The proliferation of Superhero movies in the modern age of cinema

Ares · 10-01-2013 2:00am #1

There a frankly ridiculous amount of films being made over the past 10 years dedicated to superheroes and comic books. I detest this assault that Hollywood is launching at us. Tired franchises like Transformers which now moves onto its fourth film under Michael Bay with talks of further films eminating from other aspects of the Transformers story. Awful, awful, stuff.

The likes of The Avengers, the 7 X-Men films that have been made and the Iron Men franchises all visit the same tired, cliched storylines: that of robots and saving the earth from a doomsday, apololyptic end.

There are no engaging themes, most of the films are pretty much the same inevitable conclusions with lots of killing, shooting, robots crashing and probably a lovestory thrown into the mix for good measure. I really like film, and it is something which I have developed a massive interest in over the past couple of months. But to see the same shít rammed down my throat, its a bit sickening to be frank.

In saying that I did thoroughly enjoy the Dark Knight series and Spider Man II was an excellent film. Why was the Dark Knight so enjoyable? Because Batman wasn't that fúcking special. He threw on a suit, hopped in the Batmobile and off he went to commit both good and bad acts. His interactions with the likes of Freeman's and Oldham's characters show his humanity while Ledger acts superbly. The film was about the acting and Nolan's vision not about loud noises, explosions and guns. This to me is what a superhero to me should be about.

I see that a Deadpool movie is being made, as if X-Men hadn't been pillaged enough. And this is a quote from Rob Liefeld on the film;

Katana swords, guns, shooting people’s faces off and making me laugh. And you’ve got what would amount to the first R Rated X-Men movie.

And to be quite frank, I can't help but wonder what really is the point of making this movie. Are Hollywood so out of ideas that there must be 4 or 5 Comic blockbusters every year? Hasn't the X-Men series been pillaged enough? Really? Is this where we're at? When the likes of The Master wasn't even shown in my local cinema in Limerick while I'm sure Man Of Steel will be shown 10 to 12 times a day when it comes out. It makes me despair thinking about it.

don ramo · 10-01-2013 2:36am

Ares wrote: »

There a frankly ridiculous amount of films being made over the past 10 years dedicated to superheroes and comic books. I detest this assault that Hollywood is launching at us. Tired franchises like Transformers which now moves onto its fourth film under Michael Bay with talks of further films eminating from other aspects of the Transformers story. Awful, awful, stuff.

The likes of The Avengers, the 7 X-Men films that have been made and the Iron Men franchises all visit the same tired, cliched storylines: that of robots and saving the earth from a doomsday, apololyptic end.

There are no engaging themes, most of the films are pretty much the same inevitable conclusions with lots of killing, shooting, robots crashing and probably a lovestory thrown into the mix for good measure. I really like film, and it is something which I have developed a massive interest in over the past couple of months. But to see the same shít rammed down my throat, its a bit sickening to be frank.

In saying that I did thoroughly enjoy the Dark Knight series and Spider Man II was an excellent film. Why was the Dark Knight so enjoyable? Because Batman wasn't that fúcking special. He threw on a suit, hopped in the Batmobile and off he went to commit both good and bad acts. His interactions with the likes of Freeman's and Oldham's characters show his humanity while Ledger acts superbly. The film was about the acting and Nolan's vision not about loud noises, explosions and guns. This to me is what a superhero to me should be about.

I see that a Deadpool movie is being made, as if X-Men hadn't been pillaged enough. And this is a quote from Rob Liefeld on the film;

And to be quite frank, I can't help but wonder what really is the point of making this movie. Are Hollywood so out of ideas that there must be 4 or 5 Comic blockbusters every year? Hasn't the X-Men series been pillaged enough? Really? Is this where we're at? When the likes of The Master wasn't even shown in my local cinema in Limerick while I'm sure Man Of Steel will be shown 10 to 12 times a day when it comes out. It makes me despair thinking about it.

