CBM will going for FULL Satiration

[def28]

I'm also not liking the genre shift to everything requiring a movie universe. Audiences or a vocal branch seem to think if a superhero isn't in a universe it's worse off somehow. I personally just want good movies and couldn't care less if they all connect. A mediocre movie shouldn't be thought of better because of a connection and a good movie should be able to remain a good movie if the connection was taken away. Just my 2 cents

How so? There's like one expanded universe right now and only one major crossover. It worked insanely well with audiences. Doesn't mean they don't like the ones that were not. We don't even know if it will work for the others yet. I mean, bad or mediocre movies are gonna happen regardless.

The only one that doesn't need it imo is Spider-Man right now. DC and X-Men have so many characters that it's impossible to do the characters or certain storylines full justice with out expansion. Until I see proof that it won't work for them (which it should) I think it's a requirement at this point. Most these flicks still stand alone regardless but having a connected universe leads to a bigger overall picture plus much more screen time for character development and interactions.

As for over saturation, the only time I have really seen successful franchises lose steam is when they make a couple ****** movies. Just there being too many comic flicks won't be a problem. All that's a myth to me. If we get over run by ****** comic flicks that will be the issue and will no doubt have audiences second guessing what they are paying for.

 

[weezerspider]

Not really a valid comparison. Westerns have a much, much more limited scope to explore. "Superheroes" have a lot more variables, and more resemble a meta-genre that can be applied to a variety of other genres.

Which is to say, if you really think the range from Dark Knight to Guardians of the Galaxy is narrower than that of westerns, I really can't help you.

Please point to me where I said it was narrower than westerns. Not to mention, almost all superheros go by this:

Film 1. Some normal dude gets powers/becomes superhero through an accident or something tragic.
Film 2 Some new bad dude wants to kill the superhero/get his powers/rule the world...or a mix of all of them.
Film 3. Repeat film 2 with different bad dude and minor changes.

The Spiderman trilogy fits that. The Iron Man trilogy fits that. TDK trilogy even fits it to an extent. So far the Cap series fits that. As does the Thor series.

GOTG is a lot like The Avengers. Group of talented people team up together despite not wanting to, for the greater good against some all-powerful force and by the end, they all love each other. Most team films will probably be similar to this.

Superhero films are formulaic because they are genre pictures and genre pictures are formulaic. Formulas get repetitive, old and fall out of style. They get old to the creators too, which normally leads to bad films and bad films lead to things losing popularity.

 

[def28]

95% of mainstream films are formulaic though. That's nothing new. These comic flicks are not just looked at as being all the same and in their own separate category, it's big budget entertainment above all other things. We have had that for countless decades and it continues to evolve.

Unless fun and entertainment dies as a whole or all these studios just stop knowing how to make a good film, I can't see it being an issue. All of these modern comic flicks stand apart from eachother too much. Even from just this year with ASM2, DOFP, Winter Soldier, GOTG, TMNT, Sin City etc. All very different films.

 

[DA_Champion]

95% of mainstream films are formulaic though. That's nothing new. These comic flicks are not just looked at as being all the same and in their own separate category, it's big budget entertainment above all other things. We have had that for countless decades and it continues to evolve.

Unless fun and entertainment dies as a whole or all these studios just stop knowing how to make a good film, I can't see it being an issue. All of these modern comic flicks stand apart from eachother too much. Even from just this year with ASM2, DOFP, Winter Soldier, GOTG, TMNT, Sin City etc. All very different films.

95% of films don't require 200 million dollar budgets.

If they switch to making more films like Dredd 3D then the longevity of the genre will increase.

 

[def28]

95% of films don't require 200 million dollar budgets.

If they switch to making more films like Dredd 3D then the longevity of the genre will increase.

The mainstream big budget ones make the bank, most of them do cost 100-200m.

I love Dredd, one of my favorites. But it's not some brand new formula for an action flick. Not that it's a bad thing but it has a very similar premise to The Raid. What sucked is even with it's reception and low budget Dredd still can't get a sequel. We can't even get a $50 million dollar Deadpool film green lit. Those small action films are unlikely to change the game right now. I don't see how that will increase everything for the "genre" in any way at the moment. They almost always have been making films like that in some way or another.

