Superhero movies

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

http://www.cracked.com/article_20406_5-reasons-superhero-movies-are-bubble-that-will-soon-burst.html

Agree? Disagree?

I think the article is right, but misses a few imortant points. Popularity is cyclical. Entertainment is based on novelty. Novelty is confounded by the fact that there's only so many new ideas at any given time, and that the more novel an idea the more work it takes to get into.... which mass audiences aren't always excited to do. But novelty is bolstered by the limits of memory: the more time passes, the more people forget and you can redo the old stuff with some tweaks and people will see it as new. That's why things keep coming around; cop shows for a while, then westerns, some horror, sci-fi.... even superheroes. For most of us here, this is our third or fourth go-around. So that means after the bubble bursts, a new one will eventually form. One of the reasosn we had an X-Men movie at all was because the comic was so prevalent in a past go-around.

I think one thing they get at in the article is how much the products start looking alike as you go down the process. I think this is one of the biggest problems for the nerdly arts nowadys, film-wise. You can already see them marketed the same ways (I saw recent trailer for the new Trek film that I thought was for the last Bond film until halfway through) and you can see a lot of similar design concepts, plots, and names from all of them. (Eventually every nerdly film will feature someone chasing after a cube of some sort.)

The "pop" acts as a form of housecleaning. It brushes away the old template, gives folks time to move on and clears the pallette for the way things will be presented the next cycle. I think this is what killed the Marvel and DC comics this time around; that they DIDN'T clear things after the last go-around, and instead cling desperately to the tropes of the late 80's/early 90's.... but in weird, warped ways; as an attempt to freshen them up. A situation that pleases nobody, since the oldster fans don't want things muddied up with new graphic design templates, and the potential new fans have no connection to the material. The movies are spared this in no small part (like the article says) 'cos folks will go see an action movie regardless of the source.

Don C.

[Earth 2 Chris]

You know, I'm all for ending all this endless examination and bickering over these things and just ENJOYING them. Who would have ever thought we'd be up to Iron Man 3? We're getting super hero movies, and for the most part really GOOD super hero movies. Our 10 year old selves would kick us right in the crotch for all the belly-aching we've been doing over these films.

Chris

[madmarva]

I do think interest comes and goes with genres, but when did the Matrix and X-Men debut, 1999 or 2000. Marvel has films planned at least until 2015 if not beyond. 15 years is a pretty big bubble. Will it last forever? Probably not, but Edison made the first Frankenstein film close to 100 years ago, and aren't there at least two versions Mary Shelly's misanthrope in development now?

[MIB41]

I think the article mistakenly labels this genre as more fad than proper story telling. I like to think there is a little more in play here than the simple novelty of a guy wearing a costume. I think Madmarva made a really good point in a previous thread about the relevance of execution. Any story put to film is only as good as the people brought in to tell it. And old themes can find new traction in the hands of someone with a different vision. Take Batman. Who thought this character's most successful years still lied ahead after 1997's Batman and Robin? And if the success of these films is born strictly from the public's appetite for costumed heroes, then why could we have a high profile flop like Green Lantern which then leads into the one of the biggest hits of all time with the Avengers? So I don't think the fate of the whole genre is tied to the performance of any one film. I think those ideas come from an era long past when heroes were frowned upon by Hollywood and the public at large. This genre has survived the five year cycle of fad to become a relevant and viable commodity in the film industry. And given the massive opening gross for Iron Man 3 overseas (which passed that of the Avengers) I don't see genre fatigue setting in.

Where I do find agreement is sitting too many of these films close together in release. But that can apply to just about any genre. Too many comedies, sci-fi flicks, or horror films together will exhaust even the most diehard fans. So spacing and freshness of script will, in my eyes, always play a factor into the feasible success of any project.

[hedrap]

I could go on about this in several directions, because it does relate to my former and current work.

What this "article" discounts is technology.

The superhero busts did occur in the the mid- 2k's. Batman Begins did well theatrically, but it's sequel greenlight was because it hit in the heyday of DVD sales. That's why studios were willing to shovel out crap like Elektra, FF and even Superman Returns. Theatrical was meant to break even while the ancillary was in the other streams, predominantly direct sales DVD.

But the bottom fell out of the DVD market in 2007, which is why Marvel couldn't get any second-tier characters off the ground, which at the time, included every Avenger.

TDK kept Spider-Man and Wolverine alive while Marvel had to self-finance.

While the first Iron Man did great business, Incredible Hulk did no better than Ang Lee's version, and actually cost more because Marvel's original budgets were off by at least 25million for each film. This forced Marvel to scale back the stories of Cap and Thor so the didn't go over budget like IM and Inc Hulk, because they literally could not afford it.

Then, the real savior hit, 3D.

Marvel was able to post-convert Thor and Cap to 3D which allowed them to charge 1 person/2 tickets. That alone saved Thor and Cap because IM2 did not due the expected business a sequel usually does.

This leads to the second boom, which started with Avengers.

So this guy in Cracked is wrong. Jaws and Star Wars lead to the explosion of SFX movies taking over Hollywood. I don't have to tell anyone here about that lineage.

What we're seeing today is the same thing play, except TDK is Jaws and Avengers is Star Wars. When you really compare the timelines, Thor is Conan, Cap is Indiana Jones, Iron Man is the Terminator/Robocop. The same concepts, except more kid-friendly.

It all comes from the same source - Jules Verne, HG Wells, 1930's-1950's pulp.

This is without taking in the explosion of international dollars, which was nowhere near as strong in the 70's or 80's, as it is today. That's why we see Marvel pandering so hard to China. And when you see IM3, you'll know exactly what I mean.

