Are Superhero films dying?

[Dire Bare]

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.

Hell yeah!

How many "cult classics" do we all love, despite the fact they "bombed" at the box office?

There are a lot of reasons why any given movie isn't a "hit" completely independent of its quality or even audience reception.

The current Marvel movie, "The Marvels" isn't doing great at the box office and has middling critical reviews. Not a "hit" by Hollywood standards. Yet, the audience scores are pretty high for the film. I'm certainly excited to see it later this week!

 

[Thourne]

How many "cult classics" do we all love, despite the fact they "bombed" at the box office?

Heck, you can even drop "cult", tons of the now thought of as Classics were total box office duds.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't believe there is "superhero fatigue."

I think it's more that you can only coast by on brand recognition and reputation for a finite amount of time before lackluster products disenfranchise your target audience.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hell yeah!

How many "cult classics" do we all love, despite the fact they "bombed" at the box office?

There are a lot of reasons why any given movie isn't a "hit" completely independent of its quality or even audience reception.

The current Marvel movie, "The Marvels" isn't doing great at the box office and has middling critical reviews. Not a "hit" by Hollywood standards. Yet, the audience scores are pretty high for the film. I'm certainly excited to see it later this week!

Its not only that Super hero movies gave underperforned/flopped a lot this year.

MCU is running out of excuses. Strikes well Barbie had to deal with those as well. Covid other billion dollar movies had to deal with that as well.

I've thought fatigue has been real last year or so with only two MCU movies putting up good numbers and only 1 other super hero film doing so.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I dunno. When we go to apples-to-apples comparisons - like, series to series, instead of series to movie - the MCU does better - Wandavision, Moon Knight, She Hulk, Falcon and Winter Soldier, Ms Marvel, and even Hawkeye, were all pretty cool.

I'll grant that there is a good argument to be made that superheroes, with their highly serialized origins, are really better suited for serialized presentations, making one-off movie presentations harder to do well. Marvel sometimes manages it. DC only occasionally does.

But, as far as I am concerned, there's also a bit of... growing cynicism in critique. Superheroes have been prominent for so long that it is becoming cool to dislike them.

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.

I dunno. Without getting into politics, these days there are many great questions and ideas around application of power and governments that could be asked.

But, yeah, the X-men were created to be the folks who are discriminated against. Mind you, there's nothing modern about it, and the questions are hardly new. Indeed, it is painful to see how relevant they still are.

 

[Umbran]

I think it's more that you can only coast by on brand recognition and reputation for a finite amount of time before lackluster products disenfranchise your target audience.

This isn't about "enfranchisement" of the audience. This is about satisfaction of the audience.

 

[Umbran]

The current Marvel movie, "The Marvels" isn't doing great at the box office and has middling critical reviews. Not a "hit" by Hollywood standards.

And there was a strike that put a huge dent in marketing for that film. Guess what - wen the stars of the film can't take part in marketing, the film's economic performance suffers! Go figure!

Yet, the audience scores are pretty high for the film. I'm certainly excited to see it later this week!

I've had several friends see it and love it, so I am looking forward to it as well

 

[Ryujin]

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.

Right with you there. Who do writers tend to blame? Producers. For those who want a brief education in Hollywood shenanigans, I would recommend the documentary, "The Death of Superman Lives: What Happened."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I've had several friends see it and love it, so I am looking forward to it as well

One of the problems with the MCU (and superhero shows in general) isn't fatigue, per se, but oversaturation.

I've mentioned this before, but the issues with superhero content (and yes, it is content now) can, IMO, largely be traced to the firehouse of movies, shows, and animated series that have been released. It's just poor brand management. When you combine that with the struggles that theaters have had post-COVID, and it's a very difficult environment which is absolutely different than what we were seeing in 2019 (and prior).

Before diving into the numbers again, I'll use myself as an example. I loved Ms. Marvel. I enjoyed Captain Marvel. And I saw every single MCU movie in the theater pre-COVID. I should be a lock to see this movie! And I want to! But ... probably not going to. Why? Because I know that at some point it will turn up on Disney+, and I don't need to see it right this second. MCU movies are no longer an event.

That's the problem. There is just so much out there. I noticed that Spiderman: Across the Multiverse was on Netflix this weekend, and I watched it. It was great! Didn't see it in the theater.

Marvel upped the pace of MCU movies and released a torrent of MCU shows (remember, each MCU show is the run-time equivalent of about two movies).

Sony, of course, is making their own MCU movies. The Spiderman (and characters) movies. And the animated Spiderverse movies.

Warner Brothers is making the DCEU movies (the end of them, at least). The indie DC movies (Joker, The Batman). A lot of live-action TV content. And some great animation as well (both standalone and series, like Harley Quinn).

Oh, and let's not forget that there's additional superhero content out there as well. What about the, um ... what do you call it? The Prime Boysverse? The various properties on Netflix, from Umbrella Academy to Sandman to the 82,983 hours (numbers are approximate, yet true) of the Arrowverse that aren't on Max?

All of it ... it's a lot. By having every single studio trying to recreate the MCU while the MCU was dramatically expanding, we have a glut of content. And, to be fair, quite a bit of it is good! But it's ... again, it's a lot. And it's really hard to get that kind of "event" feeling for most of it that makes people want to get to the theater.

 

[Mercurius]

Nah. It's not a huge part. It is a part, but the success of frankly largely forgotten characters like Thor (whose popularity outside hardcore Marvel fans was basically zero prior to the MCU) and utterly risible characters like Captain America and Dr Strange shows that real-terms popularity doesn't matter if the character can be made compelling.

Picking characters better does matter, but it's not "who is popular in comics", it's "who can we make compelling". They're not the same thing. There's overlap, but there's also stuff outside that that works.

This is an important point, one that I've made and will keep reiterating, but would only say that it isn't quite or only "who can we make compelling," as I think many/most characters can be made compelling. It is how it is done - the writing, acting and actor, and take on the specific character.

I never found CA all that interesting as a comic book character back when I read Marvel religiously (mid-80s to early 90s). I loved the X-Men and the Silver Surfer. But Chris Evans' CA was great - not just how he carried the role, but how he embodied a CA that fought for America as it should be but isn't. Meaning, rather than embody a facile patriotism, he fought for deeper principles. It was subtly subversive, yet also noble. Similarly with Robert Downey's Iron Man - or really, Tony Stark. You take a charismatic actor who makes the character his own, and offer at least solid writing and magic happens.

Compare, on the other hand, Cyclops of the X-Men movies. Cyclops was central to the X-Men for decades, and his tortured nature, his flawed yet strong character made for a surprisingly complex character (at least for my middle and high school self). But neither of the two Cyclops actors were able to embody that at all, if only because cinematic Cyclops was written as a rather boring character (the 2nd version was a bit better, but never really came to fruition before the line died). Similarly with Storm - she was cardboard compared to the Ororo of Claremont days.