 

[OcStat]

The budgets aren't necessarily the whole problem, I think trying to cram all those big movies within 3 months is. Obviously the companies making these movies realize that as well as DC and Marvel's game plans have their films more spread out. BvS in a crowded summer = a bit more of a risk, BvS in the middle of March practically guarantees a blockbuster.

 

[def28]

The budgets aren't necessarily the whole problem, I think trying to cram all those big movies within 3 months is. Obviously the companies making these movies realize that as well as DC and Marvel's game plans have their films more spread out. BvS in a crowded summer = a bit more of a risk, BvS in the middle of March practically guarantees a blockbuster.

That's definitely a problem and risk for all blockbusters with a high budget. A new big movie opens every week.

BvS is gonna be a hit regardless, but yeah going to a less crowded month or not directly competing on the same day is a better idea.

 

[OcStat]

This year hopefully proved that to the bean counters. There's been more and more to see each summer for like the last 4 years, and for the first time in my adult life (granted I'm way busier now than I have ever been), I can't keep up with everything I actually want to see. I'm sure it is tougher for large families trying to make it to all the summer action movies the kids want to watch.

And you are right, BvS will be undoubtedly a big movie, I was just using it as an example. I think it's a welcome change to have more of the big event movies spread out so the fall and early spring isn't so damn boring.

 

[def28]

Agreed, spreading these films through the year and not shoving them all in Summer is the way to go.

If Assassins Creed and Uncharted hit big we will get a whole new wave of video game franchises on top of the comic ones. Gonna get pretty crazy.

 

[DACrowe]

All genres go in cycle. Westerns were ubiquitous for a generation and relied (much like superheroes) on good guys fighting bad guys on a mythic scale. They eventually died off.

With that said, the amount of budgetary concerns with these movies and how studios are building their entire calendars around them puts a lot more financial pressure on them than most westerns that could be made as either a big budget spectacle or on the cheap. So, 2017 when we could get up to 9 superhero movies will be...interesting.

But we will see.

 

[def28]

Have good big budget Superhero movies ever really fell off?

From Superman The Movie to GOTG I don't think there are that many examples. Heck, X-Men is going on 14 years in the same continuity and still ranking it in. The well made big budget ones have pretty much always sold. Just can't see these going out of date anytime soon unless every studio ****s up big time.

Is there anyone who won't want to watch a good Batman or X-men flick? All these characters are awesome and have been going around forever in tons of media. Every generation alive grew up with them in some form, and so will the next. They are at theme parks, on TV, comics, video games, the internet...just everywhere. They can change with the times, be rebooted and evolve to fit the need of any blockbuster trend with the vast selection of characters, tones, generes and environments. Very few if any Westerns had the same characters, long reputation or marketing power like these comic characters.

 

[DACrowe]

John Wayne was a brand unto himself more than any actor playing a superhero today. Did not help the westerns he starred in during the last few years of his career in the end.

And actually, yes much of the western genre was rooted in the American mythology of the early 20th century that looked back longingly, including on figures of mythic (and not necessarily historically accurate) importance like Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, etc. Native American tribes from the Comanche to the Apache were a world unto themselves buoyed up by comics (yes), radio programs, television serials by the time of the 1950s and 1960s, songs ranging from western-country to rock (Buddy Holly singing "That'll Be the Day"), and dime novels.

Nothing lasts forever.

 

[def28]

We still get movies and characters extremely similar to that though. It never really died. Just the setting of the old west changed. Which makes perfect sense given how things have evolved and how we need to modernize storytelling. Superhero movies can change the way everything looks in a hundred years as well, but with the same growing roster of characters.

Bats is still ruling and he is what 75? Unlike an old west setting, I don't see how time will kill him and the other main sellers from being on top as long as the quality is there and they make it fresh. There's no specific date they really have to stay with. They all look different. Some can be Westerns themselves or, comedic and in Space while others are dramatic and very grounded in current political allegories.

Think it's also that the 70's and 80s blockbuster/franchise films just switched everything up so much when it comes to pop culture it's tough for me to relate to a time when it just didn't exist on that mass media level. Or to see anything profitable dieing within the next decade. Times are so different on every level. The amount of instant exposure was just never close to this extreme back then. Kids can look up, watch and be introduced by the most obscure characters with the touch of a button. If enough people know about it, it seems to be made. Be it Superheros, Greek mythology, Classic Fairy tales,video games or King Kong.

