Do you think audiences today like optimism more?

[Silvermoth]

Certainly more than in the last decade I think.

One of the things people seem to rave about with the Avengers is the humour and movies like 'The Lorax' are doing incredibly well. Do you think people want optimism in their films now more than ever?

Note that optimism isn't the same as Disneyfying or whatever. It's not about ignoring problems to medicate people and make them feel good. It's about showing how people overcome problems whereas the last decade (certainly after 9/11) showed how problems overcome people.

I even think 1940's style musicals (but with a modern twist) will come back in a pretty major way soon.

 

[Gianakin_]

No, I think they'll like any movie that appeals to any facet of their personality, emotions, sensibilities etc etc. Being pessimistic or optimistic, dark or light, brooding or outgoing has little to do with it, imo.

 

[obin_gam]

No. People dont just like 1 thing. People like several things.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The Hunger Games wasn't light fun and it has made 635mil worldwide.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Not this again.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I'm tired of people acting like Avengers is the cure to all of the world's ills. The only thing that that movie's success tells you is that people like it, it doesn't tell you about their outlook on life. People will always prefer a well made depressing movie (something like Se7en) to a badly made happy one (Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2... just typing the title of it makes me cringe). Likewise, they'll always prefer a well made happy movie (Up) to a horribly made downer (The Room). People like movies that are well made... optimism, pessimism, and even pragmatism have nothing to do with it.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm sorry but this thread just strikes me as a dig against The Dark Knight Rises. If it isn't I apologize but the internet is an uncomplicated place so my feelings tend to be right.

And I'm not even one of those crazy Nolan fans, I just calls em as I sees em.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

This isn't gonna go away until TDKR comes out unfortunately. It's 2008 all over again.

The articles and comments regarding TDK's and Iron Man's tone and atmosphere are identical to today's comparisons of The Avengers and TDKR.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This isn't gonna go away until TDKR comes out unfortunately. It's 2008 all over again.

The articles and comments regarding TDK's and Iron Man's tone and atmosphere are identical to today's comparisons of The Avengers and TDKR.

I am so over 2008 though and other people should be too. It's time to drop the whole subject and forgive and forget.

I just don't see how somebody can make a thread about this when a movie about children killing children in a bleak future just made 635-****ing-million dollars. It had good word of mouth both domestically and internationally and had good reviews. It was a raving success all around and this question is being asked?

There is an implication that all comic book films should be light and fluffy just because the Avenger's is and I reject that. Light and fluffy doesn't work with some characters just like dark and brooding doesn't work with some characters. The Batman and Avenger's fans should learn that lesson.

The audience will see light and weightless films like The Avengers and darker more thought provoking sci fi films like The Hunger Games. The audience will also go see TDKR's because unlike the intertube's the audience is capable of liking more than one thing at a time. You know kind of like people with more than one child?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Absolutely not. Look at some of the biggest movies of the last decade: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Revenge of the Sith, the Harry Potter franchise, The Dark Knight, Inception, The Hunger Games, etc. Those aren't happy-go-lucky films.

If audiences want optimism than why did Battleship just sink faster than the Bismarck?

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I am so over 2008 though and other people should be too. It's time to drop the whole subject and forgive and forget.

I just don't see how somebody can make a thread about this when a movie about children killing children in a bleak future just made 635-****ing-million dollars. It had good word of mouth both domestically and internationally and had good reviews. It was a raving success all around and this question is being asked?

There is an implication that all comic book films should be light and fluffy just because the Avenger's is and I reject that. Light and fluffy doesn't work with some characters just like dark and brooding doesn't work with some characters. The Batman and Avenger's fans should learn that lesson.

I couldn't agree more with your post. There is evidence everywhere indicating that 'darker' movies are just as successful as 'fun and lighter' titles. It's preposterous to state that a film like The Avengers is creating optimism across America and TDKR is depressing everyone out and won't succeed because of it.

THG is a perfect example. There was nothing light-hearted and humorous about kids killing each other for elitist scumbags.

