CBM will going for FULL Satiration

[CyclopsWasRight]

Explain. I don't see any way that Disney is suddenly going to become a monopoly in movies.

They could have a monopoly of franchises. Wouldn't see them having a monopoly of studios unless they continue to buy more

 

[DrCosmic]

I get all that about the economics. I thought the conversation the OP started that I made my comment to was the saturation of a particular genre and the GA growing tired of them.

Well, yeah... audiences will get tired of them as they become repetitive, the OP has something in that point. My point was that the audience gets smaller, it doesn't jump to zero. So good cheap superhero films can always turn a profit.

And for those other genres, most people don't see any given rom com or drama or horror movie, so because only a small section of the GA has seen it, the entire GA can't get tired of them. There's no burnout there.

The only way saturation can have any effect is if there's a lot of repetitive big budget films (same with the western bust) of that genre.

Explain. I don't see any way that Disney is suddenly going to become a monopoly in movies.

Right now, Disney controls two of the three biggest blockbuster franchises: MCU and Star Wars. James Bond and Harry Potter are in that conversation, but they are less and less relevant, and are not poised to release several billion dollar films in the near future. Noone else is, except maybe Transformers, albeit at a slower pace. Batman/TheDCCU at number 5 had a chance to make a comeback, but right now they are on their heels having had to back off from the generally less popular Captain America threequel. They have yet to prove themselves critically or commercially the way all the other franchises in this conversation have. Disney is dominating in a game with a very very high entry fee. Saturation will only work in their favor, as they can weather it with what is likely to be perceived as superior product. And as soon as they lack effective competition, they'll start to suck, because that's what human beings have always done.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Cliches and repeated formulas ran around for years before the sudden burst of comic book movies
Anyway, most of the movies people pay a lot of attention to these days are comic book movies, so this saturation is not a bad idea
And there are a lot of movies out every year, it's not like 100 superhero comic book movies come out each month

 

[kguillou]

I absolutely love superhero films and believe that they are getting better and better in quality each year but eve I'm starting to worry a little. I mean, guys, lets be honest, we are getting a little too much. With Marvel studios looking to release 3 films a year, Fox keeping the X-men and F4 train running, Sony chugging along with Spiderman (even with diminishing returns) and now WB going all in with 9 DC films, we're going to be seeing a LOT of output per year in the coming years. That could be a very good or very bad thing.

The key is variety though. DC's 9 unannounced films for example. I really hope that those 9 films are not all superhero films (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman etc.). I want variety in genres, give us some Vertigo titles: Sandman, Y The Last Man, Swamp Thing etc. That's what I've always liked about DC is how they took chances in adapting their Vertigo properties like The Losers, Constantine, V For Vendetta, Red, Road To Perdition etc. I want to see more of those type of "DC films" along with the occasional Batman, Superman and Justice League flick. Call me insane but I actually kind of like how WB releases one DC flick every couple of years instead of multiple flicks a year like Marvel. It makes them feel more special and more like events. The Dark Knight felt like an event. Man of Steel felt like a big event, the epic return of Superman. I really like that strategy. Granted, the wait for Batman V. Superman is PAINFUL but at least they're making up for it with an awesome, varied television output with Arrow, Flash, Constantine and Gotham to keep us satisfied until then.

 

[Erzengel]

I've become more picky with what CBM I see.

I saw everything in the theaters once upon a time. Elektra, X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3 and X-Men-Wolverine Origins.

I neglected to see The Wolverine, Green Lantern, TASM and TASM2 in the theaters. I know that The Wolverine and TASM got decent reviews but I just couldn't muster the interest to go.

I almost didn't see X-Men: DOFP but because it got stellar reviews, I went.

I'll always have certain CBM I would go see. Any MCU, X-Men since they turned it around, any Batman or Superman related movies. Spider-Man lost it for me. FF next year would have to be at least 80% RT positive for me to go and see.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I won't be seeing the next Thor or Iron Man in theatres unless they get stellar reviews.
Have little interest in Ant-Man since Wright left.
Inhumans (if they don't turn them into X-Men) and Nova will be definite Theatre trips.
Will always go see any X-Men & Spider-Man movies.
Fantastic Four will depend on the trailers.

 

[Erzengel]

I should have added that I did watch GL, TASM and The Wolverine on Netflix. TASM2 is on my queue.

