CBM will going for FULL Satiration

[def28]

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)

Apple Dumpling Gang was big hit back then wasn't it? Think that was a pretty major Disney film for the time.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Outlaw Josey Wales was a popular 70s Western. They never truly went away, but the genre is nowhere near as prevalent as during its peak.

The same is likely the fate of the superhero film in the future. Although that's probably quite a ways off.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

From 1955 to 1968 there were 460 westerns released; that's 35 westerns a year or almost 3 a month. Compared to that, 10 superhero movies a year is a paltry.

 

[SlamAdams]

From 1955 to 1968 there were 460 westerns released; that's 35 westerns a year or almost 3 a month. Compared to that, 10 superhero movies a year is a paltry.

Its all relative. There was probably WAY less movies being made

 

[marcvader]

Apple Dumpling Gang was big hit back then wasn't it? Think that was a pretty major Disney film for the time.

Damn dude, I forgot about that movie. I was like 6 when i saw that in the theater.

 

[DACrowe]

Its all relative. There was probably WAY less movies being made

Actually, today there are way less movies being made. At least in the Hollywood studio system for wide release around the country. Sure you could get a pricy John Ford epic like The Searchers (and for the record he was making hit westerns in the 1930s), but you also had the B-movie serials that played on Saturday mornings. And studios were releasing hundreds of movies a year in their heyday before the 1960s.

Today, studios are releasing less than 20 movies a year. When a quarter of that output becomes superhero movies in a few years--which are by far the most saturated in pop culture due to huge budges and huge marketing campaigns--it will be quite more intense than the old studio system.

With that said, I do not see superhero movies going anywhere for at least another decade.

 

[Human Torch]

Just to clear the record,I'm not saying there were no popular Westerns in the 70's,I'm saying there were no "action hero-family" Westerns of the 70's.Apple Dumplin' Gang was a good example.The Westerns that were successful with family audiences all included kids/families (I.E Waltons,etc).So I maintain there was no real effort to reach the teen/"family night at the movies" crowd.It would be like today having every SH movie rated R,but then saying "we had Incredibles and it was a commercial and critical success". Like ADG,Incredibles was a "family" film by design,so obviously it's an exception.

 

[Lord]

Superhero films at the top won't last for long, the MCU will stay, and old major franchises like Spider-Man and Batman will probably keep getting a film now and then, but i don't think this giant wave will last for long.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Apple Dumpling Gang was big hit back then wasn't it? Think that was a pretty major Disney film for the time.

I had almost forgotten the Apple Dumpling Gang. I always liked the sequel better, personally.

On topic, I really don't think that any form of "superhero fatigue" will be happening any time soon. The studios just need to to keep putting out new and unique concepts.

 

[gildedmuse]

You now, I would be absolutely heartbroken if the superhero genre just went *poof* and disappeared on me,but I'm not all that worried. Because even if these big Hollywood studios can't maintain their current output levels without a major dive in quantity I think the technology, the money, and the ambition are all in place to take a failing Blockbuster model and turn in into something successful on a different live action serialized format. By which I mean TV, yes, but also Netflix and the internet and wherever it is people will be going to get their shows.

When you think about it, generally turning a long running comic book into a tv show makes a whole lot more sense than cutting it down to a single story and hoping that even outside of decades of context it makes sense. That's why movies are so often origin moves as it sets continuity at zero for both the hero and the audience. I am far from the first to comics to tv as media. Besides, it's already happening! AoS, Arrow, Heroes, even Buffy felt more like a CB Hero than a Horror Girl. And even as a hardcore Marvel fans respect how the DCAU has it together. I understand that there are differences in live action and animated, but if they wanted to reboot Spidey again I would seriously suggest using the cartoon Spectacular as inspiration.

Plus, we've already seen the beginnings of such a movement with shows like Heroes, AoS, Arrow, even Buffy felt more like a comic book hero than a horror movie. And I think that most fans no matter how they feel about MoS or Nolan's Batman will admit that the DCAU knows how to do it. Even Marvel had it figured out for a while, and if we were to get another reboot of Spider-Man for some reason I would honestly suggest the Spectacular route.

But let's go back to talking Live Action. Plenty of folks have recognized TV's potential for adapting comics due to their shared serialized nature. Attempts have even been made, but over all the genre has faced some problems: seen as a niche product with no GA interest, complex on-going storyline with too many characters, unsustainable budgets/impossible SFX and perhaps most importantly, a lack of faith from studios. Recently, however, there have been a lot of change not just in the industry, but in our culture; not only are superheroes acceptably mainstream, television itself is slowly building a reputation for being it's own medium rather than just films' less prestigious cousin. Remember, once upon a time moving pictures were just seen as spectacles but not art. If you wanted a story you would read a book, which for the longest time was seen as the trashy escapism of young women while cultural ladies visited the theater. Of course in his own day, Shakespeare would have been seen like James Cameron: great when it came to entertaining the masses, but hardly some mater of words. That sort of title belonged solely to the poets. What is respectable and what is true art is always fluid.