It's the quality of the film that counts. Not the tone.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

If audiences want optimism than why did Battleship just sink faster than the Bismarck?

I could kiss you.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I could kiss you.

Thank you.

Actually, after thinking about this a bit more the original argument couldn't be more wrong. Audiences in the past decade have been more accepting of more cynical films than they have at any point since the 70s.

Optimism was at an all-time high in the 1980s as far as pop culture goes. Just look at the types of stuff that were popular on film and television back in those days. Darker stuff existed, but it didn't do as well in general (there are always exceptions) as they do these days. Note that darker does not mean more adult. You could do and say things 30 years ago that would drive censors fits these days. This is more about tone. This started changing in the late 90s when stuff like Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, and The Matrix were big successes.

For a good comparison look at the reactions for The Dark Knight as opposed to Batman Returns. The Dark Knight was enormously popular among all audiences, became the first superhero film to win a major Oscar (for a very cynical character no less) and was the reason why the Best Picture nominees were expanded to a potential ten films. Batman Returns caused a gigantic backlash among parents complaining about how dark it was and WB responded by driving Tim Burton to quit and drastically lightening the tone for the next film which ended up being better received. At least in 1995 it was. These days you won't find many people that prefer Batman Forever to Batman Returns, and that's basically the point.

 

[cherokeesam]

Absolutely not. Look at some of the biggest movies of the last decade: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Revenge of the Sith, the Harry Potter franchise, The Dark Knight, Inception, The Hunger Games, etc. Those aren't happy-go-lucky films.

If audiences want optimism than why did Battleship just sink faster than the Bismarck?

Where the hell do you see optimism in Battleship....? It's a straightforward alien invasion flick, and as such, is typical "we're all ****ed unless some malcontent ne'er-do-well can come up with an on-the-fly snowballs-chance-in-hell harebrained scheme that's so stupid it'll confuse the super-advanced aliens into losing the war."

And why are people getting all pissy and defensive over TDKR? Silvermoth didn't mention it; YOU guys did. And he also mentioned The Lorax in the same breath as Avengers, so I don't see any Whedonite ulterior motive there.

And in answer to the title question, I think economics plays a large part in whether optimism or pessimism reigns supreme at the box office. Usually, when the economy tanks, movies tend to get more escapist and optimistic and positivistic, as during the Great Depression. Pessimism usually works best when audiences can actually afford it.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Dude, we all knew where this going when 'optimism' was mentioned. Don't try to defend this thread.

 

[dude stannis]

Audiences want great films.... Hopefully.

 

[cherokeesam]

Dude, we all knew where this going when 'optimism' was mentioned. Don't try to defend this thread.

I can't speak for Silvermoth, other than the fact that he doesn't mention TDKR in the first post, so he's not the one firing the first salvo if this turns into the usual flamewar and the mods Descend and Lock. I think he's got a legitimate question, and Avengers/Marvel don't have a monopoly on "optimism."

And again, I think it's an interesting question because I believe it ties to economics, as I stated. I think we're in a similar economic situation to the 1930s, and that dismal era brought about a ton of fantasy and optimism and tap-dancing and Shirley Temple and all that jazz (pun intended). Conversely, I see the 1990s as one of the "darkest" eras in American film, where everything had to be dark and gritty and goth, and that corresponds to an era when America was at its economic zenith. So there's a sort of Bizarro World effect going on there.

 

[Wolfwood]

Whoa, there are some pretty hard knee jerk reactions going on in this thread lol.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Cherokee, take a step back and actually ask yourself that question. Either it's a dig or it's completely doltish. 'Does the audience prefer optimism in their movies today?'

History indicates that a movie's tone has nothing to do with its success. Any film can be financially and critically acclaimed if it's of high quality.

This thread makes no sense at all by default. It's the equivalent of me creating a thread back in 2008 asking whether or not the general audience prefers 'darker' films.

 

[cherokeesam]

Cherokee, take a step back and actually ask yourself that question. Either it's a dig or it's completely doltish. 'Does the audience prefer optimism in their movies today?'