I think there won't be any sequels to Iron Man. I think Avengers 2 and 3 are RDJ's last Marvel movies.

Thor will finish with 3 with I'm assuming a final battle between him and Loki.

Marvel with Guardians, and the upcoming Ant-Man and Dr. Strange, I like that their future is bright even after the Avengers.

I think WB's future is really dependent on BvsS. That movie has to be better than just "okay".

Sony, I understand what they are doing, but they really have to get their act together.

Fox, I'm glad they turned it around with DOFP but I'd like to see some non Wolverine movies in the horizon and they have to really try and not make FF as bad as it's predecessors.

 

[psylockolussus]

Marvel or DC, I'll be seeing all of them.

 

[DA_Champion]

3 Marvel movies a year, 2 or 3 DC movies a year, 1 Sony movie a year, 1 or 2 Fox movie a year, and then add in Ninja Turtles, Transformers, more films like Sin City, 300, and it's going to be real crowded. We're also going to get expansion from Star Wars, Avatar, and Harry Potter, though admittedly Lord of the Rings and Hunger Games are on the way out.

I guess I won't be seeing Ant Man and Fantastic Four next year.

 

[psylockolussus]

Why not? Avatar and Fantastic Beasts aren't coming out in 2015. The sequel for Ninja Turtles is coming in 2016. While Star Wars and the last chapters of the Hobbit and the Hunger Games are not coming out in summer.

As a fan of blockbuster films, I love this explosion of blockbuster films!

 

[DA_Champion]

Why not? Avatar and Fantastic Beasts aren't coming out in 2015. The sequel for Ninja Turtles is coming in 2016. While Star Wars and the last chapters of the Hobbit and the Hunger Games are not coming out in summer.

As a fan of blockbuster films, I love this explosion of blockbuster films!

They have been making blockbusters for at least 40 years, there is no blockbuster boom, there's a geek *franchise* boom which could reduce the odds of more films like Oblivion, Pacific Rim, and Edge of Tomorrow being made, let alone non sci fi movies like Titanic, Forrest Gump, etc. that we used to see more regularly.

 

[Lantern Venom]

what will be better for CBM universe:
-Sony has to quit.
-Marvel needs to get their **** together and will never do **** movies like PHASE 1 movies,Thor Dark World. Captain and GOTG were okay but they are not near any classics.No one will remember Winter soldier maybe next year.

I'm not sure in what aspect Marvel needs to get it together since they have yet to make a bad film. While I also worry about over-saturation of the interest in comic book adaptations, 2014 has proven that the thirst for them has not neared its peak. Just sit back and enjoy the ride while it lasts.

 

[Dark Raven]

I honestly thought when I saw the title of this thread that the OP was talking about comic book movies going for full satire - especially when it reads "full satiration" instead of saturation.

And to be honest, I also thought it was about that other website satirising all their reviews in the way they would be writing it in the future.

Then afterwards, when I saw who the original poster was (ie paypaytr), I knew immediately I couldn't take it seriously and thought his whole post sounds like a satire.

 

[Lord]

Westerns also used to be made all the time, i can see the MCU staying, even if it ends up becoming smaller, James Bond for example faced a lot of rip-offs, unless they end up like the Tarzan movies, that used to come out every year before James Bond.

There was also something special when you only had Superman, or Batman, or Spider-Man, i'm actualy more worried about the exageration of sequel releases than too many comic book movies, just in the 90s most of the highest grossers were one-shots, now eveything needs to be a part of a franchise, it' getting kinda ridiculous.

 

[Human Torch]

I should have added that I did watch GL, TASM and The Wolverine on Netflix. TASM2 is on my queue.

I think there won't be any sequels to Iron Man. I think Avengers 2 and 3 are RDJ's last Marvel movies.

Thor will finish with 3 with I'm assuming a final battle between him and Loki.

Marvel with Guardians, and the upcoming Ant-Man and Dr. Strange, I like that their future is bright even after the Avengers.

I think WB's future is really dependent on BvsS. That movie has to be better than just "okay".

Sony, I understand what they are doing, but they really have to get their act together.

Fox, I'm glad they turned it around with DOFP but I'd like to see some non Wolverine movies in the horizon and they have to really try and not make FF as bad as it's predecessors.