Now that's not something that is necessarily important to me; I believe that art can come from any medium, it all depends on how the artist works it. But unfortunately it does effect how other people see it and thus the effort (and financial backing) they'll put into it. I only bring it up to show how now it's not just the big networks squares giving you Status Quot sitcoms. You have series like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, 24, Fargo, Game Of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, The Wire, American Horror Story, True Detectives, Orange Is The New Black, House Of Cards, The Shield, Downtown Abbey and probably a lot more I'm missing.

Heck, here are some shows from the last 15 years that I believe have some aspect that could easily translate towards superhero shows. I haven't actually even seen them all, but I know enough that I could pair them up against specific characters for inspiration just to show the wide range of possibilities.

Spoiler

Buffy/Angel
Alias
Lost
Almost Human
Being Human
Lost Girls
Grimm
Sleepy Hallow
Once Upon A Time
Person Of Interest
The Originals
The Tomorrow People
Orphan Black
Homeland
Falling Skies
Arrested Development
Xena
Dexter
The Knick
X-Files
Dark Angel
Penny Dreadful
Doctor Who
Continuum
Fringe
Eureka
The 4400
Reaper
Dollhouse
V
Sarah Connors
No Ordinary Family
Life On Mars
Chuck
Dead Like Me
Pushing Daisies
Veep
The Americans
Hannibal
Sherlock
Supernatural
Battlestar
Covert Affairs
The Mentalist
Stargate
Heroes
Misfits

 

[The_Manhunter]

Marvel: Keep doing whatever you guys are doing. Kevin Feige is a genius.

DC: Make everything (at least the movies) connected, and pick one particular franchise and stick with it. For example, if you want to do Justice League, do movies about the Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, etc., not about Sandman and Shazam.

Sony: I would focus on Spider-man by building up a good plot that runs throughout the franchise (like Marvel is doing with Thanos) and less on the spin-offs. Try to get a deal with Marvel for him to appear in the Avengers - you can get your spin-off money from that.

Fox: Focus on X-Men and let the FF rights go back to Marvel Studios. If they stayed a bit closer to the comics with the X-Men franchise, they could have a literal gold mine on their hands if they try to do what Sony is doing - X-Men, IMO, lends itself much better to universe-building than Spider-man.

 

[Micromind]

DC: [/B]Make everything (at least the movies) connected, and pick one particular franchise and stick with it. For example, if you want to do Justice League, do movies about the Flash, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, etc., not about Sandman and Shazam.

Not all movies need to be in the shared universe and DC also needs to make use of Vertigo properties (in past that has resulted in movies like V for Vendetta and Watchmen.) Sandman is a separate movie based on Vertigo title.

Shazam actually benefits from being a stand alone movie, it can have it's own story and tone.

As for Flash and GL, I agree WB should make those movie and tie them into larger DCCU.

 

[The_Manhunter]

Not all movies need to be in the shared universe and DC also needs to make use of Vertigo properties (in past that has resulted in movies like V for Vendetta and Watchmen.) Sandman is a separate movie based on Vertigo title.

Shazam actually benefits from being a stand alone movie, it can have it's own story and tone.

As for Flash and GL, I agree WB should make those movie and tie them into larger DCCU.

If they want to do Vertigo stuff, fine. But don't call them "DC" movies, because when people think of DC movies they think of super hero movies like Flash, Wonder Woman, etc. This is part of the problem with DC IMO is that they need to focus on one area, be it Vertigo or DC, not flip flop around because then you only get real DC movies like once every 3 years that always have Batman or Superman in them.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Lord]

Nah, let DC be varied, we already have plenty of superhero films, they have enough quality stories to use besides the main heroes, as long as they let those movies stand on their oun outside the Zack Snyder/ Goyer control, i'm cool. It also gets tiresome when you plan some 5 films per phase, and all of them are promoting each other or a sequel of their oun, Sandman, Fables, 100 Bullets and Shazam are perfect ways to get around that.

Though they could actualy work well on TV with the exception of Shazam, however, i don't realy trust DC properties in that medium, Constantine for example could have been this amazing moody show, yet from what it looks like, even supernatural nailed that better, the show right now looks incredibly generic.