History indicates that a movie's tone has nothing to do with its success. Any film can be financially and critically acclaimed if it's of high quality.

This thread makes no sense at all by default. It's the equivalent of me creating a thread back in 2008 asking whether or not the general audience prefers 'darker' films.

Again: you can ask Silvermoth directly what his intent is. As far as the question itself, it's objective enough, and it's phrased in the polite form of a question, meaning it's open for debate. Not a "yeah, in your face, my movie is better than your movie" flamebaiter.

Your question in 2008 would be just as legitimate as this one is in 2012. And just as legitimate if you asked *today* whether or not the general audience prefers 'darker' films.

And I *do* think that the era in which a film is released plays more than a small part in its success. Some films were released decades too early, or decades too late --- they belong to another time. And some highly successful films owe a large part of their success to being in the right place at the right time. It's gross generalizing, I know, but I genuinely believe that a dark, pessimistic film wouldn't have had massive success in the escapist era of the 1930s, nor a bright, cheerful, optimistic film in the pessimistic era of, say, the 1970s or 1990s.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Again: you can ask Silvermoth directly what his intent is. As far as the question itself, it's objective enough, and it's phrased in the polite form of a question, meaning it's open for debate. Not a "yeah, in your face, my movie is better than your movie" flamebaiter.

With the recent release of The Avengers, there have been a large portion of articles written about the 'fun' superhero movie, and the questioning of 'darker' ones from the genre. So while the OP never mentioned TDKR, the battle between dark/cynical and fun/humorous has associated The Avengers and TDKR.

It's not like I'm the only one who perceived the tone talk as a dig or moronic question. See above. I mean seriously, if TDKR shatters the OW record and I create a thread asking (objectively and politely) fellow hypers whether the GA prefers a nihilistic tone in their movies nowadays over the more joyous tone, you're honestly gonna sit there and NOT give me one of these ?

Your question in 2008 would be just as legitimate as this one is in 2012. And just as legitimate if you asked *today* whether or not the general audience prefers 'darker' films.

But see, I don't believe that. A great film will be a great film. What does tone have to do with anything? Escapism/fantasticism and realism/gritty; dark/cynical and fun/humor themes and tones have co-existed for years, even during times of war.

And I *do* think that the era in which a film is released plays more than a small part in its success. Some films were released decades too early, or decades too late --- they belong to another time. And some highly successful films owe a large part of their success to being in the right place at the right time. It's gross generalizing, I know, but I genuinely believe that a dark, pessimistic film wouldn't have had massive success in the escapist era of the 1930s, nor a bright, cheerful, optimistic film in the pessimistic era of, say, the 1970s or 1990s.

There are flaws in that theory though. Alot of campy, cheesy, fun, light-hearted, etc films were released during those years and failed to strike a cord. Burton's Batman and Star Wars are two solid examples of polar opposites in different eras.

 

[Octoberist]

I think that this whole optimism has some merit but doesn't mean it's now the rule. Then David Fincher is out of business then.

 

[RKO]

I think that this whole optimism has some merit but doesn't mean it's now the rule. Then David Fincher is out of business then.

He just made a dark rated R film with rape scenes a success, under a high budget and a release around Christmas.


This argument is indeed nonsense.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The 1930s weren't all about optimism. That was the era of the Universal monster series and classic gangster films. There were many high profile and successful dark and gloomy films released in the 1930s (moreso than say the 1950s, for example). The most successful film by far in that decade and indeed the most successful film ever made, Gone with the Wind, is a depressing look back at the end of the antebellum south and all of the important characters end up either up either dead or ruined. Not exactly a beacon of hope.

 

[Lencho01]

I don't think this is the time to ask such a question. If we had a case of more optimistic films constantly doing well while others bomb, then sure. But, that isn't the reality of the situation. It's a constant mixture of good marketing, word of mouth, scheduling, etc. regardless of how optimistic a film may be.