The Superhero Movie Bubble

[TheVileOne]

We are in an era where we are seeing superhero movies based on comics and other various material than ever before. Of course, there are those who aren't happy with this, and there are those who have been predicting the demise or the burst of the superhero bubble for it seems the last 10 years ago. Last September, Steven Spielberg talked about superhero movies going the way of the western.

I get that everyone has their own film sensibilities. To a lot of critics or filmmakers, they aren't interested in superhero or comic book films and want to see more deeply dramatic and thematic material, or even material that's original. It's harder and harder to get more middle of the road budgeted films out in the market place. It's harder to get a script from an original idea greenlit. There's a frustration there I can understand.

However, I don't necessarily see this trend as a bubble that has to burst. I think it's a cycle where a lot are getting made now, and later on maybe less get made. However, I don't think they will ever go away for good.

Where I think Spielberg gets it wrong, is that I don't the westerns are an applicable comparison to these films. These are simply the modern day action-adventure tentpole films that never really go out of style. Before comic books became viable film properties, this is what our favorite movies of yesteryear used to be like Indiana Jones, James Bond, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Star Trek etc. Now yeah, some of those franchises still exist in various forms. If anything, the tentpole action adventure films that Spielberg or George Lucas were largely involved in throughout the 70s and 80s IMHO are what gave way to the modern comic book superhero movies.

Westerns are westerns, but they are also period pieces of a bygone era. Superhero films are modern action adventure movies that are usually set in the here and now. In that respect, they can be more relevant to a moviegoing audience than old fashioned western.

I think there will always be times when it seems like there are a lot and only half of them are good, but that's not much different from 2003, where Marvel had Hulk, Daredevil, X-Men 2 all in the same year. Only X-Men 2 really did well, got great reviews and did great box office. The other two disappointed and didn't launch franchises, but Hulk and Daredevil are still viable properties today. Just in different forms.

The time will come where Marvel will probably have less films coming out on a regular basis, or maybe not all the new upcoming DC releases aren't great. I don't think that will ever make these films go way the way of the western though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Well said.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Westerns also lasted some 40+ years before the bubble ''broke''.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The Western analogy is flawed because comic books (or graphic novels, if you want to be pretentious) are a medium, not a genre.

 

[TheVileOne]

Westerns also lasted some 40+ years before the bubble ''broke''.

But I see many similarities with these films and James Bond movies. And they've been making James Bond movies for over 50 years. Now are all the movies good? No. But James Bond movies, and spy movies are still pretty viable and you can constantly continue making them. Spy movies tend to also fall in the action genre too.

And just like the James Bond franchise, I think there will be lulls and what not, but it will never completely go away.

I think the reason James Bond stays relevant is because you can always update James Bond and make him relevant to whatever era he appears in. I think you can do the same thing with the superhero stories. I think a lot of them are simply more universal and relevant than westerns.

The Western analogy is flawed because comic books (or graphic novels, if you want to be pretentious) are a medium, not a genre.

I like your point because everyone talks about this fatigue due to Age of Ultron. But just a year before we had Winter Solider, basically a political thriller, and Guardians of the Galaxy, a space opera. They were completely different, even though they were both under the Marvel banner. You can still make these films stand out as separate genre pieces that look and feel completely different.

So to that point, I think that's why also some of these films will also work better and be more effective than others.

 

[Batmannerism]

Yeah, I see this as an issue of market saturation.

The supply of superhero films has increased enormously from 1 or 2 a year to 6 this year, because there appears to be a demand for them.

However, IMO I think that things have or are about to reach a situation of oversupply - and while hardcore fans will go and see their favourite characters on the big screen, I suspect that the general audience (whose attendance is required for a film to reach blockbuster status) will be a bit more restrained with their film choices.

Also there are a limited number of characters who will appeal to the general audience - okay, Guardians of the Galaxy suggests that this might not be so, if the film is made well enough - but I don't think that every single superhero or comic book character can sustain a successful franchise or even a single successful film, and that seems to be the approach of the studios.

