Superhero Movie Fatigue Discussion - Are Audiences Getting Tired Of CBMS?

[-Arya-]

With the exception of The Batman, I personally have been for a couple of years and Multivere of Madness confirmed that. Love and Thunder was the nail in the coffin. I’m not bothering with anything new from either Marvel or DC until Gunn’s Superman reboot.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I'm skeptical, for a couple reasons. For one, I think we are still at least another ten years away from the generational turnover inside Hollywood that would be sufficient for video games to be taken properly serious as a source material. There are still too many people at the top for whom video games are that strange new fangled thing the kids are playing, rather than something they personally grew up with as a ubiquitous part of the pop culture landscape.

For another, part of the big appeal of superheroes, to the *studios*, is that they are part of giant multi-character multi-story conglomerations, where producing one adaptation can promote and lead into others. Which is to say, its not the superhero per se that was appealing, but that fact that they came in pre-packaged universes where ( in theory ) if you had Marvel or DC you could build a multimedia meta-franchise. Video games don't really have this going for them, both because they aren't as unified as superheroes ( 95% of all the superheroes people care about are owned by two companies, and that is probably being generous ), and because even the video game characters and stories owned by the same publisher aren't usually part of the same world in any useful manner.

For a third, while the comic book industry was and is a tiny thing, where big media companies like WB or Disney either could easily come in and buy up the business, or already had decades ago, video games by contrast? Tend to already be owned by rich media corporations. Unless your name is "Sony", this means that trying to make movies out of video games means you probably *have* to deal with other corporations, its not practical to bring the IP in house. Even if Disney wanted to buy Nintendo, Nintendo isn't selling; and the idea of some Hollywood studio bullying *Microsoft* into selling them Halo is laughable on the face. ( And in the case of Sony, the big obstacle is "You are Sony". *ahem* )

All told, video games are not anywhere near the same fertile field as comic books, not for Hollywood at least.

Really nicely thought out post

 

[mclay18]

I think it’s too early to tell, but both Marvel and DC need to focus on quality screenwriting and reigning in costs. The VFX crews’ complaints about Marvel’s indecisiveness and not locking in CGI designs before postproduction starts adds to the cost and doesn’t reflect well on Marvel.

Gravity looks far better than Quantummania at half the price. And it was finished on time and on budget.

 

[antsman41]

I think it’s too early to tell, but both Marvel and DC need to focus on quality screenwriting and reigning in costs. The VFX crews’ complaints about Marvel’s indecisiveness and not locking in CGI designs before postproduction starts adds to the cost and doesn’t reflect well on Marvel.

Gravity looks far better than Quantummania at half the price. And it was finished on time and on budget.

Gravity
Oblivion
Ad Astra
The Green Knight
High Life
Arrival
Annihilation
Nope
The Signal

...all outshine Phase 4 MCU +Black Adam with way smaller or the smallest budgets.

It's because they use the Nolan method. Use cgi to enhance or add-to in camera footage.

Not to use it as a base or straight up substitute ala the Lucas PT method.

 

[mclay18]

Gravity
Oblivion
Ad Astra
The Green Knight
High Life
Arrival
Annihilation
Nope
The Signal

...all outshine Phase 4 MCU +Black Adam with way smaller or the smallest budgets.

It's because they use the Nolan method. Use cgi to enhance or add-to in camera footage.

Not to use it as a base or straight up substitute ala the Lucas PT method.

Good point. Or if there’s extensive CG, they lock in the designs before filming and focus on how it complements the story.

 

[The Caped Knight]

So true

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm skeptical, for a couple reasons. For one, I think we are still at least another ten years away from the generational turnover inside Hollywood that would be sufficient for video games to be taken properly serious as a source material. There are still too many people at the top for whom video games are that strange new fangled thing the kids are playing, rather than something they personally grew up with as a ubiquitous part of the pop culture landscape.

For another, part of the big appeal of superheroes, to the *studios*, is that they are part of giant multi-character multi-story conglomerations, where producing one adaptation can promote and lead into others. Which is to say, its not the superhero per se that was appealing, but that fact that they came in pre-packaged universes where ( in theory ) if you had Marvel or DC you could build a multimedia meta-franchise. Video games don't really have this going for them, both because they aren't as unified as superheroes ( 95% of all the superheroes people care about are owned by two companies, and that is probably being generous ), and because even the video game characters and stories owned by the same publisher aren't usually part of the same world in any useful manner.

For a third, while the comic book industry was and is a tiny thing, where big media companies like WB or Disney either could easily come in and buy up the business, or already had decades ago, video games by contrast? Tend to already be owned by rich media corporations. Unless your name is "Sony", this means that trying to make movies out of video games means you probably *have* to deal with other corporations, its not practical to bring the IP in house. Even if Disney wanted to buy Nintendo, Nintendo isn't selling; and the idea of some Hollywood studio bullying *Microsoft* into selling them Halo is laughable on the face. ( And in the case of Sony, the big obstacle is "You are Sony". *ahem* )

All told, video games are not anywhere near the same fertile field as comic books, not for Hollywood at least.