 

[DACrowe]

There will always be superhero movies, just as there are still westerns and musicals today. But remaining the most popular form of mass media entertainment?

I have my doubts. I do not think it will end in this decade, but eventually tastes change, especially when one generation grows up with their parents watching superhero movies. That is somewhat what did in the western and other popular genres from the golden age of Hollywood when the boomers came of age.

 

[def28]

Maybe, we'll see. Everything I grew up with as a kid in the 80s and 90s seems to be even more popular and accepted with younger audiences nowadays. Studios make sure they keep up with their properties. Look at how something like My Little Pony, Transformers and TMNT revamped themselves. The companies can grab the older crew as well as raise their kids on it. Grabbing the kids attention should be a pretty big goal. In 30 years My Little Pony will have even more nostalgic viewers then it did with the the 80s kids if they revamp again. At that age kids are too young to care what their parents like. Even then, I'm sure more then a few of our parents and grandparents introduced us to Superheros at a young age that we all thought were cool. We just have different versions now. The younger generation right now will know Batman, X-Men, Deadpool, Harley Quinn, The Avenegers etc more then any other. For them to phase out their interest is gonna take alot of work and time, cause I think the characters will change with the times much like their audience.

For the old west, That time doesn't exists anymore. Can't get around dating it. Technology keeps pushing this industry, and Superheros lead themselves to the largest spectacle of the imagination. But yeah, we'll see. Someone is gonna drop the ball sooner or later. I just have a feeling it will come from a decrease in quality and bland scripts rather then Superheros not being trendy.

 

[Human Torch]

Comparing Westerns to Super Hero films is kinda odd to begin with,but my take:

The Western (much like the Super Hero concept) was originally conceived as "kiddie fair" in the 30's and 40's.You had white hats in a shoot out with the black hats.The hero would sing a song on his guitar (in some cases) and import some kind of morality to kids (those either in the film or viewing).

Go forward a few years and we're in the TV era.During the 50's & 60's it was still a hot commodity.Folks that grew up with the genre got to experience it with their kids.The theme was much the same.Bad guy comes to town,good guy resists violence,but ends up protecting the innocent.

Now we head into the 70's (and here's where things turn) Everything had to be dark,brutal and unpleasant.The bad guys were not simple Black Hat's wanting to swindle a gold mine or foreclose an orphanage.Now it was all about revenge.A blood bath in every film.The hero (if you could still call him that) became an anti-hero.He wasn't interested in being a "role model".He was out for himself,wanting to inflict the same harm done to him by the villains and institutions he previously believed in.

The woman were treated worst of all.Gone was the days of Roy Rogers patting Dale Evans affectionately on the head or Marshal Dillon's benign flirtation with Miss Kitty.Now,all the women were either saloon floozies or brutalized rape victims.No regard for mom and apple pie and raising little Johnny to do the right thing.After all,if the hero is a scum bucket,who should look up to him?

So,bringing this back to the Superhero genre,what ended up killing the Western was when it got dragged down the sewer.When the family failed to be the audience they were shooting for.When you couldn't take your kid to a Western anymore.That's what killed them,and will kill the SuperHero genre just as easily.Sadly,I think the Western is probably too far removed from it's glory days in society's sight these days to ever be as relevant as it once was.

That's why I always bristle when I hear "We need a Wolverine (or Batman,Deadpool,Daredevil,etc) with a hard R!!!!1111" That's what's gonna sink the genre.Forgetting your target audience.You cease to make the family the goal,and the SH genre will go the way of the Western.

 

[def28]

Weren't those late 60's violent Spaghetti Westerns better for the genre though? The more contemporary Westerns were violent as well. Most the subject matter deals with revenge, murder, criminals, prostitutes etc. If they were watered down it would have fizzled even quicker.

