Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheCanadianNews t1_jedbrgu wrote

I think Marvel releasing some weaker movies drove the sentiment. It could easily reverse!

4

HappyGilOHMYGOD t1_jedbypa wrote

Superhero movies have been bad lately and some people on the internet have been clamoring for them to stop being made.

Don't think they're going anywhere any time soon personally.

3

_Meece_ t1_jedczgk wrote

Bad superhero movies never held back anything in the past haha

3

jgauth2 t1_jedbz3u wrote

Quality, as measured by critic and audience ratings, seem to be down and so do ticket sales

I think a lot of people see this as the modern version of the long slow decline of the western. Are they right? Who knows

2

_Meece_ t1_jedemxt wrote

I think the abundance of them from 99-now is wearing many thin.

But superhero isn't really a genre to me. More like a setting or theme.

There's so many different superhero movies and so many different types of movies you can make with superheroes. I don't think they'll ever die.

But I imagine what people are talking about, is the post Endgame popularity of them. They're not as popular, not as trendy and casual interest is winding down.

Of course covid plays a huge role here. But from 2008-2019 there were 12 billion dollar superhero movies and since 2019, there's only been one billion dollar superhero movie. A movie which featured all 3 live action Spideys and their famous villains.

Dr Strange 2 did make 950mil and Black Panther 2 did 850mil. So plenty of love for superhero movies still. I just think we've passed the peak of their popularity.

2

my20cworth t1_jedcpg7 wrote

I could never get into superhero movies, even as a kid. They are action packed but I just feel they cover the same old format and theme just in different costumes, have some kind of weakness and the same old villians and basically are never really ever going to die, so any death defying scene is always a foregone conclusion. My guess is where more can you go with this genre. It won't die off but they do seem to bring out a Spiderman and Batman movie every year and I could never tell them apart or what sequence they are in or it they have any significant plot twist.

1

DrRexMorman t1_jedd7id wrote

1:

Like the rest of us, Disney's had a rough 3 years: the CEO who loaded the company up with a slate of expensive and complicated ips replaced himself with a guy who probably committed fraud. The cracks are showing.

2:

Marvel's phase 3 was 25 hours long.

Marvel's phase 4 was 47 hours long - which is a lot.

3:

Marvel's cinematic universe turns 15 in May. Its creators have released a slate of moves that replace legacy characters and - in some instances - challenge their legacy. This move has proven to be less popular and lucrative than elements of the previous slate.

4:

Marvel/WB have made some missteps in terms of production (casting/content/release/etc) that have shifted the metanarrative about these movies from "wow, can't wait for the next one" to "lol, that guy is a villain in real life" - which is not where marketers want the metanarratve to be.

1

Moman70 t1_jede94i wrote

The recent movies are just straight up boring and formulaic that’s why people loved the Batman,the boys,and invincible just simply cause they were doing something new.The Superhero is one of the best storytelling devices in filmmaking seeing as you can make a superhero action,romance,crime,comedy,and so much more but the recent stuff is just flat out boring and rushed

1

Orange-Turtle-Power t1_jedi84w wrote

Superhero is not a genre at all. The MCU, for example, has had many different genres including horror, political thriller, heist, etc

1

Tr4c3gaming t1_jedc04t wrote

A lot of the story threads movies and games and even comics follow are basically just remaking older stories...even if they call themselves new.

So to many superheroes as a genre... is quite dead or at the very least getting milked needlessly.

Then again this is a problem with pretty much any genre especially when the movies and games get more expensive..because studios basically cannot allow themselves to do truly groundbreaking or risky stuff... it is hard that producers go away from the traditional heroes journey and whatnot...which is exactly why average feeling movies happen, in a way a super large budget kills a movies creativity...kinda makes sense though it is like many call the galapagos finch problem... theres many birds, you can only pick one to represent the island... producers will pick the most generic one not the most unique or cool one... to many stale, but a safe play... this is why many feel like stuff is just perpertually dying...because large budgets tend to play it safe... happens with games especially...which is in part why indie games can allow themselves to challenge AAA titles..because AAA titles tend to have so much budget they have to play it safe...this is in part why single player story games are dying too in AAA spaces...this is why theres so many remakes or reboots of series.. they can be safe while being fresh...or put some more complex.. though quite generic story on a known IP (see tomb raider remake for instance, the game is nice but let's face it don't name it tomb raider and it isn't exactly a new story...they just added complexity to a new coat of paint of something older, much simpler)

This very largely depends how much you know about the comics and older stuff that preceeded these newer movies

Games and movies and genres are always in a perpetual state of dying as the older fan base slowly gets alienated from what they knew it was...or theres just nothing new under the sun.

