The proliferation of Superhero movies in the modern age of cinema

10-01-2013 3:20pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

They are critically acclaimed, in the case of the Batman trilogy & Avengers (and the latest Bond movie) very highly critically acclaimed.

Yes the films you picked were the highest grossing films, but I thought we were talking about superhero films specifically? In which case, only one superhero film made the top ten grossing films between 2000 & 2009. If you bring in the last 3 years, then you could throw in the third Batman movie & Avengers probably.

I wouldn't really class the likes of the Transformers films/GI Joe/Battleship as superhero/comicbook films but in terms of those films I'd be more inclined to agree with your sentiment.

well Im doing my research on google, with simple searches like top grossing films of the decade. Here for example http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html we can see Avengers, Transformers, Iron Man are 3 of the top ten grossing of the decade.
My other search was through google and I just looked for the top grossing movies of the 80's by year which was where I got the ones I listed from the 80's. So in my mind im comparing the 'blockbusters' of now and the 80's. And right now the blockbusters are comic book/superhero movies.
I think that its fair enough to deduce from that research the conclusions i have in previous posts

10-01-2013 3:24pm

Fysh wrote: »

Except that what I just did was list off the films I have any appreciation of from the IMDB Most Popular Films in 1980 list. Which is exactly the same as what you've done.

Everyone and their dog knows the template for the origin story by now, so it's pretty sad and lazy that people developing superhero properties don't at least try to present that material in a new way.

No I didnt do that mate, I searched the highest grossing movies of the 1980's. I didnt search imdb and pick and choose. You'll see the ones I mentioned are the highest grossing if you check the stats and I simply compared them to the ones of today.

And I agree with your second point. This is why I turned off the avengers, and did not enjoy iron man and really cant be bothered with anything but Nolans Batman films when it comes to superheros. You get the feeling nolan actually cares what he is putting out there and the story is engaging, the others you can almost predict everything thats going to happen in the movie from the first few minutes. Thats why im using terms like splurge and tripe etc! It is an art form afterall, surely they can do better

Fysh · 10-01-2013 3:24pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Thats a great point, there's simply way more films made these days than there was in the past. If there's a particular genre you cant stand never before has it been easier to find something else to watch.

This is true and the same phenomenon also explains the perceived increase in "crap" films - access to film in general has become much easier, so we know a lot more about the dreadful pieces of tat that are being made today while dreck like Alligator might well have snuck under the radar previously.

senordingdong wrote: »

But the OP forgets, that if films like The Master are going to be financed, then the studios need their cash cows to turn over the money.

You can bet that if the mainstream tripe was toned down, there would be alot less arthouse and indy films too.

Financial realities of the industry aside, I also think it would be a loss if we were to see a reduction in the diversity of film produced by imposing arbitrary genre limitations. In any creative medium there should be space for challenging experimental work as well as crowd-pleasing straightforward work, because the variation of individual tastes and interests is such that one person's gold is another's muck.

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 3:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

well Im doing my research on google, with simple searches like top grossing films of the decade. Here for example http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html we can see Avengers, Transformers, Iron Man are 3 of the top ten grossing of the decade.
My other search was through google and I just looked for the top grossing movies of the 80's by year which was where I got the ones I listed from the 80's. So in my mind im comparing the 'blockbusters' of now and the 80's. And right now the blockbusters are comic book/superhero movies.
I think that its fair enough to deduce from that research the conclusions i have in previous posts

I used wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_in_film which only has TDK in the top 10. I'm guessing the differences are because the site you used only takes american BO into account?

Funnily enough if you look at the top ten for the 1980s (by decade) on both wiki and the site you used (they're the same in this case for some reason), 4 of them were sequels and all bar one (ET) spawned sequels.

If you look at the type of films in both top tens, basically broad crowd pleasing special effects/action driven fantasy/adventure films, all it says to me is nothing has changed whatsoever.

10-01-2013 3:48pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I used wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_in_film which only has TDK in the top 10. I'm guessing the differences are because the site you used only takes american BO into account?

Funnily enough if you look at the top ten for the 1980s (by decade) on both wiki and the site you used (they're the same in this case for some reason), 4 of them were sequels and all bar one (ET) spawned sequels.

If you look at the type of films in both top tens, basically broad crowd pleasing special effects/action driven fantasy/adventure films, all it says to me is nothing has changed whatsoever.