in your opinion of course,

the reason there are so many superhero films is because they are POPULAR, and the interesting isnt slowing down, The Avengers grossed over $1.5billion dollars last year (third highest off all time), and The Dark Knight Rises grossed over $1billion (and it wasnt in 3D),

and you asked how many more ideas they can come up with go read the 60+ years of comics that are available and full of stories that still remain untapped even after 10+ years of superhero films,

something a bit away from mainstream comic book films would be the likes of Watchmen, Scott Pilgrim Vs The World and Kick Ass, most people grew up on X-Men, Spiderman, Batman and Superman we all know their stories, if your tired of them there is a lot more out there to read and watch,

films based on comic books are extremely hit and miss, what about the John Carter film last year tanking at the BO, as did Scott Pilgrim a few years back, it easy to remember success, both those films i thoroughly enjoyed just as much as i did with Captain America or Iron Man,

also remember that terrible Daredevil film or Electra, or Catwoman, or Judge Dredd (Stallones one) and lest we not forget Ghost Rider:o:o:o:o

johnny_ultimate · 10-01-2013 2:55am

I sympathise with your plight OP, not least because I am also feeling more than a hint of superhero fatigue in the last year. Superhero films are insanely profitable though, and Hollywood studios are a business first and foremost even if idealistically we'd like to think otherwise. Audiences want them, Hollywood is sensible to supply. It's baffling to me that huge audiences went to see a third Transformers film after two films of sufficient warning. But they did, and Michael Bay and the execs would be foolish to stop offering that product when it's so obscenely profitable. Artistic merit doesn't factor into it.

However, I don't think any film is forced on us - while its never going to happen, audiences could just proactively stop going and that'd sort things out hastily. I think the real problem boils down to a frequently articulated one on this forum - the plight of the non-central film fan. We Dublin folk have it easy with a wider selection of cinemas, so it's not as much of a concern here. Anywhere else isn't as lucky. Alas, the audience probably just isn't there to sustain art house cinemas elsewhere in Ireland, even the other cities.

There are alternatives, though. While nothing beats the cinema, DVD, BluRay and online distribution at least assure you do have access to most films, albeit with a bit of a wait. Also worth looking into local cinema clubs - Access Cinema are great for national screenings of niche titles. And when interesting or offbeat films do show up in cinemas, ensure you go and drag friends along too. They're not going to keep showing riskier stuff unless there's an audience. Make sure there is.

It's not just bad superhero films that are the problem - just one symptom of risk averse studios and, yep, audiences. But at the same time at least you have the opportunity to choose not to support them. Just make sure you go out of your way to support the films you do want to see, in whatever way you can. There's always dozens if not hundreds of great films being released, and only a tiny fraction feature costumed heroes. You might not get them in your local multiplex, but they're still accessible with a bit of effort!

the_syco · 10-01-2013 3:10am

It makes money. Lots of money. And they know you'll most likely watch it even though you'll hate them for making it. But these will get shown everywhere, as they'll bring in money.

TBH, you'll probably need to look on certain sites, for films that get high IMDB scores, but no foreign launch. Although Intouchables got a small release here, and was very good, many great films don't have the distribution budget to get them released abroad.

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 4:21am

I am so so so so delighted they are making superhero movies and I really hope they continue to do so. As someone who's loved the concept of superheroes since I first saw Superman I & II as a child and got into the various animated series & comic books as I got older I genuinely don't want them to stop.

Sure there's been a few turkeys along the way but genuinely, I can think of more that range from pretty good to outright brilliant than I can think of straight up bad since they started making them.

I disagree that there's no engaging themes etc. too obviously. Sure a lot of them follow the same template in terms of how they play out, but meh, so do Spaghetti westerns and plenty of films I can think of in other genres. Once the obligatory origin movie is out of the way i think they tend to improve in that regard anyway.

Whats happened with Superhero films really is no different from what happened with the Western back in the day, I'm sure there was folks sick to the teeth of those too at some point. The genre will eventually lose its box office appeal like every other trend before it, and they'll stop making so much of them, or even any at all. In the meantime all I can suggest is dont watch any of them, meanwhile I'll be in the cinema enjoying it while it lasts.

Liam McPoyle · 10-01-2013 8:53am

If it bothers you that much OP,just do what I do,ignore them,dont pay to go and see them.

As for why there is a constant slew of them,as mentioned above,they are insanely profitable.

That coupled with the fact that modern day Hollywood is more about CGI and flashing images aswell as being depressingly redundant when it comes to new ideas it means they are here to stay.

