I don't know if people are superhero fatique, or bad writing/terrible special effects fatique, which I am.
For me it's because it follows on from WandaVision. I was lucky enough to not have been spoiled for Xavier's appearance.like for example Multiverse of Madness, it's because I can do shit on my phone and drink a beer or two and some snacks and check up on stuff on my phone and chat with friends and look up every now and than and go 'Yeah, it was cool that Sir Patrick came back for this'. That's it.
Well, you virtually can say the same about westerns: they can be drama, comedy, horror and so on. The fact remains that at some point people stopped going to see them.The reason I'm skeptical of the idea of superhero fatigue is that superhero fiction encompasses many different genres -- science fiction, fantasy, crime drama, horror, espionage, space opera, you name it. Even if audiences can get tired of a particular genre, it's hard to buy that they could get tired of all of them at once.
Well, you virtually can say the same about westerns: they can be drama, comedy, horror and so on. The fact remains that at some point people stopped going to see them.
I see many comparing superhero fatigue to western fatigue in the early 70's. Who was there, can you give me your opinion? Was there a moment when it felt like audiences just got tired of cowboys and guns?
Cavill had potential that was never seen to the fullest. Affleck never worked for me; I only saw him as Ben Affleck in a Batman suit and nothing more. Gadot was excellent casting but lived or died based on the strength of her given material.
When people start claiming that only one or two actors/actresses were the perfect ones in a particular role, I really have great difficulty in agreeing with this assessment.
There's an Australian western.Christopher said:Westerns can only be stories set in the colonial West of North America (although there can be stories set elsewhere that pastiche the genre, like Mad Max or Outland).
Spielberg made a similar comparison, and he's not incorrect in the grand scheme of things. Despite some bigger budgeted and/or well-performing Westerns released at the end of the 60s (e.g., 1968's Hang 'Em High, 1969's True Grit, The Wild Bunch, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid), and into the dawn of the next decade (1973's High Plains Drifter for one example), movie audience across several generations had been soaked in Western movies (and endless TV series) to the point that no new take on the basic genre was going to make said genre fresh and worthy of audiences' precious time as in earlier decades.
Contrary to the simplistic view that the rise of other movie genres (the Disaster movies, gritty police dramas, big-budget horror films, etc.) were the one and only reason for the decline of the Western, the problem was from within, as there were only so many stories the industry could set in the 19th century's American West, Mexico, etc., before it became a repetitious blur. Superhero films of the 21st century have reached that point in less than 23 years, with a flood of productions all wanting to milk as many licensed properties for as long as possible. The issue rests with that desire far exceeding the ability to create compelling stories. If anyone can be truly honest with themselves, would they say 50 to 70% of this century's superhero movies are great? I'm not hearing that from any sizable number of movie goers just speaking their minds. The Western reached that same point, and could not provide a positive answer to that percentage question, hence its rapid decline, so few should be surprised if the superhero film faces a similarly severe drop off (more than what's happening now).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.