I used a different site early then the one I linked, I guess there are various discrepancies amongst the different sites.
And I agree - special effects driven, fantasy, adventure is the theme. I have no problem with that - Conan the barbarian orginal version is one of my favourite movies, and I generally love the fantasy genre. My issue is todays blockbuster movies in the main are written like crap, there is no freshness or originality to the story. Its so easy to predict whats going to happen that I cant get any enjoyment out of it. I stand by my point that those blockbuster fantasy special effects driven movies of the 80's are far superior to what we are seeing today

pixelburp · 10-01-2013 3:49pm

dark crystal wrote: »

I completely disagree about Chaplin for a start. He was an innovator, not an imitator.

I don't entirely agree with that - we see Chaplin now as an innovator for things like The Great Dictator, but his bread and butter was playing to the masses and 'cheap' laughs; much of cinema at that time - Chaplin included - was motion-picture vaudeville. The Battleship Pontempkins were the exceptions, not the rule.
Ultimately, he was a popular entertainer at heart, and his material was not all that different from what was knocking about at the time.

dark crystal wrote: »

Secondly, at the same time you had John Wayne donning his cowboy costumes, the big studios were also making films like On The Waterfront, Some Like It Hot, All About Eve, Rear Window, To Kill A Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men, Singin' In The Rain, Vertigo, Dr. Strangelove and Psycho and they all made good returns.

I'll repeat the same general point I already made: you can't simply cherrypick films from past decades as proof positive of the higher qualities of years gone by, it's selective reasoning at its worst; for every Vertigo you can mention, there were about two-dozen Plan 9 From Outer Space (hell, the term 'B-movie' comes from that same appox. era). We don't talk about them because why would you? Ultimately the movies you decry as the sliding of standards will fall away and the quality will remain. Time really will tell in this instance - 20/30 years hence the same argument will be made, with folks pointing at the 2000s and cherrypicking its best works.

The biggest difference between past decades and now, as others point out, is that living in the internet age guarantees we know more about the drekk than we care to. Look at how easily junk such as Human Centipede or The Innocence of Muslims has managed to force themselves into the public consciousness - that's not because the medium of cinema is dying, it's because information now passes more freely.

In fact, linking back to the start of my post & the silent era - look at Metropolis: widely regarded as one of the great films of the silent era - if not the greatest? - yet iirc it was a spectacular flop in Germany & it was butchered by American distributors.

krudler · 10-01-2013 4:11pm

People seem to forget than fantasy/b movie/popular films are the movies Hollywood was built on. There's plenty of room for both popcorn crowd pleasing efforts and more serious stuff. Its always been the case that the summer months are full of loud explodey summer fodder, the early and later parts of the year are more cerebral efforts.

Evilsbane · 10-01-2013 4:54pm

I don't know how you can point to Iron Man as a tired and stale movie. The delivery of dialogue was excellent in that characters didn't do the movie cliche thing of waiting patiently for the other character to finish speaking before they begin speaking themselves. I am in no way claiming that Iron Man is the first movie to do this, or even close, but I am saying that scriptwriters love the sound of their own dialogue so much that it's rare to see characters interrupt each other the way they do in real life, and most of the time when they DO interrupt, they have a too-perfect response for what the other character just said, and it feels over-prepared.
The film has excellent acting from all involved and the set-pieces that you can tell it's most proud of aren't the action-fests at the end but the masterclasses in slapstick in the middle and the suspenseful office near-confrontation with Obadiah and Pepper: "I know what you're going through" is one of cleverest double-meanings in recent years. The movie also explores themes deeper than "explosions are fun"; Stark's sense of responsibility to fix the problems he's caused and to change his company's ethical direction no matter the economic fallout are definitely analogous to the public's concerns about the US military-industrial complex, and there are even arguments in the film about the validity of the concept of ownership of an idea.

And these themes and ones like them are why superhero movies are popular and have formed their own genre - they function in much the same way as a Western. Consider the classic movie "Shane": it can be summed up as "man with exceptional abilities in combat imposes his own brand of order on a lawless world in order to protect innocent people". Westerns and superhero movies are both about the ubermensch; whether a person who is blessed with the ability to enforce their will on others is right to do so, whether a personal moral code can be used to replace a malfunctioning social order, and who has the right to make that decision. In the famous graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, Batman says:

"You sold us out, Clark. You gave them the power that should have been ours. Just like your parents taught you. My parents taught me a different lesson... lying on this street... shaking in deep shock... dying for no reason at all. They showed me that the world only makes sense when you force it to."