10-01-2013 9:32am

Totally agree with the OP. The splurge of superhero blockbusters coming out these days can be compared to the pop music garbage that is passed for music. Its insanely profitable yes, and yes we have the choice to watch it or not, but that doesn't mask the fact that its rehashed tripe with zero creativity, writing skills and all it achieves is further dumming down the expectation and brains of our youth when it comes to the art forms.
The last one I tried to watch THe Avengers I turned off after half an hour because things have gotten so basic and predictable with these movies that they are even beyond mindless popcorn entertainment.
You would think as society advances, movies would advance. The technology in them certainly has but as far as the artistic form in the main stream it continues to go backwards at an alarming rate.
Fortunately we have choice of what we want to watch, but that doesn't hide the fact that an incredible amount of tripe is being peddled in the cinemas these days.

Fysh · 10-01-2013 12:46pm

Ah, the good old "$MEDIUM has gone really bad these days, they used to be so much better back in $SOME_TIME_EARLIER" argument.

I'm not all that big a fan of superheroes. Like any genre construct, it can be used for engaging narratives, but my personal impression is that the most interesting stuff in the genre has been from relatively left-field sources - things like Super or Chronicle. The stuff that has a pedigree is, by virtue of needing to maintain that pedigree, less likely to be genuinely adventurous. (I think probably the best example of doing this well is the Nolan Batman trilogy, but to my mind there are far more mediocre-to-downright-dreadful superhero films than good ones).

However, these films make money, just like bad romantic comedies, or terrible potty-humour films, or those terrible Wayan Bros. style parodies, or any number of other types of crap film that get churned out.

The key here is that the entertainment industry is built around making money. These things (bad films, bad music, bad whatever) make money, whether or not they are a pinnacle of artistry. To pretend this hasn't always been the case is to be ignorant of history. Telling yourself that music/film/comics/art/food used to be better way back in $INSERT_PERCEIVED_GOLDEN_AGE_OF_CHOICE is to merely apply the rose-tinted spectacles of nostalgia, with their built-in filtering of all the tediously-real garbage that was around at the time but less worthy of your time and attention. (One example might be "if you just look at the well-regarded releases of the year, 1994 was an amazing year for film, but that means ignoring crapfests like Police Academy 7: Mission to Moscow").

There have been a number of threads in the past on the general thesis that "films are rubbish these days, they used to be great" and they're worth searching out for two reasons:
1) you'll realise you're not the only person who feels this way, and
2) you will, hopefully, gain a new context from reading the responses that helps you understand that what you see now is pretty much what has always been the case.

LiamMc · 10-01-2013 1:06pm

There are plenty of films to watch.

Cartoons/Comic Books are only one genre/genre.
I have no sympathy for the viewers that liked cartoons but now don't like cartoons do much. The original consumer choice is part of the continuation of the Success of that genre.

I have watched cartoon films in the Cinema. Superman (liked),Superman III (liked) and Iron Man (appallingly stereo-typed, didn't like).

krudler · 10-01-2013 1:12pm

You can say the same about crappy horror movies, there's more than ever, but I don't tend to watch films I've no interest in.

McLoughlin · 10-01-2013 1:15pm

What about the proliferation of Universal Horror/Monster movies in the 30s ? Westerns in the 40s ? Sci Fi B Movies in the 50s ? Horror Franchises in the 80s ? etc etc

Its been happening since the birth of cinema something becomes popular and gets made and made till the "new" thing comes along. Don't like it don't watch

krudler · 10-01-2013 1:23pm

Then there's the fact that not all comic movies are the same, Watchmen, Super, Kick-Ass, American Splendour to name but a few don't fall under the same comic heading as stuff like Avengers and Ghost Rider. What about Road To Perdition? That's technically a comic movie as it was a graphic novel first.

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 1:35pm

Ares wrote: »

There a frankly ridiculous amount of films being made over the past 10 years dedicated to superheroes and comic books. I detest this assault that Hollywood is launching at us. Tired franchises like Transformers which now moves onto its fourth film under Michael Bay with talks of further films eminating from other aspects of the Transformers story. Awful, awful, stuff.

The likes of The Avengers, the 7 X-Men films that have been made and the Iron Men franchises all visit the same tired, cliched storylines: that of robots and saving the earth from a doomsday, apololyptic end.

There are no engaging themes, most of the films are pretty much the same inevitable conclusions with lots of killing, shooting, robots crashing and probably a lovestory thrown into the mix for good measure. I really like film, and it is something which I have developed a massive interest in over the past couple of months. But to see the same shít rammed down my throat, its a bit sickening to be frank.