With a R rated Batman I agree. But certain characters call for it and play for the better. Blade, The Crow, Watchmen, SinCity, Punisher, Kick-Ass etc. With Wolverine even the studio knew that and found away to have both. I mean the guy stabs people alot. Only so much you can show. X2 had rating problems with the matter. Obviously, they want that money so R just aint gonna happen, but it's not crazy to think an R rated Wolverine could happen and be a success though. If every studio was doing it that would be a huge mistake, but if someone has a solid vision of a character that relies on it's rating they shouldn't change it imo.

 

[DACrowe]

Also, westerns were not just kiddie fare. Yes some were, but they comprised what was arguably the most popular genre of the 1940s through the 1950s. Films like Stagecoach, Red River, The Searchers, How the West Was Won, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma, etc.

But I do agree that when it got deconstructed, it did die. But I think that was also because of a generational divide, much the same way that by the 1970s musicals were no longer popular when only a few years earlier My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, and Oliver! were winning Best Picture.

And for whatever it is worth, the deconstructionist superhero movies--Kick-Ass, Watchmen, and Super--have all underperformed at the box office.

You seem to be onto something with that point.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Is there anyone who won't want to watch a good Batman or X-men flick? All these characters are awesome and have been going around forever in tons of media. Every generation alive grew up with them in some form, and so will the next. They are at theme parks, on TV, comics, video games, the internet...just everywhere. They can change with the times, be rebooted and evolve to fit the need of any blockbuster trend with the vast selection of characters, tones, generes and environments. Very few if any Westerns had the same characters, long reputation or marketing power like these comic characters.

Excellent point. To answer your (probably rhetorical) question there are a few bias individuals who'll boycott certain franchises, but they make no difference to the end result

 

[def28]

Pretty much. Take the biggest haters of any studio and the majority are still paying.

And for whatever it is worth, the deconstructionist superhero movies--Kick-Ass, Watchmen, and Super--have all underperformed at the box office.

Kick-Ass 1 actually did really good. Tripled it's budget in theatres and made a killing on video. It was also the strongest received and reviewed of the 3.

Super was like a 2m indie put out by IFC, that no one even knew existed till netflix. So it's easy to see why that didn't exactly hit big. But Watchmen was a huge risk. I still don't think people know what to make of it.

 

[Human Torch]

Weren't those late 60's violent Spaghetti Westerns better for the genre though? The more contemporary Westerns were violent as well. Most the subject matter deals with revenge, murder, criminals, prostitutes etc. If they were watered down it would have fizzled even quicker.

With a R rated Batman I agree. But certain characters call for it and play for the better. Blade, The Crow, Watchmen, SinCity, Punisher, Kick-Ass etc. With Wolverine even the studio knew that and found away to have both. I mean the guy stabs people alot. Only so much you can show. X2 had rating problems with the matter. Obviously, they want that money so R just aint gonna happen, but it's not crazy to think an R rated Wolverine could happen and be a success though. If every studio was doing it that would be a huge mistake, but if someone has a solid vision of a character that relies on it's rating they shouldn't change it imo.

Well,the thing about the Spaghetti Westerns was they were a shot in the arm,short term.It was only when the trend started to follow them that they started to fizzle (by and large).It's sorta how TDK made people sit up and take notice.But,it's not really the kind of movie you can take an 8 y/o to.And so,that was a concern that if too many studios tried that approach,you would see a drop off,eventually.For what it's worth,I think Marvel Studios knows full well of it's niche and have done pretty well at toeing that line.

I guess Wolverine is a character where you expect some carnage.But,it's not really needed for a good movie.You don't have to show,just imply.It's also easier these days to just save stuff for the unrated blu-ray.

 

[Human Torch]

Also, westerns were not just kiddie fare. Yes some were, but they comprised what was arguably the most popular genre of the 1940s through the 1950s. Films like Stagecoach, Red River, The Searchers, How the West Was Won, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, High Noon, 3:10 to Yuma, etc.

But I do agree that when it got deconstructed, it did die. But I think that was also because of a generational divide, much the same way that by the 1970s musicals were no longer popular when only a few years earlier My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, and Oliver! were winning Best Picture.

And for whatever it is worth, the deconstructionist superhero movies--Kick-Ass, Watchmen, and Super--have all underperformed at the box office.

You seem to be onto something with that point.

I think most "name" westerns came around the 50's and later, but yeah, there are probably a few exceptions.