Westerns and superhero movies have always been, at their core, about this central idea: "Well, if the authorities aren't going to do anything about this, then I guess I'll have to do it myself", or, as Spider-Man put it: "with great power comes great responsibility". Superheroes are symbols of personal responsibility - there are certain problems where if you CAN do something about it, then you have a moral obligation to do it. The superheroes (and the villains) who stand out from the rest are the ones who have a unique perspective on what exactly IS their responsibility. Superman is reactive about crime. Batman is proactive about it, while Iron Man is pro-active about the wrongs he's already committed as a CEO. Captain America couldn't let his fellow countrymen risk their lives for his way of life while he lived in safety at home. The X-Men stand up for the mutants who are persecuted - Nightcrawler asks Mystique why she doesn't live without incident by simply hiding her true form all the time and she replies "because I shouldn't have to".

Sure, certain superhero movies are JUST about the action. I can name several and I'm sure you can too. But superhero comics are about more, and audiences flock to the movie adaptations because of the strength and depth of the source material, even if it then unfortunately transpires that the movie doesn't live up to it.

johnny_ultimate · 10-01-2013 6:26pm

I do take issue with the suggestion that 'older' genres are inherently better than new ones. The calls for a return to mainstream political thrillers, historical epics, courtroom dramas etc... and the parallel death of superheroes is a sort of hypocritical one IMO - sure, personal preference and all, but its just subscribing to another form of genrefication. Argo to me is just as formulaic and predictable as many superhero films - heavily applying the formula and style of its genre-mates like All The Presidents Men (which is a vastly superior work). A gap of a few decades between it and its forebearers doesn't make it any more original - that's the fog of nostalgia. Yeah, it's a decent, engaging film, but extraordinarily creative, intellectually stimulating or innovative it most certainly is not. Similarly with The Artist - refreshing to see a silent film in the multiplex, but its also awkwardly derivative of better films. Mainstream prestige films have only occasionally been the true créme de la créme of cinema as an artform.

A great film will rise above genre norms, or indeed simply invent their own rules in the first place. I'd struggle to place several of my favourite films of the last twelve months in anything other than vague & relatively meaningless categories like 'drama'. A great filmmaker will transcend what other see as limitations - in the right hands, there's no reason a superhero film can't be every bit as great as a political thriller or epic historical costume drama.

The one thing I would bemoan is I really wish Marvel would loosen the reigns a bit and allow their franchises to mature. I've enjoyed a lot of them on their own moderate merits, but the lighthearted, 'safe' fare they've stuck to until now is growing a bit old. Considering they've drafted in more ambitious and even auteuristic voices like Joss Whedon, James Gunn and Kenneth Branagh, there's no reason more directorial flavour couldn't benefit their major franchises. They seem afraid to rock the boat, even if the superheroes in questions arguably don't have the depth to justify a rocking. Still, when you see what DC are doing with Batman and Superman, Marvel's enjoyable but utterly throwaway output doesn't measure up.

On the plus side: January! Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty assure that there'll at least be two interesting titles in multiplexes over the coming weeks (coinciding with a bit of a slump for fringe arthouse releases following a busy second half in 2012). Shame about Gangster Squad, though.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 6:32pm

pixelburp wrote: »

I don't entirely agree with that - we see Chaplin now as an innovator for things like The Great Dictator, but his bread and butter was playing to the masses and 'cheap' laughs; much of cinema at that time - Chaplin included - was motion-picture vaudeville. The Battleship Pontempkins were the exceptions, not the rule.
Ultimately, he was a popular entertainer at heart, and his material was not all that different from what was knocking about at the time.

I'll repeat the same general point I already made: you can't simply cherrypick films from past decades as proof positive of the higher qualities of years gone by, it's selective reasoning at its worst; for every Vertigo you can mention, there were about two-dozen Plan 9 From Outer Space (hell, the term 'B-movie' comes from that same appox. era). We don't talk about them because why would you? Ultimately the movies you decry as the sliding of standards will fall away and the quality will remain. Time really will tell in this instance - 20/30 years hence the same argument will be made, with folks pointing at the 2000s and cherrypicking its best works.

The biggest difference between past decades and now, as others point out, is that living in the internet age guarantees we know more about the drekk than we care to. Look at how easily junk such as Human Centipede or The Innocence of Muslims has managed to force themselves into the public consciousness - that's not because the medium of cinema is dying, it's because information now passes more freely.

In fact, linking back to the start of my post & the silent era - look at Metropolis: widely regarded as one of the great films of the silent era - if not the greatest? - yet iirc it was a spectacular flop in Germany & it was butchered by American distributors.

I'm not cherrypicking at all. My point was that in any cinema, along with the westerns, there were just as many original dramas, comedies, epics etc, co-existing alongside them. The big studios made all kinds of films and the ones I mentioned all made healthy returns. No one single genre overshadowed all the others.