There is also an issue where the only theatrical successes tend to be family friendly nostalgia properties and there are only so many of those. Zelda is the obvious one that hasn’t been done and then there isn’t a lot that I think will attract the same sort of attention. Donkey Kong? Crash Bandicoot? The barrel gets empty awfully quick.

Less for children franchises either end up with a series or have a tendency to suck (ex. Assassin’s Creed, Uncharted, Warcraft) when they hit the big screen.

 

[Bayne]

So true

It really isn't. Ant-man wasn't less well-known than Iron Man prior to the MCU, he just never had as good a movie as the original Iron Man. And if Ant-man and Shazam are suddenly 'z-list', then what the hell are the Guardians of the Galaxy? Or the Suicide Squad? Both were vastly more succesful than these last two movies.

Any character can succeed if the movies are good enough. Some of them have a leg up due to prior knowledge, but that isn't an automatic requirement for a movie to work and it isn't an automatic guarantee that a movie will work, either (see Superman Returns, BvS, Amazing Spider-man 2, Hulk, Elektra, all the F4 movies, etc).

 

[Babillygunn]

It really isn't. Ant-man wasn't less well-known than Iron Man prior to the MCU, he just never had as good a movie as the original Iron Man. And if Ant-man and Shazam are suddenly 'z-list', then what the hell are the Guardians of the Galaxy? Or the Suicide Squad? Both were vastly more succesful than these last two movies.

Any character can succeed if the movies are good enough. Some of them have a leg up due to prior knowledge, but that isn't an automatic requirement for a movie to work and it isn't an automatic guarantee that a movie will work, either (see Superman Returns, BvS, Amazing Spider-man 2, Hulk, Elektra, all the F4 movies, etc).

Captain Marvel (aka Shazam) is the original superhero. His history rivals Superman’s. And he was a pivotal character in Kingdom Come, one of the most popular and important comics of the past 30 years. Referring to him as “z list” is foolish.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

So true

Anyone that thinks Captain Marvel and Ant-man are Z listers knows absolutely nothing about the genre.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I'm skeptical, for a couple reasons. For one, I think we are still at least another ten years away from the generational turnover inside Hollywood that would be sufficient for video games to be taken properly serious as a source material. There are still too many people at the top for whom video games are that strange new fangled thing the kids are playing, rather than something they personally grew up with as a ubiquitous part of the pop culture landscape.

For another, part of the big appeal of superheroes, to the *studios*, is that they are part of giant multi-character multi-story conglomerations, where producing one adaptation can promote and lead into others. Which is to say, its not the superhero per se that was appealing, but that fact that they came in pre-packaged universes where ( in theory ) if you had Marvel or DC you could build a multimedia meta-franchise. Video games don't really have this going for them, both because they aren't as unified as superheroes ( 95% of all the superheroes people care about are owned by two companies, and that is probably being generous ), and because even the video game characters and stories owned by the same publisher aren't usually part of the same world in any useful manner.

For a third, while the comic book industry was and is a tiny thing, where big media companies like WB or Disney either could easily come in and buy up the business, or already had decades ago, video games by contrast? Tend to already be owned by rich media corporations. Unless your name is "Sony", this means that trying to make movies out of video games means you probably *have* to deal with other corporations, its not practical to bring the IP in house. Even if Disney wanted to buy Nintendo, Nintendo isn't selling; and the idea of some Hollywood studio bullying *Microsoft* into selling them Halo is laughable on the face. ( And in the case of Sony, the big obstacle is "You are Sony". *ahem* )

All told, video games are not anywhere near the same fertile field as comic books, not for Hollywood at least.

Valid points all around. My biggest issue with game adaptations is finding IPs that actually benefit from jumping to film and television. I know I'm in the minority with this hot take, but despite the success and quality of the production, I still find the concept of a Last of Us tv show creatively bankrupt. The fact that it was an interactive Romero yarn and a direct response to criticism of Uncharted is what made that game special. Remove the ludo element, and Its just a more concise version of the Walking Dead with interesting monster designs.

Something like Warcraft could benefit from from a television adaptation because it's storytelling doesn't directly emulate film and TV, but it's lore is rich enough support tv series for five seasons... a movie not so much.

 

[Filmfreak]

Yeah I don't see much point in straight up adapting games that are already very cinematic themselves, especially if they don't even have much of a complex plot to begin with. Take out the immersion of unfolding the story yourself and you have even less left.

 

[metaphysician]

Valid points all around. My biggest issue with game adaptations is finding IPs that actually benefit from jumping to film and television. I know I'm in the minority with this hot take, but despite the success and quality of the production, I still find the concept of a Last of Us tv show creatively bankrupt. The fact that it was an interactive Romero yarn and a direct response to criticism of Uncharted is what made that game special. Remove the ludo element, and Its just a more concise version of the Walking Dead with interesting monster design.