In saying that I did thoroughly enjoy the Dark Knight series and Spider Man II was an excellent film. Why was the Dark Knight so enjoyable? Because Batman wasn't that fúcking special. He threw on a suit, hopped in the Batmobile and off he went to commit both good and bad acts. His interactions with the likes of Freeman's and Oldham's characters show his humanity while Ledger acts superbly. The film was about the acting and Nolan's vision not about loud noises, explosions and guns. This to me is what a superhero to me should be about.

I see that a Deadpool movie is being made, as if X-Men hadn't been pillaged enough. And this is a quote from Rob Liefeld on the film;

And to be quite frank, I can't help but wonder what really is the point of making this movie. Are Hollywood so out of ideas that there must be 4 or 5 Comic blockbusters every year? Hasn't the X-Men series been pillaged enough? Really? Is this where we're at? When the likes of The Master wasn't even shown in my local cinema in Limerick while I'm sure Man Of Steel will be shown 10 to 12 times a day when it comes out. It makes me despair thinking about it.

Modern Hollywood's output is mainly aimed at teenage boys unfortunately

. As has been said elsewhere, apart from a few decent mainstream ones (Argo springs to mind) and Indie US ones intelligent adults like myself seeking good films are looking to European and World cinema.

10-01-2013 1:36pm

Its true the medium of popular music and popular cinema is based around money, thats not up for debate.
However gone are the days when people like Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Eagles and so on are the ones at the top of popular music. That fact is those guys didnt produce manufactured music created for the minds of teenyboppers they actually created artistic self designed music and that music still made money and sold so much it had them top of the charts. So when you are saying history has always been the same I dont agree.
There was a point in time when music veered off to manufactured boy bands, and popularising people because of an aesthetic look as opposed to the quality of the music. And the record companies forced this music into popularity by buying it all up and manufacturing the top ten in the charts and so on. That did not happen throughout history at all. Maybe the turning point was the early 90's.

The same can be said of popular movies, and the highest grossing movies in cinema history. Lets take the 1980's for example

ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, chariots of fire, Empire strikes back, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to the Future, Top gun, Ferris Buellers Day off. These were the blockbuster movies, the highest grossing ones made for the masses and and for all ages mostly. So where is the regurgitated ****e amongst that? They are the most promoted movies of that time and can be equated in my opinion to these blockbusters of today around the superhero movies in terms of promotion and target market. The difference is they are original and creative movies. Im not talking about B movies, crappy horrors, Im talking about the heavily promoted 'blockbusters'.

And I love a blockbuster with special effects as much as the next guy. I love getting a large popcorn and sitting through entertainment that may be meaningless but is still fresh and at least has an original script and storyline.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 1:42pm

I agree with you 100% OP, but we are the minority and you'll only really get the usual "If you don't like them, don't watch them" type response unfortunately.

It's definitely an oversaturated market, but people keep flocking to see them in droves, so I don't see Hollywood trying too hard to make much else in the forseeable future. Money talks, so the more money spent on franchises, sequels, comic book films etc the better as far as the big studios are concerned because they're more likely to get a big return than on something more original on a smaller scale.

It's a shame that I can't go to the one cinema where I live any more to watch something more engaging than another guy in a costume saving the world against a badly written villian in CGI any more, so I just don't go! I just wait for a smaller, more interesting film to come out on DVD and support those films instead.

The days of great political and dramatic thrillers, courtroom dramas, biopics, historical epics etc. being released in mainstream cinema are largely over now, although you do get a few released around Oscar season. As someone else said, on the rare occasion an original, quality film does get a big screen release, try and support it, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them. You really have to look to independent cinema for anything of any real quality these days, not the big cineplexes, as they just don't make the money the mega big-budget fodder does.

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 1:51pm

dark crystal wrote: »

I agree with you 100% OP, but we are the minority and you'll only really get the usual "If you don't like them, don't watch them" type response unfortunately.

It's definitely an oversaturated market, but people keep flocking to see them in droves, so I don't see Hollywood trying too hard to make much else in the forseeable future. Money talks, so the more money spent on franchises, sequels, comic book films etc the better as far as the big studios are concerned because they're more likely to get a big return than on something more original on a smaller scale.

