Are Superhero films dying?

[Gammadoodler]

I think that this is a misunderstanding and I'm going to push back on this very hard. Here, let's take the most recent movie, because that's an easy one. The Marvels has three credited screenwriters-

Nia DaCosta, Megan McDonnell, and Elissa Karasik.

The first writer is the director; while there are strict rules regarding writing credits, it's safe to assume that she received the credit for alterations to the script, not for the original screenplay.

Megan McDonnell graduated from Harvard (member of the Hasty Pudding Club) and has an MFA from USC.
Elissa Karasik graduated from Stanford and was known for having a prior #1 film on the the Black List (Frat Boy Genius).

Why do I put this in? Because the vast, vast, VAST majority of writers in Hollywood are actually incredibly smart and literary. You don't make it there unless you're really good. It's an unfortunate truism that the Business will ... well, affect scripts. That the writer's work is going to be hit by "notes," and by interference, and by changes. That's what happens.

But it's just bizarre to think that some of the most highly paid and competitive jobs in the world for writers ... don't attract good writers. In fact, it's a trope that we see over and over again in Hollywood. Ever see Barton Fink?

Hollywood has amazing writers. They just don't always use them.

I rather suspect (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it's like other collaborative creative industries, where there is a tension between quality, volume, and timely delivery.

Some folks can reliably give you all three and those are highly prized.

Some folks can reliably give you one or two of those things but do it well enough to have and keep jobs.

And some folks who can deliver one, some, or all three of those, but inconsistently, who get and lose jobs as they succeed or fail.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I rather suspect (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it's like other collaborative creative industries, where there is a tension between quality, volume, and timely delivery.

Some folks can reliably give you all three and those are highly prized.

Some folks can reliably give you one or two of those things but do it well enough to have and keep jobs.

And some folks who can deliver one, some, or all three of those, but inconsistently, who get and lose jobs as they succeed or fail.

Eh, based on my knowledge, I'd say that this isn't the exact issue that's the real problem. You do correctly note that the problem is that it's a collaborative industry. But while time pressures can (and do) play a part (quality/volume/delivery), the real problem is the nature of the film industry.

For any given film to even be made is often a miracle. Because you have to align all of these moving parts- the script, the director, the actors (especially the "stars"), and ... of course ... the financing.

So you have that as an initial issue. And then you have to remember that all of these people are creative, and all of them are going to want (and have) input on the final process. You might have a brilliant script, but BIG NAME STAR will only put their name to it if they change the lead to something sympathetic, and s/he gets to rewrite certain parts. Then the director wants to make sure that it is in accord with their vision (and the cinematographer as well). The E.P.s and money people will, of course, have notes. Then things will change because of the exigencies of shooting. Finally, editors will often cut and change things in the edit. And then there will be focus groups, which might cause the process to be ... re-thought.

For every thing to work is sublime; but it's also a fact that things can change and it's rare for a writer's vision to be seen through to the end (unless it's a writer/director, like Quentin Tarantino, with a great deal of autonomy). A great script is usually just the beginning of the process.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hollywood has amazing writers. They just don't always use them.

You wrote this whole post, then essentially confirmed what I'm saying.

But it's just bizarre to think that some of the most highly paid and competitive jobs in the world for writers ... don't attract good writers.

Good thing I didn't think or suggest that, isn't it?

If you insist on suggesting I said things I didn't say then I guess this discussion is over. But if not there's the below:

What I suggested was that many writers are great, and many are not. I was very clear on that. I have been twice now, but you're continuing to ignore that. No-one disagrees that Hollywood has some amazing writers - but it also has a lot of very questionable writers, who seem to find frequent employment!

Also, I would push back extremely hard myself on the notion that being Harvard-educated with a writing-related degree means you are a good writer. That's putting the cart before the horse and I say this knowing multiple people who went to Harvard, various other Ivy League colleges and course countless who went to Oxbridge including two writers. That means you are an educated writer with incredible potential connections (as provided by being at Harvard, being a member of societies and so on), your work determines whether you are a good writer. Many of the greatest writers in Hollywood history had questionable or limited formal writing education, and I'm not seeing any strong trend that Harvard or Yale produce particularly good writers in Hollywood. Are you?

It's definitely of note that Marvel have repeatedly hired people with Harvard or similar backgrounds to write for them, and I don't know how people in the US feel about it, but generally repeatedly hiring people with Oxbridge backgrounds in the UK is seen as somewhat suspect, as more about the excellent connections one gains from these institutions than anything else. Again I say that having such connections - I mean hell, Snarf, two people from my classes in high school are name Hollywood movie actors (one a big name), two more are on TV shows you've probably seen.

I would also push back somewhat on the notion that having a script on the Black List means you are a good writer generally either. It's a much better indicator than the educational institute you went to, for sure, because it means that a significant number of people in Hollywood at least read and liked one of your scripts - and if we look at list of actually-produced Black List scripts, we see a high rate of quality for sure. The problem is that's one script - there's no guarantee that your next is of the same quality.