Something like Warcraft could benefit from from a television adaptation because it's storytelling doesn't directly emulate film and TV, but it's lore is rich enough support tv series for five seasons... a movie not so much.

This is another issue, yeah. A *lot* of the total video game space consists of games that either have too little story to make a good movie ( excuse plots with little or no coherent setting or characterization ), or too *much* ( doorstopper RPG and adventure epics that couldn't possibly be fit within a 2 hour movie ). Even once you get past all the doylist development issues, you still have the watsonians issues with video game story structure. . . and yes, a third failure state absolutely is "You filtered for the video games most easily adapted to movie. . . and ended up with the ones where they already are a movie and the adaptation changes nothing and achieves nothing". Doubly so since the more we move into an age where video games are an accepted and acceptable part of pop culture, the more we move into an age where the potential audience for an Uncharted movie or whatnot has already played the video game.

 

[Drizzle]

Yeah I don't see much point in straight up adapting games that are already very cinematic themselves, especially if they don't even have much of a complex plot to begin with. Take out the immersion of unfolding the story yourself and you have even less left.

The concept behind it is simple: to make the story accessible to people who would never pick up a game controller. It worked wonders for The Last of Us.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

The concept behind it is simple: to make the story accessible to people who would never pick up a game controller. It worked wonders for The Last of Us.

I think they meant from a creative standpoint. We're all well aware that the point of the TLOU show was to sell the story to your Walking Dead obsessed grandma which reeks of so much corporate cynicism its nauseating.

 

[moviedoors]

Gravity
Oblivion
Ad Astra
The Green Knight
High Life
Arrival
Annihilation
Nope
The Signal

...all outshine Phase 4 MCU +Black Adam with way smaller or the smallest budgets.

It's because they use the Nolan method. Use cgi to enhance or add-to in camera footage.

Not to use it as a base or straight up substitute ala the Lucas PT method.

That's not why. There's gobs and gobs of computer effects in those movies. They work because they committed to their effects shots, no matter what the method employed was.

 

[henzINNIT]

I didn't realise Nolan invented in camera vfx.

 

[antsman41]

I didn't realise Nolan invented in camera vfx.

He didn't... but he's an easy umbrella when talking about it on here where his 3 Batfilms implemented that on a grand scale and were the most talked about movies on SHH from 2003 through 2012.

 

[Lily Adler]

Steven Spielberg Says Superhero Movies Will Go “the Way of the Western”

“These cycles have a finite time in popular culture,” director says in new interview.

www.google.com

 

[Filmfreak]

The way of the western and film noir genre is exactly what I've been saying for a while too. It's inevitable when there's overabundance of something for people to get tired of it and for demand to diminish. That doesn't mean they'll stop making them altogether, Hollywood is still making western films quite often. But yeah, I think the frenzy is gone.

 

[psylockolussus]

Superhero films will always remain as long as there's a studio out there that will reboot Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and Fantastic 4 from time to time. We should be getting a full reboot of the X-Men in the neXt 10 years. And eventually, Captain America, Iron Man and Avengers too would be rebooted for the newer generation.

Also I don't think the number of superhero films that have been released in the last decade (its current peak) is close to the number of Western films coming out during the peak of Western films. Outside of Marvel/DC films, there were rarely any break out superhero films. The only I can think of are the Incredibles, Hancock and the first Kick A*#. Thats not a lot. Others like Kingsman and Men in Black weren't really superhero films, they were films based on Marvel imprint comic books.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It definitely appears to be on the decline now. Will the genre go dormant entirely? Of course not. We still have westerns. There will still be certain big hits. But we are not at the peak anymore.

 

[Iceman]

It's disappointing to see where we are now compared to the heights of the CBM boom. A big turnaround job on the cards but hopefully it can be done. Superman Legacy and the next couple of Avengers films will be crucial. If any of those flop then the danger rating goes up another level.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

The MCU exploded in popularity because it presented people with an engaging and streamlined ongoing meta-narrative fueled by regular crossovers and culminating in a satisfying finale.

Outside of that specific formula, which DC failed to mimic properly and which Marvel has largely abandoned, only Batman, Spider-man, and to a lesser extent X-Men were sucessful ongoing franchises (and even they need to actually be good in order for people to stay interested).

 

[Iceman]

The MCU exploded in popularity because it presented people with an engaging and streamlined ongoing meta-narrative fueled by regular crossovers and culminating in a satisfying finale.

Outside of that specific formula, which DC failed to mimic properly and which Marvel has largely abandoned, only Batman, Spider-man, and to a lesser extent X-Men were sucessful ongoing franchises (and even they need to actually be good in order for people to stay interested).

Yep. I don't think audiences want 40-50 different fantasy or sci-fi franchises going on at the same time either. They're quite up for this stuff but don't have the same passion like comic readers who buy Deathlok ongoing series do. The MCU increased GA tolerance for tons of characters as they were contributing to one overall narrative. Once you lose that TV show-like glue leading to big finales (event films bringing all the constituents together), it becomes a lot of independent properties and seems like overkill for one genre.