It's a shame that I can't go to the one cinema where I live any more to watch something more engaging than another guy in a costume saving the world against a badly written villian in CGI any more, so I just don't go! I just wait for a smaller, more interesting film to come out on DVD and support those films instead.

The days of great political and dramatic thrillers, courtroom dramas, biopics, historical epics etc. being released in mainstream cinema are largely over now, although you do get a few released around Oscar season. As someone else said, on the rare occasion an original, quality film does get a big screen release, try and support it, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them. You really have to look to independent cinema for anything of any real quality these days, not the big cineplexes, as they just don't make the money the mega big-budget fodder does.

Thats why I was so excited when I went to see Argo, I couldn't believe that it and not a load of CG nonsense like The Hobbit, Battleships or Transformers was in Savoy 1, I actually had a big smile on my face after it for the rest of the day!

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 1:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Its true the medium of popular music and popular cinema is based around money, thats not up for debate.
However gone are the days when people like Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Eagles and so on are the ones at the top of popular music. That fact is those guys didnt produce manufactured music created for the minds of teenyboppers they actually created artistic self designed music and that music still made money and sold so much it had them top of the charts. So when you are saying history has always been the same I dont agree.
There was a point in time when music veered off to manufactured boy bands, and popularising people because of an aesthetic look as opposed to the quality of the music. And the record companies forced this music into popularity by buying it all up and manufacturing the top ten in the charts and so on. That did not happen throughout history at all. Maybe the turning point was the early 90's.

All you're doing is ignoring all the brilliant music thats around today too. There was manufactured ****e doing the rounds when Jimi & Bowie were doing their thing, nobody remembers that crap though. The same will be said of this era in 40 years time.

Deleted User wrote: »

The same can be said of popular movies, and the highest grossing movies in cinema history. Lets take the 1980's for example

ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, chariots of fire, Empire strikes back, Ghostbusters, Beverly Hills Cop, Back to the Future, Top gun, Ferris Buellers Day off. These were the blockbuster movies, the highest grossing ones made for the masses and and for all ages mostly. So where is the regurgitated ****e amongst that? They are the most promoted movies of that time and can be equated in my opinion to these blockbusters of today around the superhero movies in terms of promotion and target market. The difference is they are original and creative movies. Im not talking about B movies, crappy horrors, Im talking about the heavily promoted 'blockbusters'.

And I love a blockbuster with special effects as much as the next guy. I love getting a large popcorn and sitting through entertainment that may be meaningless but is still fresh and at least has an original script and storyline.

Again you're just naming the classics of the era. At the end of the day it comes down to a combination of your opinion & rose tinted glasses.

Iron Man, Avengers , Batman Trilogy, Spider-man 1 & 2, Thor, Captain America, X-Men 1 & 2, Hellboy 1 & 2.....all these films were (and still are) extremely popular, and critically acclaimed i might add. Since we're talking about superhero movies I left out LOTR, Harry Potter 3 - 8, everything Pixar has done, Pirates of the Carribean 1. I'm sure there's more but cant think of them off the top of my head.

10-01-2013 2:03pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

All you're doing is ignoring all the brilliant music thats around today too. There was manufactured ****e doing the rounds when Jimi & Bowie were doing their thing, nobody remembers that crap though. The same will be said of this era in 40 years time.

Again you're just naming the classics of the era. At the end of the day it comes down to a combination of your opinion & rose tinted glasses.

Iron Man, Avengers , Batman Trilogy, Spider-man 1 & 2, Thor, Captain America, X-Men 1 & 2, Hellboy 1 & 2.....all these films were (and still are) extremely popular, and critically acclaimed i might add. Since we're talking about superhero movies I left out LOTR, Harry Potter 3 - 8, everything Pixar has done, Pirates of the Carribean 1. I'm sure there's more but cant think of them off the top of my head.

