's worth watching once, and for some people, twice.

100% agree, DA. Avengers has to be one of the most overrated movies I have seen in my life. But the movie does deserve its due and place in cinematic history for what it has done for the CBM genre just like Superman: The Movie, Spider-Man (2002) and TDK.

 

[DA_Champion]

Agreed and Agreed. I would say though, Spider-Man's universe and tech look identical to Marvel's, to me. There is no reason whatsoever Sony shouldn't be loaning Marvel Spider-Man even if they receive no money in return, they could use the attention and Marvel get to use a character who (IMHO) is pivotal to the Civil War plot line. Arad (how I hate that guy) says if Spidey appeared in a Marvel movie he would have to be central, well, with Civil War he would be or at least he would be one of the central characters. X-Men and FF are too Fox entrenched at this point.

I look at Batman '66 now and laugh (for the wrong reasons) I 'HATE' this version of Batman but as a kid I loved it and was gripped with every cliff hanger. Would it be fair for my adult self to deprive my 7 year old self the experience of seeing this kiddiefied show because my tastes are now different? The exact same argument can be made for Ewoks (not Ja Ja Binks as even my 7 year old self would have hated him).

If ASM was said to be in the MCU, how would that work chronologically? Was Spider Man around when the events of The Avengers took place?

*******

I'm not against kids' products being made

I do remember watching Batman 66 reruns regularly, and not just as a 7 year old but a few years older than that too... maybe up to 13 or 14, I forget.

I didn't know that Return of the Jedi was considered bad until I started reading about movies online.

 

[spider-neil]

If ASM was said to be in the MCU, how would that work chronologically? Was Spider Man around when the events of The Avengers took place?

ASM is a month before Avengers. Peter lives in Queens and would take a while to get to central New York. The Avengers were busy during the Lizard fight and during Electro climax just as there were busy during TDW and WS.

I'm not against kids' products being made

I do remember watching Batman 66 reruns regularly, and not just as a 7 year old but a few years older than that too... maybe up to 13 or 14, I forget.

I didn't know that Return of the Jedi was considered bad until I started reading about movies online.

I enjoyed Jedi as a kid but pretty much hate it now. It wouldn't be fair for me to have a go at the Star Wars film makers for changing because my tastes have changed. Star Wars isn't made for 'me'.

 

[spider-neil]

Going back to the original question of Superhero burnout, I think it is a question of 'when' not 'if'. But, that 'when' could be decades rather than years.

 

[def28]

Only a matter of time before someone ****s up on the quality. But right now. No signs of slowing down. Good entertainment is good entertainment.

And How can you hate ROTJ with the Falcon/ship battle and Luke VS Vader duel? It's no ESB but it's got some pretty amazing scenes and a decent wrap up. Disappointing? Sure, I can understand that. But Hate? No way. It's a solid flick.

...and the music is ****ing amazing.

 

[spider-neil]

Only a matter of time before someone ****s up on the quality. But right now. No signs of slowing down. Good entertainment is good entertainment.

And How can you hate ROTJ with the Falcon/ship battle and Luke VS Vader duel? It's no ESB but it's got some pretty amazing scenes and a decent wrap up. Disappointing? Sure, I can understand that. But Hate? No way. It's a solid flick.

...and the music is ****ing amazing.

I like everything up to the Ewoks and then check out.

 

[DA_Champion]

I have not watched RoTJ in a long time, but I remember liking the Ewoks and everything related.

 

[Erzengel]

I think it's just a vocal group who dislikes the ewoks. Overall, many people still consider it "THE" trilogy. I know younger people would say LOTR or TDK now.

 

[DeadPresident]

With GoTG being the smash hit it was and AoU looking to be the awesome blockbuster we hope it will be, I'm not burned out.

I am burned out on bad CBM's being made. I think WB just contributed to the cynicism in a big way with announcing a huge slate of films at their stockholder meeting, and nothing at Comic Con. Fantastic Four again looks like it's just fishing for money and so is Sinister Six from Sony.

I'm not looking forward to BvS, but they may surprise me.

Lol and pray tell, which would be the bad CBMs?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Return of the Jedi is still very highly regarded. Weakest of the trilogy, yes, but that's not the same thing as being hated. You just hear more about its flaws because it is usually discussed in comparison to the other two.

 

[Erzengel]

Flaws appear after time.

I've grown to dislike almost all the Hobbits in the LOTR trilogy.

And I can't watch a Nolan movie without snickering at the Batman voice.

 

[Snow Queen]

I don't find the Avengers awful, but it's:
- Got an unoriginal plot composed of pieces done (sometimes better) elsewhere, in particular it borrows heavily from Buffy season 7 (noted by myself), The Dark Knight (noted elsewhere) and Transformers 3: The Dark of the Moon (noted elsewhere);
- The cinematography was weak;
- No attempt at a good musical score ;
- We're somehow supposed to cry when Agent Coulson dies, which is not earned ;
- The use of a nuclear warhead over Manhattan didn't make much sense given the physical weakness of the Chittauri and that the military tried nothing else first;
- The Chittauri were not threatening at all ;
- An excess of one-line zingers gives the feeling that it's fourth grade ;
- It doesn't have much in terms of themes or commentary ;

But in spite of that, I think it's worth watching once, and for some people, twice.

That's pretty much what I had to say, though I sent it over PM to him to avoid filling this thread too much with it.

 

[Flint Marko]

To be fair, Marvel jumped on the bandwagon when they saw how much success Spider-Man and X-Men had.

True, but Marvel was an independent film studio for it's first three or four years. All they had were superheroes, and since all the capital they could get their hands on were loans, it makes sense that they didn't make any moves till they saw that there was a demand for those sort of films. Not to mention that they didn't get the rights back to a lot of their bigger characters until the mid-2000's (Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, etc).

Or Disney, if the X-Men movies, Spider-Man movies, the 1st Fantastic Four film and the first Iron Man film weren't successful at the box-office. I seriously don't know if they would have bought Marvel in the first place.

They definitely would not have. They bought Marvel for 4 billion dollars. You don't spend 4 billion dollars on something unless you think you're going to make that money back within a reasonable amount of time, and their gamble has more than paid off in box office receipts alone.

People can moan about Spidey, FF and X-Men being the hands of outside studios but you have to look at the position Marvel were in when they sold those rights, inches from bankruptcy. But for Sony and Fox, Marvel in all likelihood would not exist today.

I've always wondered about this. Just how bad was their financial situation in the late 90s? I understand they were bankrupt, but was selling off the film rights to characters their only hope of making the money they needed?

 

[Know One]

Burned Out With Comic Movie Genre when it's only made to earn a quick buck... Otherwise, when I'm amazed visually AND ESPECIALLY BY THE STORY it's ok if they make 87 sequels.