Take the last three years in mainstream Hollywood cinema. How many films released by a major studio will be regarded as classics 50 years from now? Iron Man 2? X-Men The Last Stand? Captain America??

I believe there is room for all types of film, for all types of film fan, however it's clear to me that at this moment in time, only a certain demographic are being widely catered for by the big studios. Comic book franchises are definitely oversaturating the market at the present time - there's no way that can be denied.
The question is, what is left for all the film fans who can't find much else to entertain them at the cinema? We have to seek out the smaller films that don't reach the cineplexes, that don't get huge marketing budgets, that don't grace the covers of glossy Film magazines. There should be room for these type of films at the cineplex too.

And as for Chaplin, we'll really just have to agree to disagree on that one

Fuzzy_Dunlop · 10-01-2013 6:40pm

These are the movies that make the money which allows other less 'safe' films to be made. May as well capitalise while they remain popular.

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 7:26pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Take the last three years in mainstream Hollywood cinema. How many films released by a major studio will be regarded as classics 50 years from now? Iron Man 2? X-Men The Last Stand? Captain America??

For someone who claims to not to be cherrypicking I find it pretty telling you mention one of the most universally hated comic book movies thus far and two films that only really had a luke warm reception rather than any of the actual benchmark films within the genre.

Liam O · 10-01-2013 7:38pm

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm not cherrypicking at all. My point was that in any cinema, along with the westerns, there were just as many original dramas, comedies, epics etc, co-existing alongside them. The big studios made all kinds of films and the ones I mentioned all made healthy returns. No one single genre overshadowed all the others.

Take the last three years in mainstream Hollywood cinema. How many films released by a major studio will be regarded as classics 50 years from now? Iron Man 2? X-Men The Last Stand? Captain America??

I believe there is room for all types of film, for all types of film fan, however it's clear to me that at this moment in time, only a certain demographic are being widely catered for by the big studios. Comic book franchises are definitely oversaturating the market at the present time - there's no way that can be denied.
The question is, what is left for all the film fans who can't find much else to entertain them at the cinema? We have to seek out the smaller films that don't reach the cineplexes, that don't get huge marketing budgets, that don't grace the covers of glossy Film magazines. There should be room for these type of films at the cineplex too.

And as for Chaplin, we'll really just have to agree to disagree on that one

With the amount of movies brought out every week/throughout the year I'd bet that superhero movies are a very small percentage actually, look at the cinema over the profitable Christmas period. More fantasy fiction than superhero, unless they're all lumped in together? Maybe this over saturation is being felt because of the success of them rather than the volume of them?

Evilsbane · 10-01-2013 7:42pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Take the last three years in mainstream Hollywood cinema. How many films released by a major studio will be regarded as classics 50 years from now? Iron Man 2? X-Men The Last Stand? Captain America??

X-Men: The Last Stand wasn't released in the last three years; you probably mean X-Men: First Class, which although not a "classic" was certainly not as bad as The Last Stand.

In any case: define "major studio" and by what criteria can something be regarded as a classic? Would Toy Story 3 count, for example? The King's Speech? The Hurt Locker? Black Swan? Les Miserables? The Hobbit? Django Unchained? Thor?

Mickeroo wrote: »

For someone who claims to not to be cherrypicking I find it pretty telling you mention one of the most universally hated comic book movies thus far and two films that only really had a luke warm reception rather than any of the actual benchmark films within the genre.

Also, the "last three years" is carefully chosen since 2009 was home to gems such as Up and Inglourious Basterds.

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 8:54pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I do take issue with the suggestion that 'older' genres are inherently better than new ones. The calls for a return to mainstream political thrillers, historical epics, courtroom dramas etc... and the parallel death of superheroes is a sort of hypocritical one IMO - sure, personal preference and all, but its just subscribing to another form of genrefication. Argo to me is just as formulaic and predictable as many superhero films - heavily applying the formula and style of its genre-mates like All The Presidents Men (which is a vastly superior work). A gap of a few decades between it and its forebearers doesn't make it any more original - that's the fog of nostalgia. Yeah, it's a decent, engaging film, but extraordinarily creative, intellectually stimulating or innovative it most certainly is not. Similarly with The Artist - refreshing to see a silent film in the multiplex, but its also awkwardly derivative of better films. Mainstream prestige films have only occasionally been the true créme de la créme of cinema as an artform.