Iron Man, Avengers, Thor, Captain America critically acclaimed? Give me a break man seriously. Don't you see they are just a rehash of eachother with almost identical plots? If this is what the critics are acclaiming today then we are more doomed then I thought.
And no I didnt just pick random movies with my rose tint, I picked the highest grossing movies of the 1980's year by year. Research it and you will see. I could be exaggerating on the music examples because Im sure there was plenty of tripe back then as well, but on films Im pointing to the facts of the highest grossing blockbuster movies of the 80's vs what is highest grossing movies of today.
And the recent Bond flick demonstrates a movie does not have to be good at all to pull in huge numbers of people who have had their minds dumbed down over the last decade or so in cinema's. You can even put the greatest international spy of all time in a dark house in scotland for the last 30 minutes of a film for a home alone rehash and people will still stay they like it and its good.

krudler · 10-01-2013 2:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Iron Man, Avengers, Thor, Captain America critically acclaimed? Give me a break man seriously. Don't you see they are just a rehash of eachother with almost identical plots? If this is what the critics are acclaiming today then we are more doomed then I thought.
And no I didnt just pick random movies with my rose tint, I picked the highest grossing movies of the 1980's year by year. Research it and you will see. I could be exaggerating on the music examples because Im sure there was plenty of tripe back then as well, but on films Im pointing to the facts of the highest grossing blockbuster movies of the 80's vs what is highest grossing movies of today.
And the recent Bond flick demonstrates a movie does not have to be good at all to pull in huge numbers of people who have had their minds dumbed down over the last decade or so in cinema's. You can even put the greatest international spy of all time in a dark house in scotland for the last 30 minutes of a film for a home alone rehash and people will still stay they like it and its good.

As opposed to? fighting a cartoon villain in a hollowed out volcano? Skyfall even for its faults was an interesting departure from the Bond template.

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 2:15pm

"JJ Abrams has told how he was 'forced' into making the new 'Star Trek' sequel in 3D, despite his disliking for the format. The director of 'Star Trek Into Darkness' added that Paramount would only green-light the project if he complied."

This doesn't help either, I hate 3D and if I can't find a 2D showing will skip it completely, my days of going to see any American mainstream films at all in the cinema are probably over with the likes of this kind of shiite. :mad:

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 2:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Iron Man, Avengers, Thor, Captain America critically acclaimed? Give me a break man seriously. Don't you see they are just a rehash of eachother with almost identical plots? If this is what the critics are acclaiming today then we are more doomed then I thought.
And no I didnt just pick random movies with my rose tint, I picked the highest grossing movies of the 1980's year by year. Research it and you will see. I could be exaggerating on the music examples because Im sure there was plenty of tripe back then as well, but on films Im pointing to the facts of the highest grossing blockbuster movies of the 80's vs what is highest grossing movies of today.
And the recent Bond flick demonstrates a movie does not have to be good at all to pull in huge numbers of people who have had their minds dumbed down over the last decade or so in cinema's. You can even put the greatest international spy of all time in a dark house in scotland for the last 30 minutes of a film for a home alone rehash and people will still stay they like it and its good.

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.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 2:26pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Thats why I was so excited when I went to see Argo, I couldn't believe that it and not a load of CG nonsense like The Hobbit, Battleships or Transformers was in Savoy 1, I actually had a big smile on my face after it for the rest of the day!

I know! At last, a film I could go to the cinema and enjoy!

Affleck is doing great things recently, but he's one of the rare few handful of directors who can get a halfway original quality film made by the big studios, with a decent release.
I suppose you could say Clint Eastwood, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino are another few who have the power to stray from the Hollywood formula, make original films and still get backing from a major studio. I always look forward to hearing what new projects they have coming out.

.....And not a superhero film amongst the lot of 'em!

Fysh · 10-01-2013 2:27pm

El Rifle, you've either refused to actually do your research or missed my point completely.

Let's pick a random year - via a random date picker, I get 1980.

The Shining, Empire Strikes Back, Airplane, The Blues Brothers, Raging Bull, Mad Max, The Fog? Damn, 1980 was pretty good, right? Not like today and our manufactured pap.

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. Citing Jimi Hendrix doesn't prove that pop music used to be inherently better, it proves that there was at least one Jimi-Hendrix-quality musician who achieved widespread success in the pop music industry in the past. It does not prove that such an individual woudl not achieve success now, and in any case you're relying on a non-existent link between "commercial success" and either "critical success" or "artistic merit as judged by a concensus of experts in the field".

Factoring in that 1980 also saw the release of such glories as Popeye (starring Robin Williams), My Bodyguard (with Matt Dillon), Alligator (with a sewer-living alligator), Xanadu (with Olivia Newton-John) and Raise The Titanic, I think that reviewing some of the crappier releases that accompanied the classics I listed above shows 1980 not to be the amazing year it might first appear if judged only by the best works released then.

On the topic of superhero films in particular, if I had to choose one superhero film as my favourite it would be The Incredibles.