About the musicals,yeah a lot had to do with the overall cynicism films displayed through much of the 70's.It hit musicals and westerns hardest.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But I do agree that when it got deconstructed, it did die. But I think that was also because of a generational divide, much the same way that by the 1970s musicals were no longer popular when only a few years earlier My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, and Oliver! were winning Best Picture.

Specific to the Western, nostalgia played a big role in the genre's success as well. The time period in which the Western was most popular was also a time when America was becoming urbanized/sub-urbanized and a lot of people looked back romantically on the simpler times in rural America.

Furthermore, the young people and children of the late-1800s were still alive. Among the western genre you can see a clear progression in the time films are set over the decades, as generations started dying off. In the 20s and 30s, Civil War Era films were dominant. In the 40s-50s, most Westerns took place post-Civil War during the Indian Wars and the closing of the frontier. By the end of the 60s, there were a lot of End of the West type films set in the early 20th Century (think Wild Bunch or Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid). After that, the peak was over.

It wasn't really that they were getting too violent. Look at what replaced the Western as the next big fad. Crime films like French Connection, Dirty Harry, and Chinatown. Those certainly weren't kid-friendly. The new generation simply had different tastes than their parents and grandparents. They didn't have the same emotional attachment to the Old West.

The deconstruction of the Western played a role, but I don't think it was the main reason for the genre's decline.

 

[SlamAdams]

How many rom coms are there annually?
How many horror movies annually?
How many animated annually?
How many action films annually?
How many dramas annually?

These are pretty broad.

How many rom coms are there annually? Not as many as there used to be. Teen comedies like She's All That are gone almost completely.

How many horror movies? Too broad. How many slashers? Not as much as there used to be. Torture porn looks like its drying up. Found footage is strong, haunted house movies are making a comeback but went away for awhile.

How many animated films? Way too broad. That's not even a genre, or subgenre. That's a medium.

How many action films? Straight action movies, not nearly as many. Buddy cops are all but gone. Westerns are all but gone. One man armies are all but gone. War movies in general are made for their drama instead of their action nowadays. Superheroes are in. Space operas seem to be making a comeback after being gone awhile. Expendables was the last hoorah for a certain type and was pretty much just put down. YA girls reaching their potential in dystopias are really big. Disaster movies limped across the finish line, I don't think we'll see one of those for awhile.

How many dramas? Well, this is the broadest of the bunch. You might as well ask how many movies get made a year.

 

[Human Torch]

Specific to the Western, nostalgia played a big role in the genre's success as well. The time period in which the Western was most popular was also a time when America was becoming urbanized/sub-urbanized and a lot of people looked back romantically on the simpler times in rural America.

Furthermore, the young people and children of the late-1800s were still alive. Among the western genre you can see a clear progression in the time films are set over the decades, as generations started dying off. In the 20s and 30s, Civil War Era films were dominant. In the 40s-50s, most Westerns took place post-Civil War during the Indian Wars and the closing of the frontier. By the end of the 60s, there were a lot of End of the West type films set in the early 20th Century (think Wild Bunch or Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid). After that, the peak was over.

It wasn't really that they were getting too violent. Look at what replaced the Western as the next big fad. Crime films like French Connection, Dirty Harry, and Chinatown. Those certainly weren't kid-friendly. The new generation simply had different tastes than their parents and grandparents. They didn't have the same emotional attachment to the Old West.

The deconstruction of the Western played a role, but I don't think it was the main reason for the genre's decline.

Well,the 70's gave way to a more mean spirited cinema overall.And there was some overall shift in interest toward Sci-fi & Fantasy,I'm not denying that. My point is that there was no real attempt to create "The new Western franchise" for the family audience in the 70's.Parents that grew up with Gunsmoke,the Rifleman,Etc,didn't have anything to introduce their kids to in that genre.It's not like today,where we have parents that grew up with CB properties and can easily introduce their kids to the stuff they liked as a kid.

In fact,the closest the Western came to being successful in the 70's was shows like the Waltons & Little House on the Prairie which appealed to the whole family.I guess,a half hearted attempt was made to revive the Lone Ranger circa 1980,but the damage was done.(And that film had it's own share of problems)