A great film will rise above genre norms, or indeed simply invent their own rules in the first place. I'd struggle to place several of my favourite films of the last twelve months in anything other than vague & relatively meaningless categories like 'drama'. A great filmmaker will transcend what other see as limitations - in the right hands, there's no reason a superhero film can't be every bit as great as a political thriller or epic historical costume drama.

The one thing I would bemoan is I really wish Marvel would loosen the reigns a bit and allow their franchises to mature. I've enjoyed a lot of them on their own moderate merits, but the lighthearted, 'safe' fare they've stuck to until now is growing a bit old. Considering they've drafted in more ambitious and even auteuristic voices like Joss Whedon, James Gunn and Kenneth Branagh, there's no reason more directorial flavour couldn't benefit their major franchises. They seem afraid to rock the boat, even if the superheroes in questions arguably don't have the depth to justify a rocking. Still, when you see what DC are doing with Batman and Superman, Marvel's enjoyable but utterly throwaway output doesn't measure up.

On the plus side: January! Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty assure that there'll at least be two interesting titles in multiplexes over the coming weeks (coinciding with a bit of a slump for fringe arthouse releases following a busy second half in 2012). Shame about Gangster Squad, though.

Everyone I know in their 30s and 40s who saw it wouldn't agree, all thought that it was a refreshing change to the usual Savoy fare, I didn't expect it to be particularly "extraordinarily creative, intellectually stimulating or innovative" but at least it had believable humans interacting in a believable way and was aimed at thinking adults instead of a never ending stream of one dimensional cartoon characters in costumes talking macho nonsense or otherwise laughably cliched dialogue, having said that I did enjoy Captain America, as for a lot of it it was quite a decent story and characters and only really reverted to the chasing around and bollox talk in the last half an hour or so. A few of any genre is grand but the OP is right about the seemingly never ending amount in the last 10 years or so and its not as if the alternative mainstream stuff on other screens is the courtroom dramas and political thrillers its probably the Battleships and Transformers crud, bring back Billy Wilder, Bogie, Hitch and Lean and mainstream cinema with people at its core, this message will self destruct in 5 seconds!

johnny_ultimate · 10-01-2013 9:10pm

Technocentral wrote: »

a never ending stream of one dimensional cartoon characters in costumes talking macho nonsense or otherwise laughably cliched dialogue!

You're talking about the Iranian characters in Argo, right?

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 9:12pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You're talking about the Iranian characters in Argo, right?

Touche, the film was imperfect with stupid bits like that but overall it was extremely good.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 9:38pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

For someone who claims to not to be cherrypicking I find it pretty telling you mention one of the most universally hated comic book movies thus far and two films that only really had a luke warm reception rather than any of the actual benchmark films within the genre.

Like I said before, the quality of the films is irrelevant - they still made wads of cash at the box office, despite being awful. I was making the point that very few comic films will ever become classics, yet these are the films that dominate the cinemas at the moment.

In 2012, the top ten films of the year were all either sequels or series in a franchise and 3 were superhero films:

1. The Avengers
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Skyfall
4. Ice Age: Continental Drift
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
6. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2
7. The Amazing SpiderMan
8. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
9. The Hunger Games
10. Men In Black 3

Now, let's take a look at 1962's top 10:

1. Lawrence Of Arabia
2. The Longest Day
3. In Search Of The Castaways
4. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane
5. The Music Man
6. Dr. No
7. That Touch Of Mink
8. Mutiny On The Bounty
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Gypsy

No sequels, different genres and at least two bona fide classics in there. Something for everyone - Western, Drama, Comedy, Musical, Family, Thriller, Biopics. Not saying they're all exceptional films, but Jesus, at least you had a choice!

I'm just making the point that if all Hollywood can come up with are re-hashes of the same film over and over again, where does that leave the film fan who actually wishes to see something original at the cineplex? If you love seeing the same characters over and over again, fair enough, but there should be more choices for those of us who don't, other than during Oscar season!

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 10:01pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Like I said before, the quality of the films is irrelevant - they still made wads of cash at the box office, despite being awful. I was making the point that very few comic films will ever become classics, yet these are the films that dominate the cinemas at the moment.

In 2012, the top ten films of the year were all either sequels or series in a franchise and 3 were superhero films:

1. The Avengers
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Skyfall
4. Ice Age: Continental Drift
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
6. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2
7. The Amazing SpiderMan
8. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
9. The Hunger Games
10. Men In Black 3

Now, let's take a look at 1962's top 10:

1. Lawrence Of Arabia
2. The Longest Day
3. In Search Of The Castaways
4. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane
5. The Music Man
6. Dr. No
7. That Touch Of Mink
8. Mutiny On The Bounty
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Gypsy

No sequels, different genres and at least two bona fide classics in there. Something for everyone - Western, Drama, Comedy, Musical, Family, Thriller, Biopics. Not saying they're all exceptional films, but Jesus, at least you had a choice!

