Why we need fewer Comic Book movies or: why we need to change the system.

[Mack the Knife]

As you all know the Superhero movies have become extremely popular. I mean it's so awesome that we get more and more and more........... That's how I felt about 5 years ago. Now, however, we're being fed about 4-6 superhero movies every year. It's all a bit tiring. I'd be fine if most were innovative, but they all seem to be following the same formula. Now don't get me wrong I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I truly enjoy The Dark Knight series, Iron Man 1 and 3, and Spiderman 1 and 2, along with the 2 X-men movies I've seen (1 and 1st class). However, we're being fed more and more. These films are being overdone and following almost the exact same formula over and over. Here's an example: Did will really need Amazing Spiderman? Was the old Spiderman series bad and needed to be remade? No. Was it outdated? No. Then why did the studio remake it? Money! I'm just saying it's getting tired to be fed movies over and over that are more or less the same. See they're not making bad movies, it's just that they're making average movies that are "good enough". This does not benefit the industry in any way. I wouldn't mind these films if 50-75% were being different, but they aren't!

Again, did Man of Steel do something truly original and innovative or will it be forgotten in 5 years? I predict it will fall into the latter. Now I now it isn't new for Hollywood to make movies mostly for money, but when they did at least most of them were trying to do something somewhat different. Let me ask you this: Wold you rather live in a world with mostly average movies or with great and bad movies. This doesn't just apply to comic book movies (they are the main culprit however) either many blockbusters are also following the same playbook. Now, I'm not saying it's the end of cinema or anything. We have new independent means of making new and different movies. Also, these studios have people who make a few innovative movies every year. So what am I complaining about? There are a lot more "average" movies than there are innovative films. But, hey, maybe i'm overreacting to less innovative cinema. What are your opinions.

Also, I'd like to note that I'm not trying to troll, but share my opinion on the state of cinema. For more on the topic I'd recommend listening to recent episodes of this film podcast. Please share your opinions. I may be wrong and just need to hear a good argument to slap me back into my senses.

 

[TytsMagee]

for the love of god

if you don't want to see superhero movies that arent "innovative," then just dont go see them

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Whatever happened to Rob Schneider?

 

[Hulavuta]

why so serious

 

[Deck Knight]

Asking Hollywood to be new and creative?

In the day and age where mindless conformity to the accepted state-approved wisdom is not just expected, but demanded?

You ask too much.

 

[blitzlefan]

To be honest, that's just society for you. If you don't want to see the movies, well... just don't go see them. It's not like the movies' existence is harmful or anything.

 

[v]

deck you know I love you but that post is fucking ridiculous.....

 

[RODAN]

Whatever happened to Rob Schneider?

hes a method actor now, he actually played robert downey jr playing iron man

 

[cookie]

if i could make a completely brain-dead movie and make millions, i'd do it

 

[shade]

i never understood why people sign their posts when their username is in the postbit

 

[shade]

- shade

 

[cookie]

shade i have you know the op's username is mack the knife

 

[shade]

fuck off coo

 

[Deck Knight]

deck you know I love you but that post is fucking ridiculous.....

My experience has been that Pixar is one of the only studios to actually develop new, memorable characters, or use old characters in a new way (Wreck-It Ralph). Most of the other movies seem to fall into the category of "Friends with Benefits Story" or "Evil amoral businesspeople ruining everything" or "US Military gone rogue ruining everything / International Military are saviors" or "Vintage Comic Book re-hash."

Not that I mind movie adaptations of books, but for serious as awesome as something like Chronicles of Narnia was for at least presenting different values from the usual blockbuster meme shlock, it's frightening that you can predict a movie's message and plotline almost instantly upon seeing its director and premise.

EDIT: I'm sorry guys, Fast and Furious 7, Ocean's Fourteen, and Die Hard or Go Home are going to break new ground.

 

[Shinryu]

I thought Spider-Man was remade more so because it was gonna be in house with Marvel Studios and not outsourced like when Sony (?) had the rights. And it's more inline with the comics over the route Sony was heading.

That being said, 1 was good just for the sake of it being the first, 2 was good largely cause of Doc Ock, but 3 sucked to me, trying to do 3 baddies at once the way they did was bad. Tobey Macguire, meh...he was ok, but going onwards, I began to dislike him as Spider-Man, he got too whiny to me.

 

[Stratos]

Did will really need Amazing Spiderman? Was the old Spiderman series bad and needed to be remade? No. Was it outdated? No. Then why did the studio remake it? Money!

apparently the studio that makes spiderman movies (or if not the studio, someone, somewhere along the production process) is under a draconian contract obligation where if they're ever not in production of a new spiderman movie, the ip rights go back to marvel comics, so we can expect to see a LOT of spiderman movies in the future :/

(this being just what i heard, could be entirely wrong)

 

[cjrocker]

apparently the studio that makes spiderman movies (or if not the studio, someone, somewhere along the production process) is under a draconian contract obligation where if they're ever not in production of a new spiderman movie, the ip rights go back to marvel comics, so we can expect to see a LOT of spiderman movies in the future :/

(this being just what i heard, could be entirely wrong)

Yep pretty sure this is the case. And Spider-Man is such a cash cow that the rights probably won't be going to Marvel anytime soon. Which is a damn shame, hopefully by Avengers 3 they'll be back together as it should be.

 

[capefeather]

Asking Hollywood to be new and creative?

In the day and age where mindless conformity to the accepted state-approved wisdom is not just expected, but demanded?

You ask too much.

I expected a Deck Knight post, but not this Deck Knight post. Then again, maybe the Deck Knight post I was thinking of is actually a jrrrrrrr post or maybe even a Chou post...