I do think that a lot of other superhero films have been given a relative pass on critical grounds because of the fond nostalgia many have for the characters: for example, while X-Men was good for its time it hasn't aged particularly well, and I thought Raimi's Spiderman films were mediocre at best to begin with. For my money the first Blade film (which was also technically a superhero comic adaptation, but not based on a high-profile character and thus not marketed accordingly) stands head and shoulders above both sets of films. And that's before we talk about lesser efforts like, say, Steel, the 90's Captain America, Generation X or Batman & Robin.

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.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 2:38pm

Fysh wrote: »

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.

But why should they?

The masses will pay their money for the ticket whether the film is good or awful. The quality of the film really doesn't matter any more, just as long as the same faces in the same costumes do the same things they did in the last film.

pixelburp · 10-01-2013 2:39pm

It's easy to find the past better than the present, when you have the benefit of hindsight to pick & choose your champions of a particular year / decade. Given time, the 2000s will be seen as a stellar decade for cinema - a time of exciting new technologies, artists and techniques, and nobody will remember the trash that passed through at the time. Michael Bay will be a footnote, likely forgotten. Getting hot and bothered because fad-X is the hot new trend is raging against the tides tbh. Cowboy films flooded 50s/60s cinemas, 'disaster' flicks were hot in the 70s... so it goes...

Arguably, given how common movie theatres are, or home-cinema arrangements at that, cinema has never been so inclusive and wide-ranging in offering something for everyones taste. Broad, popular entertainment won't go away anytime soon - and pretending its not legitimate entertainment in its own right is a bit disingenuous - but to me cinema has broadened its scope, not lessened. All that's happened is that the bigger popular releases have become noisier in their marketing.

pixelburp · 10-01-2013 2:44pm

dark crystal wrote: »

But why should they?

The masses will pay their money for the ticket whether the film is good or awful. The quality of the film really doesn't matter any more, just as long as the same faces in the same costumes do the same things they did in the last film.

You seem to think this is a new phenomenon? John Wayne made a career out of swapping costumes & doing the same thing. Charlie Chaplin too if you want to go really far back, back to the dawn of cinema in effect, but funnily enough both actors are generally praised as legends of their time.

The 'masses' haven't changed, despite what you might think. Depending on how you view the public, they've never changed.

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 2:44pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Arguably, given how common movie theatres are, or home-cinema arrangements at that, cinema has never been so inclusive and wide-ranging in offering something for everyones taste. Broad, popular entertainment won't go away anytime soon - and pretending its not legitimate entertainment in its own right is a bit disingenuous - but to me cinema has broadened its scope, not lessened. All that's happened is that the bigger popular releases have become noisier in their marketing.

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.

senordingdong · 10-01-2013 2:47pm

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.

dark crystal · 10-01-2013 3:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You seem to think this is a new phenomenon? John Wayne made a career out of swapping costumes & doing the same thing. Charlie Chaplin too if you want to go really far back, back to the dawn of cinema in effect, but funnily enough both actors are generally praised as legends of their time.

The 'masses' haven't changed, despite what you might think. Depending on how you view the public, they've never changed.

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

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.

Yes, the independent studios have produced some wonderful films recently, but I just wish the major studios had a bit more faith in the intelligence of their audience. I don't agree there's much choice in the cineplexes any more for those who have no interest in sequels, prequels, comic books, action flicks and franchises.
Where are the original, well written films that just tell a simple story well with no bells and whistles? Not in my local cineplex I'm afraid...

Technocentral · 10-01-2013 3:12pm

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.

Only thing Mickeroo is they increasingly take up all the larger and better screens.

Mickeroo · 10-01-2013 3:19pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Only thing Mickeroo is they increasingly take up all the larger and better screens.

Yeah there's no denying that. The statement I made above wasn't just aimed at cinemas but Blu-ray/stremaing services etc.

But as someone who lives in Mayo I can relate to not being able to go and see certain films in the cinema. The Master never made it down here, generally if I want to see something outside of major blockbusters I have to drive over two hours to Galway. Occasionally Castlebar will have the odd indie/foreign movie, but usually only ones that reach some sort of sleeper hit status, and thank god for the Westport Film Club too for the films they get screened. So I fully agree in that regard.

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.

The proliferation of Superhero movies in the modern age of cinema

Comments