I'm just making the point that if all Hollywood can come up with are re-hashes of the same film over and over again, where does that leave the film fan who actually wishes to see something original at the cineplex? If you love seeing the same characters over and over again, fair enough, but there should be more choices for those of us who don't, other than during Oscar season!

Surely you jest? Thats shocking! Has to be US box office, even at that there is only one film in that 2012 list that is at least slightly aimed at adults (Skyfall)!. As opposed to around 8 on the 62 list, the infantilization of modern commercial cinema is true as I suspected. The horror, the horror.....

Btw this just started on Discovery (seeing as its mentioned earlier here)

Platoon: The True Story

Director Oliver Stone and actor Willem Dafoe reveal the truth behind their award winning Vietnam War movie. How accurate is the depiction of the conflict?

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 10:20pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Like I said before, the quality of the films is irrelevant - they still made wads of cash at the box office, despite being awful. I was making the point that very few comic films will ever become classics, yet these are the films that dominate the cinemas at the moment.

In 2012, the top ten films of the year were all either sequels or series in a franchise and 3 were superhero films:

1. The Avengers
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Skyfall
4. Ice Age: Continental Drift
5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
6. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Pt. 2
7. The Amazing SpiderMan
8. Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
9. The Hunger Games
10. Men In Black 3

Now, let's take a look at 1962's top 10:

1. Lawrence Of Arabia
2. The Longest Day
3. In Search Of The Castaways
4. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane
5. The Music Man
6. Dr. No
7. That Touch Of Mink
8. Mutiny On The Bounty
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Gypsy

No sequels, different genres and at least two bona fide classics in there. Something for everyone - Western, Drama, Comedy, Musical, Family, Thriller, Biopics. Not saying they're all exceptional films, but Jesus, at least you had a choice!

I'm just making the point that if all Hollywood can come up with are re-hashes of the same film over and over again, where does that leave the film fan who actually wishes to see something original at the cineplex? If you love seeing the same characters over and over again, fair enough, but there should be more choices for those of us who don't, other than during Oscar season!

So quality doesn't matter now? Then why do you keep mentioning classics?

As I just pointed out, it's very easy to write off a films chances of becoming a classic when it's not a good film. The only reason you mentioned those films was because mentioning films within the genre that might someday be seen as classics wouldn't make your argument very convincing. Besides neither of us can tell the future anyway.

I would also like to point out that the top ten you've shown from this year only contains 3 superhero films (not exactly over saturation), 2 of which received pretty high levels of praise from critics and public alike. Even Spider-Man got pretty good reviews. Hell avengers must be one the most universally well received summer blockbusters of the last decade.

krudler · 10-01-2013 10:47pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Now, let's take a look at 1962's top 10:

1. Lawrence Of Arabia
2. The Longest Day
3. In Search Of The Castaways
4. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane
5. The Music Man
6. Dr. No
7. That Touch Of Mink
8. Mutiny On The Bounty
9. To Kill A Mockingbird
10. Gypsy

No sequels, different genres and at least two bona fide classics in there. Something for everyone - Western, Drama, Comedy, Musical, Family, Thriller, Biopics. Not saying they're all exceptional films, but Jesus, at least you had a choice!

I'm just making the point that if all Hollywood can come up with are re-hashes of the same film over and over again, where does that leave the film fan who actually wishes to see something original at the cineplex? If you love seeing the same characters over and over again, fair enough, but there should be more choices for those of us who don't, other than during Oscar season!

8 of those 10 films are book adaptations, one is based on a stage show. The only original material film there is Lawrence of Arabia and thats based on a historical character.

Just because the top 10 of last year was mostly sequels and rehashes doesn't mean there aren't great movies coming out. You'd swear you were restricted to seeing just those 10 films or something.

Look at the past few months, Life of Pi, The Master, Argo, and earlier stuff like Beasts of the Southern Wild, Samsara, Skyfall, Dredd, Looper, Seven Psychopaths, kids movies like Paranorman and Frankenweenie, there's tons of choice in the past few months alone. Documentaries like The Queen Of Versailles and Searching For Sugarman, indie stuff like Killer Joe and Holy Motors, now granted not all of those get wide releases but there's plenty of choices in films this year.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 11:16pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

So quality doesn't matter now? Then why do you keep mentioning classics?