IM 3 made too much money.I think they're bound to give IM4 a shot.RDJ already talked about the possibility,provided Marvel wants to shake their money tree for him.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not like the COD knockoffs in the video game industry.

The last 10 superhero movies excluding TMNT, Kick Ass 2 and Wolverine will make over 600 m each.

The genre is solid as a rock. Almost 10 movies in a row bring in over half a billion each.

Name another genre with that kind of winning streak?

 

[Lord]

Kinda difficult to do that, inflation and the lack of a strong overseas market makes the other eras look inferior in success, but you had plenty of successful westerns and spy films.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Kinda difficult to do that, inflation and the lack of a strong overseas market makes the other eras look inferior in success, but you had plenty of successful westerns and spy films.

Well lets just look at genres since the 1980.

How many had 8 or 10 movies in a row get 600 million worldwide?

 

[kguillou]

The thing is, there's a difference between "superhero movies" and "comic book movies". A comic book movie can be anything from V for Vendetta to A History of Violence to Sin city to 300 to Watchmen. They're simply stories that came from a graphic novel or comic book. Superhero movies are movies like Spider-man, Avengers, X-men, Superman, Batman etc. "Comic book movies" are perfectly fine as their genres vary widely. Its no different from adapting a film from a novel. The question is in the next 5 years will people get tired of films with superheroes in them?

My prediction? People will start to wear of superheroes in about 5-7 years after we've had Justice League and Avengers 3 and an X-men/F4 team-up and a Spider-man/ Sinister Six mash up. There's going to be a huge, big budget film thats going to severely under perform and then Hollywood is going to dial back on their budgets for these movies. Then, some young, hungry filmaker is going to make a an amazing, critically acclaimed, small budgeted superhero flick (ala Blade) and its going to start a new wave of small budget, gritty superhero flicks and that will be the next trend.

 

[Lord]

Well lets just look at genres since the 1980.

How many had 8 or 10 movies in a row get 600 million worldwide?

It's different times, sequels weren't this common before, it may take a long time, but nothing is this popular forever, what may seem new at the present usualy ends up feeling outdated, which leads to slogans like "this isn't your father's (fill a franchise here)".

I mean, when you have some 8 superhero films all at the top of the box office it's eventual that people may get tired sooner than later.

 

[weezerspider]

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?

How many westerns are there annually?

CBM's are a subgenre like westerns. Sure, they'll never go away, but like the western, you can bet they will get much less frequent in due time.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Westerns also used to be made all the time, i can see the MCU staying, even if it ends up becoming smaller, James Bond for example faced a lot of rip-offs, unless they end up like the Tarzan movies, that used to come out every year before James Bond.

There was also something special when you only had Superman, or Batman, or Spider-Man, i'm actualy more worried about the exageration of sequel releases than too many comic book movies, just in the 90s most of the highest grossers were one-shots, now eveything needs to be a part of a franchise, it' getting kinda ridiculous.

That's something I don't like. Not just win Superhero movies But these days almost everything is being written and made to be a franchise rather than a single story.

WB had balls to end the Nolan trilogy and and not endlessly continue it. It's not common for a franchise to get a decisive ending anymore.

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

 

[metaphysician]

How many westerns are there annually?

CBM's are a subgenre like westerns. Sure, they'll never go away, but like the western, you can bet they will get much less frequent in due time.

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.

 

[DA_Champion]

To people who primarily watch CBMs the genre of CBMs will come off as being very diverse.

To people who watch other kinds of movies CBMs will come off as very homogeneous.

The Dark Knight is a rare exception due to one wrinkle: Batman is defeated in that movie. That sets it apart from the bulk of the genre.

 

[Erzengel]

Westerns also used to be made all the time, i can see the MCU staying, even if it ends up becoming smaller, James Bond for example faced a lot of rip-offs, unless they end up like the Tarzan movies, that used to come out every year before James Bond.

There was also something special when you only had Superman, or Batman, or Spider-Man, i'm actualy more worried about the exageration of sequel releases than too many comic book movies, just in the 90s most of the highest grossers were one-shots, now eveything needs to be a part of a franchise, it' getting kinda ridiculous.

I actually like it because it's never been done on this scale.

If you have a franchise, it's over a few movies or something like Harry Potter it's linear.

I love the way MCU, references the other movies. It's small nods and doesn't involve long explanations and it's not always to drive the point across.