So what's going to happen ? Well, I suspect a correction is coming, whereby the demand will decrease and then the supply will correspondingly decrease as well. I think we will go back to maybe 2 big superhero films and maybe 2 -3 smaller ones per year.

Look at 2008 (probably one of the best years of the cbm genre)

You've got: TDK and Iron Man as the big films and you have Incredible Hulk, Hancock, Hellboy II, The spirit, Jumper and Punisher War Zone - TDK and IM were very successful Incredible Hulk and Hellboy less successful, and the rest were rubbish.

Similarly 2012 (another banner year)

Avengers and TDKR as the big films, with Amazing Spider Man, Dredd and Ghost Rider-II also coming out.

The pattern seems to be the big films doing very well, the other films not so much (although Amazing Spider Man did quite well at the box office, although not as critically well received as the first two Raimi films). Dredd underperformed at the box office.

If there is some kind of a pattern there, I would say that 2 big blockbusters looks sustainable, with a mixed bag of results for the smaller films.

This year we have 3 arguable big films B v S, CW and XMA as well as SS, Deadpool, Dr S, Gambit, and TMNT. To me that looks like a glut - I don't think the general audience can be persuaded to engage with all those different sets of characters.

In 2017 we've got WW, Thor: Ragnarok (which I'm excited about), another Spider Man film, GOTG 2, Wolverine and the first Justice League film.
Again, that's too much.

Basically, I suspect that some big project or two will fail to make back its money, and studios will start to really rethink their production plans.

I think Dr Strange will be a good indication of whether cbm fatigue has set in , is just setting in, or hasn't arrived yet. If Dr S fails to do well at the box office, we can say that fatigue has certainly arrived. If it is successful then we can say that the demand is still strong, and the bubble isn't close to bursting. More likely the result will be somewhere in between those two poles.

As for the Comparisons with Bond, I'm not so sure that's a viable comparison really - as Bond is a franchise based on a single, well entrenched character who has earned a place in popular culture.

Perhaps if we compare cbms to the Spy/thriller genre, we can say that it's had ups and downs, and has been largely reinvigorated in the 21st century by the Bourne and Mission Impossible films, as well as Bond (arguably the Bouren and MI films are actually more entertaining than Bond - but that's an argument for another thread).

Still you wouldn't see more than 2 big spy films a year ( 2015 had Spectre and Mission Impossible but also the sub-genre comedy-spy films Kingsman, Man from Uncle, and Spy ) that's more like the cbm pattern from 2008 and 2012, 2 big films and 2-3 smaller ones. Again that's sustainable.

- techncally of course, Kingsman is a cbm !


Sorry, I've rambled a bit, but my overall point is that 2 big films and 2-3 small ones is a sustainable level of supply that will satisfy demand . The current approach of 3 big films and 4-5 smaller ones is probably going to be unsustainable.

Will the bubble burst and cbms disappear. No, but they will revert to a more realistic supply level. Of course, if prices of films dropped, to reflect the increased supply, then maybe they will be able to sustain 8 films a year ( but how likely is that ? )

Who knows I could be totally wrong, but that's how I see it.

 

[TheVileOne]

But 2014 also had TMNT, Captain America 2, Amazing Spider-Man 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Fine if you don't want to count Transformers. But all those movies did fairly big box office. The only big disappointment of that group was was really Amazing Spider-Man 2 and that was still able to make I think over $700 million worldwide.

I think my point is that you can have a banner year with more than two big hits. Specifically, 2014 had two big ones for Marvel, a big Marvel/Fox one with X-Men, and a big one for Paramount with TMNT. Big Hero 6 did it in an animated format, but it was still presented as a Marvel property, and it even won an Oscar. Transformers did the least of any of the previous efforts domestically, but it still made over a $1 billion worldwide.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not to split hairs, but TMNT is more of a cartoon to film franchise. Most people (not on this forum, obviously) have no idea it started out as a comic.