As I just pointed out, it's very easy to write off a films chances of becoming a classic when it's not a good film. The only reason you mentioned those films was because mentioning films within the genre that might someday be seen as classics wouldn't make your argument very convincing. Besides neither of us can tell the future anyway.

I would also like to point out that the top ten you've shown from this year only contains 3 superhero films (not exactly over saturation), 2 of which received pretty high levels of praise from critics and public alike. Even Spider-Man got pretty good reviews. Hell avengers must be one the most universally well received summer blockbusters of the last decade.

I don't keep mentioning classics - I mentioned the word twice! You really don't seem to be getting what I'm saying at all.
Whether these films were 'universally well received' or not, they are still just regurgitations of the same characters re-hashed into another indentikit film. Hell, the makers of Sider-man felt it was time to reboot the whole franchise only 5 years after the third film in the last franchise came out!
Also, take a look at this forums own film award nominations - under the catagory of 'most overrated film', The Avengers is getting an awful lot of nominations, so not everyone thought it was that great!

Doesn't the fact that 9 out of the top 10 films of last year don't contain any original characters we haven't seen before say something to you about the state of Hollywood today? Do you honestly believe that the big studios are making enough original films for mainstream cineplex audiences?

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 11:40pm

krudler wrote: »

8 of those 10 films are book adaptations, one is based on a stage show. The only original material film there is Lawrence of Arabia and thats based on a historical character.

Just because the top 10 of last year was mostly sequels and rehashes doesn't mean there aren't great movies coming out. You'd swear you were restricted to seeing just those 10 films or something.

Look at the past few months, Life of Pi, The Master, Argo, and earlier stuff like Beasts of the Southern Wild, Samsara, Skyfall, Dredd, Looper, Seven Psychopaths, kids movies like Paranorman and Frankenweenie, there's tons of choice in the past few months alone. Documentaries like The Queen Of Versailles and Searching For Sugarman, indie stuff like Killer Joe and Holy Motors, now granted not all of those get wide releases but there's plenty of choices in films this year.

I was using a snapshot of where Hollywood is at at the moment compared to 40 years ago, I am clearly not saying these were the only films out last year, just the ones that most of the cinema-going audience decided to go and see. They were also widely released in Cinemas around the country.

Book adaptations and stageshows made into films are still original, in that they have not been seen on celluloid before, therefore, they are original characters and stories to the audience. They are not re-hashes or remakes of previous films.

Of the films you mention above, two contain characters already seen before on film (Skyfall and Dredd) and the rest (Life Of Pi and Argo aside) were not released by a major Hollywood studio, so my point stands.

I also said earlier that during Oscar season, Hollywood suddenly ups it's game and releases a few pretty decent films coming up towards the end of the year. It's just a shame they aren't more consistent the rest of the year round.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 11:44pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Btw this just started on Discovery (seeing as its mentioned earlier here)

Platoon: The True Story

Director Oliver Stone and actor Willem Dafoe reveal the truth behind their award winning Vietnam War movie. How accurate is the depiction of the conflict?

I have those programs series linked! I'll watch it tomorrow evening when I have a spare moment.

Looks like an interesting series of documentaries alright.

Evilsbane · 10-01-2013 11:45pm

dark crystal wrote: »

Like I said before, the quality of the films is irrelevant - they still made wads of cash at the box office, despite being awful. I was making the point that very few comic films will ever become classics, yet these are the films that dominate the cinemas at the moment.

Au contraire; Iron Man, Thor, The Avengers and the Dark Knight Trilogy are all instant classics and will be watched in 50 years' time. The Marvel ones are of early Indiana Jones quality and the Batman ones are, well, almost Shakespearean (with all the foreshadowy dramatic irony quotes like "You've known Rachel her whole life?""Not yet, sir"... "They're coming for you, Rachel!""I know, but I don't want them to!"... "A little fight in you. I like that""Then you're gonna love me"... and the obvious ones like the ones about dying a hero or living to see yourself become the villain). Obviously a comparison to Shakespeare is not gonna go down well since people aren't allowed to compare things to Shakespeare, but you can surely agree that they're not just popcorn movies.

In 2012, the top ten films of the year were all either sequels or series in a franchise

You say that like it's such a horrible thing. I might remind you that serials were a common thing back in the early days of cinema.