As a prime example of the latter, we might look at Eternals. Is anyone suggesting Eternals was a well-written film? Are you suggesting that? I ask because you made this part of your argument. I would suggest that it was a fairly bad script in most ways a script can be bad. It's poorly-paced, the plotting doesn't make a lot of sense and contradicts itself in obvious ways (though it's not nonsensical either), the dialogue has moments of wit but also an entire junkyard of clunky dialogue and repeated uses of poorly-constructed exposition. And that's not even the half of it. Yet the people who wrote the story and the original screenplay where the Firpos, who have a Black List script (and I think a particularly well-regarded one, Ruin - not my name, the name of the script!). I should note that Chloe Zhao and Patrick Burleigh are also credited for the actual screenplay used, so I guess it's possible that the script was once good and the director and Burleigh ruined it somehow. But to me that seems unlikely - I doubt it was ever a great script - the basic construction is questionable.

I wouldn't categorize the Firpos or most Black List people as the "never voluntarily read a book after college" type of writer though to be clear.

To respond to your other post - I quite agree that other factors than merely bad writing can ruin a script, but your position seems, superficially, to be that it's everyone's fault but the writers. That is presumably not right?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You wrote this whole post, then essentially confirmed what I'm saying.

Good thing I didn't think or suggest that, isn't it?

If you insist on suggesting I said things I didn't say then I guess this discussion is over.

Okay. I think your posts speak for themselves, so I'll let them do that.

 

[Dire Bare]

I rather suspect (and please correct me if I'm wrong) it's like other collaborative creative industries, where there is a tension between quality, volume, and timely delivery.

Some folks can reliably give you all three and those are highly prized.

Some folks can reliably give you one or two of those things but do it well enough to have and keep jobs.

And some folks who can deliver one, some, or all three of those, but inconsistently, who get and lose jobs as they succeed or fail.

Well, sure.

But regardless of the quality of a script and the skill of the scriptwriter . . . lots of things happen during the production of a movie that can bring down the quality, completely outside of the scriptwriters control. Often, really.

There are certainly "bad" scriptwriters that continue to get work for some reason, but . . . to throw accusations at the entire industry of "not reading books", as was done upthread, is hyberbolic and ridiculous.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There are certainly "bad" scriptwriters that continue to get work for some reason

It's quite an important question as to why they do, I would suggest. Not an easy one to answer of course. Connections seem like the most likely cause. It's also remarkable that despite hiring people from impeccable backgrounds (albeit often with little in the way of actually-produced work - which makes them cheaper and easy to get to sign on to stuff), several Disney/Marvel movies and TV shows have had fairly questionable scripts. How much is meddling or changes, and how much is not picking the right writers?

The reason this is an important question in this context is that that if it's meddling and changes from Feige and other Disney/Marvel management types, then this is probably not something that can be fixed short of a clear-out that's not going to happen any time soon. If they're just making bad choices, it's more fixable.

 

[Umbran]

Sure. Superheroes are tired, dull, and done-to-death.

Superheroes are modern mythology. How tired, dull, and done-to-death they are depends on what questions you are addressing with your mythology. If your questions are done-to-death, then yeah, that's the result.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Superheroes are modern mythology. How tired, dull, and done-to-death they are depends on what questions you are addressing with your mythology. If your questions are done-to-death, then yeah, that's the result.

This is a very relevant point and I think it's why stuff like The Boys/Gen V, despite being based on rather cheesy source material and being rather gratuitous (to put it mildly), and likewise Invincible, seem a lot more relevant and vivid than even some relatively well-done MCU stuff, which is dedicated to safe questions and safe positions only. It's also why the X-Men not being around is a bigger issue - that had more to say to modern questions and ideas than the Avengers and their adjuncts ever will.

 

[Zardnaar]

Superheroes are modern mythology. How tired, dull, and done-to-death they are depends on what questions you are addressing with your mythology. If your questions are done-to-death, then yeah, that's the result.

Objectively theres 10-12 super hero movies coming out this year.

Only two have been hits.

Even if you're the biggest super hero movie fan in the world i suggest that's probably to many.

 

[Umbran]

Objectively theres 10-12 super hero movies coming out this year.

Only two have been hits.
Even if you're the biggest super hero movie fan in the world i suggest that's probably to many.

That logic doesn't seem solid, because "hit" doesn't really mean much. For example:

Objectively, there's dozens and dozens of movies coming out this year.
Only a handful have been hits.
Even if you are the biggest film fan in the world, I suggest that's probably too many.

And furthermore, what are you, a studio exec? You seem to be trending to the idea that movies that aren't "hits" (by your internal definition, whatever that is) aren't worth having been made.

I do not accept that we, the consumers, need to care about whether a movie has commercial success or not. Nor do we even need to care if many other people loved the movies we love.