And that fact - catering to the international audience while taking the American audience for granted - will kill the boom because you can't serve two masters. We're going to have a nice comparison between IM3 and Star Trek to talk about.

[MIB41]

^^^ Interesting overview Hedrap. What do you think accounts for the bottom dropping out of the DVD sales? Would it be the pricing of Blu rays? And is the secondary market considered as relevant anymore or is there a shift in progress to make everything Blu ray so that market becomes easier to gauge in sales?

[hedrap]

Market glut and a move away from physical ownership. DVD's had no intrinsic value because they never stopped releasing a title in some form or another. People didn't care about upgrading, which is why Blu-Ray didn't explode as was hoped.

You then had the advent of iTunes and Netflix, which moved even more people away from wanting a disc to own. Disposable content creates disposable products and kills all value.

If any group of people really understands this pattern, it's the Mego community. These were two buck items sold everywhere at the time. But flash-forward a few decades later, and we see that what was considered a cheap product for the day actually has residual value compared to most toys lines made since the 90's and a the previous decades.

[MIB41]

Market glut and a move away from physical ownership. DVD's had no intrinsic value because they never stopped releasing a title in some form or another. People didn't care about upgrading, which is why Blu-Ray didn't explode as was hoped.

You then had the advent of iTunes and Netflix, which moved even more people away from wanting a disc to own. Disposable content creates disposable products and kills all value.

If any group of people really understands this pattern, it's the Mego community. These were two buck items sold everywhere at the time. But flash-forward a few decades later, and we see that what was considered a cheap product for the day actually has residual value compared to most toys lines made since the 90's and a the previous decades.

What I have found fascinating is this seeming awareness and new found interest by today's generation in older formats - Namely LPs and VHS cassettes. Where once something like LPs were so under valued, they were converted into art deco pieces for your wall, now they seem to have renewed value and are once again in comic shops selling for prices comparable to what they would have sold for new in our day. It's really an amazing evolution to watch. I guess one of the side effects of getting older.

[ctc]

>I think Madmarva made a really good point in a previous thread about the relevance of execution. Any story put to film is only as good as the people brought in to tell it.

I think that's a big part of it, but I think the article got into that sort of thing when they discussed how the studios start wanting more involvement. Then you get a maximalized product, skewing towards the ideas that LOOK like they're what the audience wants. I think we're just starting to see that with nerdly films; hence why they're starting to grow increasingly alike. As that happens you see less experimenting, which means less novelty, which means audience drift. It's one of the things that whacked the comics; during the 90's mainstream comics worked really hard to capitalize on the trends of the day.... that is, find guys who drew like Jim Lee.... and when THAT got old there was nothing else for the audience, so they left. It doesn't HAVE to work like that, but it eventually does as the studios seek increased profit. Hence why everyone chases after a cube, the new Trek cribs a story from the new Bond, everything gets colour-corrected in the same ways, the same handful of directors does everything....

>I think the article mistakenly labels this genre as more fad than proper story telling.

I think you can be both, and I think the ideas of "story telling" and "good" are trickier than folks allow for. People have a tendency to label anything they like as "good" or "well done;" even though a lot of other effects lead to your feelings towards a given movie, story, tv show, whatever. Here are some examples:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20330_5-factors-that-secretly-influence-how-much-you-like-movie.html

Another one they don't mention is socialization. Your appreciation for something is coloured by past experience. That's a big part of why studios run things in gluts: if they like ONE superhero movie, they'll like twenty.... which is kind of true. You had a good time at the last one, that'll affect your feelings of the next. But that effect lessens with each go-around, 'cos the novelty isn't there. The kick diminishes; regardless of the technical quality of the film. Especially as the studios double down and start making them increasingly alike.

It's also why you see the 20 year nostalgia cycle. The warm fuzzies for something you feel as a kid carry over into your adult years. One reason we've had so many superhero films lately is 'cos the kids who loved the stuff in the 80's are now the executives and directors of today. (And why when we were kids in the 70's you had a sudden western push; 'cos the kids of the 50's who'd grown up on them were now the studio executives, directors, producers....)

So regardless of quality.... however you measure it.... there's gonna be a burst bubble. Then a new one. Then another burst....

>People didn't care about upgrading, which is why Blu-Ray didn't explode as was hoped. You then had the advent of iTunes and Netflix

Yeah. I think what added to the effect was that Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD) came out during a low ebb in the economy, so you didn't have as many early accquirers as you normally would. By the time people started buying again there had been another technological jump to pure digital.

>this seeming awareness and new found interest by today's generation in older formats

I think one of the unexpected upsides to the "devaluing" of media is that there's more interest in older formats, not neccessarily because of the format itself but because of the content. Thanks to the internets, weird old movies aren't an obscure thing.... and as folks become increasingly aware of them there's more curiosity from the general audience. I think that's one reason so much old stuff turns up in places like Netflix, or Crackle. There's interest in it.

And it's cheap. Same reason we were exposed to so much older stuff as kids. Them weekend monster movies were considered filler by the stations. But it does serve the purpose of exposing folks to something different.

>I'm all for ending all this endless examination and bickering over these things and just ENJOYING them.

One of the hazards of being an older, savy fan is that you can't help but ponder stuff behind the scenes. So I don't mind the discussion but given the cyclical nature of the topic I don't see a need to get wrapped around the axle about any of it. You like what you like, you don't what you don't. The discussions are more about understanding someone else's perspective than any real educated analysis of the industry anyhoo.

>Our 10 year old selves would kick us right in the crotch for all the belly-aching we've been doing over these films.

Mine wouldn't. At 10 I was into the undergrounds and imports from Japan and Europe.

WOO HOO! Moral victory!

Don C.