And come to think of it, they were often based on comics or starred some superhero-like character:
Ace Drummond
Dick Tracy
Flash Gordon
Tarzan
Zorro
The Phantom Rider
Jungle Jim
Secret Agent X-9
Buck Rogers
The Lone Ranger
Fu Manchu
Mandrake the Magician
The Green Hornet
The Shadow
Captain Marvel
Batman
The Phantom
Captain America
Superman

Practically all of the above serials (and many, many more) were crammed into the years spanning 1936 to 1945.

senordingdong · 11-01-2013 12:07am

dark crystal wrote: »

Book adaptations and stageshows made into films are still original, in that they have not been seen on celluloid before, therefore, they are original characters and stories to the audience. They are not re-hashes or remakes of previous films.

I call shenanigans on this.
They are not original ideas or concepts like you are craving.

dark crystal · 11-01-2013 12:25am

senordingdong wrote: »

I call shenanigans on this.
They are not original ideas or concepts like you are craving.

I'm not craving anything, just stating a fact.

In terms of film, these characters and stories were original to the audience. They hadn't seen James Bond on screen before. They hadn't seen Atticus Finch on screen before.

The only characters who had previously been seen on film before were the characters in Mutiny On The Bounty, which had previously been adapted to the screen almost 30 years beforehand.

Mickeroo · 11-01-2013 12:39am

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't keep mentioning classics - I mentioned the word twice! You really don't seem to be getting what I'm saying at all.
Whether these films were 'universally well received' or not, they are still just regurgitations of the same characters re-hashed into another indentikit film. Hell, the makers of Sider-man felt it was time to reboot the whole franchise only 5 years after the third film in the last franchise came out!
Also, take a look at this forums own film award nominations - under the catagory of 'most overrated film', The Avengers is getting an awful lot of nominations, so not everyone thought it was that great!

Doesn't the fact that 9 out of the top 10 films of last year don't contain any original characters we haven't seen before say something to you about the state of Hollywood today? Do you honestly believe that the big studios are making enough original films for mainstream cineplex audiences?

I get exactly what you're saying, I just don't think it holds up to scrutiny.

The films in that top ten are original, the only one that is a bonafide rehash is Spider-Man. Just because characters have appeared in seperate films before does not make the stories the same. The only reason you say they are identikit is that you dislike them.

In answer to all your questions I say yes.

And for the record, when I said avengers received universal acclaim obviously I wasn't suggesting every single human being liked it. Plus, generally films that receive a lot of praise tend to be the ones that are called overrated. Just look at any thread on here on that topic, you'll find some of te best films ever made being called overrated.

Out of interest, how many of the superhero films released(again there's only 3 in that ten btw) have you actually watched?

senordingdong · 11-01-2013 12:45am

dark crystal wrote: »

The only characters who had previously been seen on film before were the characters in Mutiny On The Bounty, which had previously been adapted to the screen almost 30 years beforehand.

Nonetheless, it's an age old matter. It's not something new.
Even Shakespear was at it.
The bottom line is that so long as man can put pen to paper for profit, there will always be rehashes, copies and sequels. And if the spiraling profits tell us nothing, it is that we, the audience can't get enough. Just like when we were children asking our parents to read the same story to us night after night, we love hearing the same story all over again.

Closing points are, that now, just like the rest of time and the time before us, profit dictates these things.
And more importantly, now more than ever, you are spoiled for choice in terms of an alternative.

brianregan09 · 11-01-2013 2:07am

You know its funny these kind of topics pop up on message boards every so often on message boards and it always seems the same message is being sent out, I don't like special affects laden movies it has no substance blah blah blah,

Now there are movies that are considered summer blockbusters that are intolerable balls of rubbish (Transformers, Battleship, Clash/Wrath of the Titans) are mostly terrible terrible movies, Now i know you said comicbook movies, So lets go there yes there have been some awful rubbish put out there, Now im not going to shy away from what i like , But im a comicbook fan myself, and i love these movies when they are done right!, I could point to a number of them that fit what you're saying even on DC's side (someone pointed out there masterful Batman movie) yet for every Batman movie they also had inexplicable failures in the last Superman movie, Jonah Hex and most shockingly Green Lantern (which is a better character than batman)

But likes of Thor, Iron Man 1, Captain America , Avengers, Dark Knight Trilogy will all be considered classics in years to come and there all based on books yes, But so what every sort of media has copied something gone before,

I don't like Arthouse movies or whatever and I don't mind people who do , Its called tolerance basiclly, You have a choice about seeing these movies, Why should ya come in here saying theres too many just cause you don't like them , you choose to come in here and ridicule them instead and ridicule the people who tend to enjoy them

The proliferation of Superhero movies in the modern age of cinema

Comments