 

[TheVileOne]

Not to split hairs, but TMNT is more of a cartoon to film franchise. Most people (not on this forum, obviously) have no idea it started out as a comic.

It's still originally based on a comic book series. That's how it started.

 

[2kt09]

Yeah, I see this as an issue of market saturation.

The supply of superhero films has increased enormously from 1 or 2 a year to 7 (excluding animated DTV's ofc) this year, because there appears to be a demand for them.

This post would be hilarious if you were referring to 2015 because "...from 1 or 2 a year to [THREE]..."

So what's going to happen ? Well, I suspect a correction is coming, whereby the demand will decrease and then the supply will correspondingly decrease as well. I think we will go back to maybe 2 big superhero films and maybe 2 -3 smaller ones per year.

Look at 2008 (probably one of the best years of the cbm genre)
...
Similarly 2012 (another banner year)
...
If there is some kind of a pattern there, I would say that 2 big blockbusters looks sustainable, with a mixed bag of results for the smaller films.

This year we have 3 arguable big films B v S, CW and XMA as well as SS, Deadpool, Dr S, Gambit, and TMNT. To me that looks like a glut - I don't think the general audience can be persuaded to engage with all those different sets of characters.

In 2017 we've got WW, Thor: Ragnarok (which I'm excited about), another Spider Man film, GOTG 2, Wolverine 3, Gambit, and the first Justice League film.
Again, that's too much.

Basically, I suspect that some big project or two will fail to make back its money, and studios will start to really rethink their production plans.

My overall point is that 2 big films and 2-3 small ones is a sustainable level of supply that will satisfy demand. The current approach of 3 big films and 4-5 smaller ones is probably going to be unsustainable

Will the bubble burst and cbms disappear. No, but they will revert to a more realistic supply level. Of course, if prices of films dropped, to reflect the increased supply, then maybe they will be able to sustain 8 films a year ( but how likely is that ? )

Who knows I could be totally wrong, but that's how I see it.

Probably, but 3 highly successful blockbusters with 3~4 smaller ones (as we've only acknowledged so far) isn't that substantial to need to revert down to 1-2 movies less.
VileOne beat me to it in regard to 2014.
You glanced over that banner year. If 2016 happens to reflect the "3 big films" approach, it would even out your aforementioned pattern given 2014 had the same number of live-action superhero (excluding any ol' cbm like Sin City & 300) flicks put out. Plus, a year before that, which isn't quite a banner year, the financial output of "3 big films" suggests audiences are willing to consume that supply.

Yeah, the budget for these "smaller ones", as long as they're marketable, could really help out in the long run.
No clue on Dr Strange, but Deadpool (surprisingly) is low budget and SS is mid budget.
There are a number of action/comedy/scifi/YA-novel-adaptation directors who could make great caper flicks at that price-point.

Not to split hairs, but TMNT is more of a cartoon to film franchise. Most people (not on this forum, obviously) have no idea it started out as a comic.

Talking about superhero movie bubble, which isn't as inclusive as the cbm bubble or else there would be 10+ movies listed/year on this thread by now.

 

[Flint Marko]

I fear it's going to burst soon. Yes we've been hearing about superhero fatigue for years but I believe this is the year it's going to be tested to the limits.

 

[TheVileOne]

I fear it's going to burst soon. Yes we've been hearing about superhero fatigue for years but I believe this is the year it's going to be tested to the limits.

I won't say it's impossible, but the very fact that the naysayers have been predicting it's about to happen so long is sort of why it annoys me.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I won't say it's impossible, but the very fact that the naysayers have been predicting it's about to happen so long is sort of why it annoys me.

They've been doing it for at least a decade.

 

[Flint Marko]

I definitely wouldn't consider myself a naysayer, but even I'm starting to have my concerns. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

 

[Batmannerism]

But 2014 also had TMNT, Captain America 2, Amazing Spider-Man 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Transformers: Age of Extinction.