This is also in part why if they don't do remakes.. they often do spinoffs of characters or start completely new IPs because that's a blank slate even if you use safe story threads it feels more fresh.

0

_Meece_ t1_jedei3b wrote

> this is in part why single player story games are dying too in AAA spaces.

Your entire AAA gaming paragraph is a bit out of whack. But this one isn't even true.

Multiplayer games have been shoved to the side because of the past generation. Unless a MP game is a F2P skin machine... it dies and even then most die anyway.

All the big publishers, largely focus on SP experiences to various degrees. With each having maybe one major MP game they focus on.

Where as in the generation before that, the 360/PS3 gen. Every game came with a random tacked on MP mode, most of which were horrible.

You legit don't see this anymore. Usually the MP is like entirely separate from the SP game even if they do have one. See RDR2 or TLOU2, the latter of which is still waiting for the release of its MP mode.

SP story games are more popular than ever. They just take ages to make, like a AAA game greenlit today, won't come out until the PS6 is out.

2

Intelligent-Age2786 t1_jedd4a7 wrote

Anything can happen in a short amount of time. The genre could see an immediate bounce back and come back stronger than ever, or they could continue their downward pace in quality and slowly lose more and more traction.

0

Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedf536 wrote

Because their prominence in the culture is fading. People are moving on. We’ve seen most of what the genre has to offer. It’ll keep the die hard fans, but the chances of anything like what Marvel did previously happening again are pretty nil. That’s part of the reason Marvel is cutting back and restructuring.

0

emAK47 t1_jeddcez wrote

Come on. Superhero movies are the lowest form or cinema ever produced. Disney especially put out a series of mass produced soulless cashgrabs that take no risks whatsoever. Nobody is ever in any real danger, they're like Dora the Explorer episodes but with (increasingly worse) cgi.

This being said, for the general public it's probably just fatigue/oversaturation. Give it some years and the cycle will repeat.

−1

_Meece_ t1_jeddyu1 wrote

> Superhero movies are the lowest form or cinema ever produced

No way, many of the superhero movies have fantastic VFX and SFX sequences, costuming, makeup and one two occasions, acting.

Comedy by far takes that title. Cheapest, sleaziest, laziest genre filmmaking has. The worst big studio movies ever are all comedies IMO.

2

emAK47 t1_jedelc9 wrote

You're just measuring budget

1

_Meece_ t1_jedeyh8 wrote

No I am not? Comedies are openly the most cash grabbiest movies around.

They're cheap movies, made quick for an easy buck. Comedy producers are all upset these days because their meal ticket died, no one goes to see comedy in the cinema anymore.

I'm just more refuting your claim of Superhero movies being the lowest form of cinema. That easily, easily, goes to comedy.

I wouldn't even put Supehero movies far above it. But no chance they beat comedy for this title.

2

Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedfbuq wrote

I’m not sure you know what “lowest form of cinema” means.

1

_Meece_ t1_jedg4pn wrote

Do you? You'd think the form of cinema, that puts no effort in and largely relies on the improvisational skills of its actors to be the lowest form.

But no it's the CGI fests lol

0

emAK47 t1_jedhdbc wrote

To me it's not really the CGI, rather than the movies themselves being a part of a greater design that has been approved by an investors board to be as risk free as possible. The single directors have almost no way to make an interesting movie. I agree with you on comedies being the quickest cashgrab in terms of investment, but I feel like the Disney approach is a lot filthier.

1

Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedjglo wrote

That’s what I’m saying, man — if you think that’s what all comedies are, then you haven’t seen very many, not to mention good ones. And there’s nothing wrong with improvisational skills. To me, that’s actually more impressive in a way than copious amounts of CGI.

But, beyond that — you still don’t seem to understand what “lowest form of cinema” is. It means dumb, awful, worthless trash.

1

matt10101010101 t1_jedjjzx wrote

The Dark Knight falls into the one of the best cinematic movies ever made category.

Also lots of superhero movies fall into the really good category e.g. The Watchmen, Joker..

1