Anyway, the "problem" OP mentions with superhero movies actually has a simple explanation: capitalism. In fact, it's even simpler: superstimuli. Capitalists make money by providing what people think they want, which is not necessarily what they need/like/want in the long term. In order to make a popular song or food or whatever else, you merely have to push the right buttons. Trying to pump out genuine quality over and over again is overly tiresome.

Now, please don't just take this as a bashing of capitalism, lest you reveal yourself as a sports team player. I'm just saying, when you look at the big picture, it's not *that* surprising that there are only a few movies actually worth watching at any given time (and there are niche tastes as well). If/when the superhero movie fad dies, it will just be replaced by another one. At least film festivals exist if you really care that much about quality movies (alternatively, watch a quality movie that already exists).

So ultimately I'm rather amused by Deck Knight's reaction to this thread. The situation that the OP describes is the system he loves so much at work, not some weird government conspiracy. Cynicism - against corporations, the state, or whatever else - is just another marketable commodity.

 

[Flounder]

I have two things to offer:

firstly, to the original poster:

here are some line breaks, please use them






Secondly, bear in mind that a significant target demographic for these endless superhero movies is not, in fact, 14-25 y/o boys, but is rather the very large population of older people who grew up reading Silver Age comics. These movies are just as much marketed towards your parents as you. These are the people who (obviously) grew up in a pre-digital age when comics books were both more prevalent, but also less universally accessible. I can go online and find copies or summaries of every comic plot known to man, but in 1965 this was not possible. As such, even with a weekly allowance, as a kid the older demographic couldn't read every single comic, and as such likely had a handful of favorite series/heroes. Because of this, you have a large demographic open to a general concept (superhero movies) but not easily, universally appealed to by individual titles.

The result of this is, naturally, a billion and a half superhero movies to get at as wide a range of viewers as possible. The younger demographic helps in this regard, since they're willing to see everything and accordingly generate massive revenues. You yourself complain these movies are all average at best, yet you're still paying nine bucks to see all of them. This absurdly profitable business model is more or less self-sustaining. Iron man makes millions, paves the way for captain america, thor, etc. Suddenly, Avengers movie!

The DC universe seems to have lagged behind a bit in this regard, but I suspect that will change too. People might get sick of the current marvel-verse movies and stop watching, but the DC movies are seemingly finally rolling, which opens up the enitre demographic of DC comics fanboys. To top it off, Nolan's Batman trilogy was a major boon to reviving interest in Batman as a character, but is presumably completely incompatible with the inevitable Justice League movie, so there's going to be even more batman movies, and they're (at least initially) going to be wildly successful.

My point here (for I fear I am beginning to ramble) is that superhero movies (irrespective of quality) are here to stay until they cease to be profitable for most/all production studios. Nobody is making you watch them, so if they're all so clearly sub-par, why watch them? Wait a week, read a review. Base your judgement there. Don't say "OH MAN, A [insert superhero here] MOVIE???? I LOVE THAT GUY, GANNA GO TO THE FOKKEN MODNAGHT RELEASE LEL" if all the superhero movies in the past ten years have been "mediocre at best." Watch something different, or, better yet, don't spend $10 on an over-produced 3 hours of predictably average media and then bitch about it on the internet.

 

[DrRobotnik]

This is completely retarded. Do you even know what a remake is? No, you don't, because you're insisting that any of these are remakes when they are, in fact, alternate interpretations of the source material and have nothing to do with the previous films. None of these follow the same "formula" as the other ones aside from maybe some "Hero's Journey" type thing that applies to almost every film ever. Burton and Nolan Batman are completely different in both tone and plot, same with the old Superman films and Man of Steel, and ASM is a completely different movie from Raimi's Spider-Man 1. The retarded part is that people are actually going to listen to you and think you have a point when all you're doing is rabble rousing by saying "DID WE NEED IT? NO? THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE!!!!!!!!!!!" and "IT HAS TO BE A TIMELESS MASTERPIECE OR THERE'S NO POINT!!!!!!" like that actually means anything (we don't need movies in the first place, you're lucky they're even there). So, please, learn what you're talking about before you go on a mindless rant about stuff that isn't happening.

P.S. if you have to state that you're not trolling for people to think you're not a troll, that's a good indicator that you've made a bad post.

edit: the rest of these guys have a point, if you genuinely believe the stuff you're saying then you can just not watch the movies.

 

[cjrocker]

To top it off, Nolan's Batman trilogy was a major boon to reviving interest in Batman as a character, but is presumably completely incompatible with the inevitable Justice League movie

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid? Especially since they set up Levitt's character to be the new Batman, what was the point of that otherwise? Between Nolan's trilogy and Man of Steel, DC has a good universe to start building on if they want to get anywhere near Marvel's level of success. Of course, that's assuming that they make more movies like those four and not another Green Lantern.

 

[SaurusHam]

I honestly think you're asking to much here, do you really expect Hollywood to stop one of their most financially successful movie lines? As long as people ask and want more Hollywood is going to make them.

 

[DrRobotnik]

Automatically assuming that Nolan Batman will be in the Justice League and that they won't just reboot it with a Batman who knows how to fight.

Why?

 

[Stratos]

if [youtube]yE8C1WWixgc[/youtube] isn't in the justice league movie i will be very angry

 

[Flounder]

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid? Especially since they set up Levitt's character to be the new Batman, what was the point of that otherwise?

did you miss the part where the clerk or whoever she was commented on his name being

dark knight rises spoiler if you haven't seen it???

robin

or something?

It is still kinda sketchy that Nolan says "no, really, only making 3 movies guys" (and is maybe serious about it?) and then just sets that whole thing up though. This is the guy behind Inception and Memento though, he seems rather fond of leaving his audience hanging