Fine if you don't want to count Transformers. But all those movies did fairly big box office. The only big disappointment of that group was was really Amazing Spider-Man 2 and that was still able to make I think over $700 million worldwide.

I think my point is that you can have a banner year with more than two big hits. Specifically, 2014 had two big ones for Marvel, a big Marvel/Fox one with X-Men, and a big one for Paramount with TMNT. Big Hero 6 did it in an animated format, but it was still presented as a Marvel property, and it even won an Oscar. Transformers did the least of any of the previous efforts domestically, but it still made over a $1 billion worldwide.

Yeah, fair enough, I certainly overlooked 2014.

Although with respect to 2014, WS GOTG DOFP were very good movies in their own right, (as in not just good cbm movies, but good movies overall, with a lot of general audience appeal - particularly GOTG which took a bunch of little-known characters and made them enormous fun and WS which was so well done that even I enjoyed it, and I'm not a fan of Cap).

ASM 2 was not a great film, and that's being kind - but still made only $ 70 M less than GOTG.

The overall question of my post was .... is the number of cbm/superhero films coming out sustainable ?

I still suspect audiences will tire of the genre, to the point where maybe they will only pay to see 2 or 3 big superhero movies a year - maybe that means the smaller films disappear, or go direct to video, or maybe they will just be able to continue on the way they are now- who can say?
However, that's just my opinion.

Maybe 2014 suggests that I'm wrong, although it would be interesting to reflect on that in mid-2018 having seen both 2016 and 2017, which both have a lot of superhero films scheduled for release, and how they fared.

 

[TheVileOne]

I think they are sustainable as long as audiences still want to see big budget action adventure tentpole movies. These films are more than just comic book superhero films, they are the big event movies of the year.

They've been doing it for at least a decade.

Yeah, it's really been going on since like 2005-2006. That's about as long as I remember going back to I mean.

 

[4thWallBreaker]

I fear it's going to burst soon. Yes we've been hearing about superhero fatigue for years but I believe this is the year it's going to be tested to the limits.

I think so, too. As far as supehero films are concerned.

The Western analogy is flawed because comic books (or graphic novels, if you want to be pretentious) are a medium, not a genre.

Yes. So many comics (some of my favorites) are not superhero related. Like books, they're a medium of genres.

 

[Moridin]

Look at 2008 (probably one of the best years of the cbm genre)

You've got: TDK and Iron Man as the big films and you have Incredible Hulk, Hancock, Hellboy II, The spirit, Jumper and Punisher War Zone - TDK and IM were very successful Incredible Hulk and Hellboy less successful, and the rest were rubbish.

Just to point out, Hancock actually made a good $40m more than IM world wide.
Also, while IM1 is considered a "big one", I think that is in terms of quality, being a breakout and what it started (MCU), but in terms of money earned there's a good $500m between it and TDK, so I don't think it's a "big one" in that sense.

Similarly 2012 (another banner year)

Avengers and TDKR as the big films, with Amazing Spider Man, Dredd and Ghost Rider-II also coming out.

The pattern seems to be the big films doing very well, the other films not so much (although Amazing Spider Man did quite well at the box office, although not as critically well received as the first two Raimi films). Dredd underperformed at the box office.

If there is some kind of a pattern there, I would say that 2 big blockbusters looks sustainable, with a mixed bag of results for the smaller films.

I think you're failing to look at other factors, such as film quality, marketing quality, production budget, as well as style/sub-genre. I think saying "amount x is sustainable but anything after will fail" is too black and white.

Like Dredd. IIRC, it didn't have good marketing, but also I don't think the GA even knows it's a CBM. They'd associate it with Stallone if anything.
GR2 was terrible, but offered somethin totally different.

This year we have 3 arguable big films B v S, CW and XMA as well as SS, Deadpool, Dr S, Gambit, and TMNT. To me that looks like a glut - I don't think the general audience can be persuaded to engage with all those different sets of characters.

