Are Superhero films dying?

[MichaelSomething]

There were DC shows that did good with women. Young Justice, and to a lesser extent the OG Teen Titans cartoons, did a great job doing that. Which is why they got canceled.

 

[Cadence]

......non-comic super hero? What is a super hero then? Are we just doing the vague "anything beyond a normal hero?"

Like the Incredibles? (Or is that a comic book movie because it's what the FF should be?)

 

[Clint_L]

Appealing to the male audience used to be the default for Superhero movies, it's not anymore, they've been trying hard to win over female audiences as well, it just hasn't gone well, except Aquaman.

And there have been plenty of successful Superheroine movies which BTW I pointed out myself, so it how could each one be referendum on them? The successes speak for themselves.

They just need to do male characters better.

This is hard for me to process.

There is a vast array of male superhero flavours to choose among. A small fraction as many that are primarily about a woman superhero. But the complaint is that "they need to do male characters better"? This does not compute for me.

Edit: To echo the point that I think Snarff is making, it seems odd that a lot of guys take it personally if a film isn't primarily about them. Not saying you are do this, but it comes up a lot, and I think it reflects an assumption that if a film isn't always directed at men, then men are being disrespected somehow.

Also...Aquaman? That film is SUPER directed at men. It's basically a bunch of explosions occasionally interrupted by exposition. And an awesome drumming octopus. They should make the sequel about that octopus - I would go see that in a theatre.

 

[billd91]

Also...Aquaman? That film is SUPER directed at men. It's basically a bunch of explosions occasionally interrupted by exposition. And an awesome drumming octopus. They should make the sequel about that octopus - I would go see that in a theatre.

The implication: The gals are in it for fan service, not sisterhood.
Not really sure I believe that.

 

[Deset Gled]

Edit: To echo the point that I think Snarff is making, it seems odd that a lot of guys take it personally if a film isn't primarily about them. Not saying you are do this, but it comes up a lot, and I think it reflects an assumption that if a film isn't always directed at men, then men are being disrespected somehow.

This is a real problem. There are definitely people who get upset when movies don't have a male protagonist. And there's a racial aspect to it, too. There are people who get upset when a movie doesn't have a relatable white character. And it's not just white males that have this problem. There are definitely cases where women prefer to watch a male lead, etc, etc.

But, if you'll follow me or a minute, this isn't just about sexism, or racism, or even about movies. How many threads on this very forum, at this very moment, boil down the the fact that a lot of TTPRG players take it very, very personally if a change to D&D doesn't promote their preferred play style? It's a fundamental problem that people want what is popular to cater specifically to them, and they want their opinion/lifestyle/resemblance to be popular. It's most obvious when it's blatantly discriminatory to protected classes, but it's pervasive to so many more aspects of culture.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Went to see The Marvels.

Positives: It's a good light movie! I appreciated that it actually had a plot device to bring the girls together and keep Captain Marvel in check, rather than just having her forget her power level. It's also under 2 hours, so, you know, it feels like it knows what it is and doesn't purposefully overstay its welcome.

Negatives, without going into details: It has an absolutely terrible opening, end, and villain. This makes other Marvel villains look better in comparison, because at least they don't feel like they're a random cosplayer / supers TV show stand-in extra in the background, who was just elevated to now be the face of a 200+ million dollar production.

This really should have been the start of Phase 5, and would have made tons more sense than Ant-Man. Not like it matters, big dumb corporate product either way, but... it just feels annoying that a movie that's better than most Marvel productions of the last few years now gets buried. And that someone like Iman Vellani, Ms Marvel, now has to answer reporter questions about box office results, that have nothing to do with her being absolutely perfect for her character.

Edit: oh yeah, Secret Invasion has no relevance to this, so you don't have to have seen that.

 

[Clint_L]

This is a real problem. There are definitely people who get upset when movies don't have a male protagonist. And there's a racial aspect to it, too. There are people who get upset when a movie doesn't have a relatable white character. And it's not just white males that have this problem. There are definitely cases where women prefer to watch a male lead, etc, etc.

But, if you'll follow me or a minute, this isn't just about sexism, or racism, or even about movies. How many threads on this very forum, at this very moment, boil down the the fact that a lot of TTPRG players take it very, very personally if a change to D&D doesn't promote their preferred play style? It's a fundamental problem that people want what is popular to cater specifically to them, and they want their opinion/lifestyle/resemblance to be popular. It's most obvious when it's blatantly discriminatory to protected classes, but it's pervasive to so many more aspects of culture.

This is why so many awards nominated films are about actors, writers, critics, and filmmakers...the same folks doing the nominations.

 

[Argyle King]

I suspect Umbran's point isn't that this isn't a problem, just that its less "superhero fatigue" than "movie fatigue", at least when looking at the movie end of things. That doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be cut back, but it suggests that all big ticket, expensive-to-produce movies may need to have that done.

I would posit that it's less "movie fatigue" and more bad movie fatigue.

There are only so many times that you can cgi-together flashing lights and proclaim "critics call it the best film ever" (or some other hyperbole) for a shoddy product before the audience decides they're better off spending money elsewhere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would posit that it's less "movie fatigue" and more bad movie fatigue.

Yes, but that would require me to agree about what some people are calling bad movies--which I don't. So I stand by the idea its movie fatigue in general and only particularly intensely zeitgeist hitting ones and outstanding ones are able to overcome it--middle of the road and above average aren't enough any more.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, but that would require me to agree about what some people are calling bad movies--which I don't. So I stand by the idea its movie fatigue in general and only particularly intensely zeitgeist hitting ones and outstanding ones are able to overcome it--middle of the road and above average aren't enough any more.

For "bad" read "formulaic". Because of the risks involved, the holy grail for movie studios is the formula for a guarantied hit. And with the MCU, they thought they had found it. But the problem with any formula is eventually even the most genre-blind audience members learn it, and it loses it's potency. If you look at what the most successful recent movies have in common, the answer is "nothing". Because they are not made to a formula (although I have no doubt film makers will look to turn them into one, with predictable diminishing returns).

All this against a background of decreasing overall cinema attendance.