Gambit isn't coming out this year. As others have said, TMNT isn't even viewed as a CBM by the public.

The GA also doesn't have to be persuaded to see all these films equally.

BvS & CACW are the 2 biggest hitters there by a large margin, with X:A firmly in 3rd.
Deadpool is relatively low budget ($65m) r-rated flick, if it makes $300m it'll be considered highly successful.
SS is mid-budget (I've seen ~$100m floated around), doesn't need to break the bank to be very successful.

In 2017 we've got WW, Thor: Ragnarok (which I'm excited about), another Spider Man film, GOTG 2, Wolverine and the first Justice League film.
Again, that's too much.

But again, we aren't looking at 6 films all vying for $1bn here, they're various levels.
Wolverine will certainly be mid-budget, like the last one, that'll be aiming at $400m to be a success.
GOTG2 & JL are probably the 2 legit contenders for $1bn.
WW $600m, Thor $700m, Spidey $700-800m. And that's if they're all good movies that are well marketed.

It's actually not that different to this year.

If you look at the Worldwide box office of the last few years the top 20 films range from about $350m up to $1bn, sometimes well over $1bn with multiple films. So there's definitely enough room for these 6-7 films.

I think Dr Strange will be a good indication of whether cbm fatigue has set in , is just setting in, or hasn't arrived yet. If Dr S fails to do well at the box office, we can say that fatigue has certainly arrived. If it is successful then we can say that the demand is still strong, and the bubble isn't close to bursting. More likely the result will be somewhere in between those two poles.

Again, you're not considering other factors, like quality. If DS sucks and then flops then no, fatigue hasn't arrived. It's just one instance of a bad movie not doing well.
If it's a great movie and still flops? Still not an indicator of fatigue, just one movie out of 6. The fate of the genre doesn't rest on the shoulders of one film.

And there's another point in favour of the Superhero genre, all 6 movies this year lean into different sub-genres and have a variety of tones. R-Rated action comedy, epic sorcery, grimey villain team-up, etc.
Even the 2 most similar in concept, BvS & CACW, are very different stylistically/tonally.

Same next year. And ultimately I think that's what it comes down to:
-Quality
-Variety (in sub-genre, tone, budget level)
-Good marketing

If the studios generally deliver on those then I think it'll be sustainable for quite a while longer.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

TMNT is far more of a traditional superhero franchise than something like Guardians of the Galaxy, and what certain audience members believe doesn't change the fact that it started as a comic book.

 

[Greens]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles isn't seen as a CBM because most people (at least today) know them from TV.

Guardians of the Galaxy came right from the page.

 

[Flint Marko]

Personally I'm glad for the ambiguous movies like TMNT that don't always get thrown in with the rest of the superhero genre - I'm not sure if most would count that, so it makes the amount of films in the ever-expanding bubble not seem so overwhelming.

 

[Greens]

When it comes right down to it, we have six comic book movies this year. Two from each studio (Marvel, Fox, DC). Is it more than usual? Yes. Will it cause fatigue? I don't think so, as long as at least half of those movies delivers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's still originally based on a comic book series. That's how it started.

I am aware of that... since I stated it, but most people, including many kids who love the new show and movies don't know that.

 

[TheVileOne]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles isn't seen as a CBM because most people (at least today) know them from TV.

Guardians of the Galaxy came right from the page.

I doubt most of the people who saw Guardians of the Galaxy ever saw or heard of the comic. They probably just thought, "Oh it's another Marvel thing."

I am aware of that... since I stated it, but most people, including many kids who love the new show and movies don't know that.

Most of those kids are probably reading Naruto manga instead of Avengers and Spider-Man comics too. We all know Marvel for its comics, but a lot of kids and young people probably aren't reading those comics.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Everyone and their brother knows Marvel = comics. They may never have heard of Guardians and the Galaxy, but seeing the Marvel name makes the source obvious for even the average movie goer.