James Cameron: "There are too many superhero movies"

[bigdaddy]

With inflation, it's number 6. So yeah, it is kinda' close. And inflation numbers tend to only include domestic, and Titanic made more in foreign, so...

Not really because I saw another list, inflation numbers are kind of hard to figure out, it wasn't even in the top 10. Oddly 6 of the top 10 were Disney Cartoons, and then there was Star Wars. In that list Bambi was the number one movie ever.

My point is they should go by tickets sold, biggest movie ever lines are just a joke and Titanic looks amazing, great works on the sets, the movie itself isn't anything special, that can be said about almost any movie.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Where is this pessimism coming from? The last three major superhero films (Iron Man, The Dark Knight and Watchmen) should have convinced everyone that the genre is thriving, both commercially and artistically.

Did you forget about Wolverine, The Spirit, Punisher: War Zone? Or does the word "major" only apply to movies you liked?

You catch on real quick.

The Spirit can be dismissed. It didn't have a real director.

Punisher: War Zone was a direct-to-DVD movie that was accidentally released to theaters.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a successful film but not nearly as important as Iron Man, The Dark Knight or Watchmen.

Also, Watchmen was far from a huge box office success, and it only has a 64% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is not exactly an overwhelmingly positive reaction.

Unlike you, I don't take my cues from Rotten Tomatoes. And when it comes to box office, Watchmen did OK ($107 million) for an R-rated movie of such length (163 minutes).

 

[Dick Whitman]

Maybe Cameron just does not love Superhero movies. Which does not mean he hates them either. I am not much a fan of fantasy films. I mean of the sword and sorcery variety. But once and a while I will like one.

Does everyone honestly think that this current rate of Superhero film production is going to last indefinitely?

I am not saying that they will burn out completely or go back to the occasional films of the past. There will probably be a group of evergreen characters that there will constantly be films about. A group originally only containing Superman and Batman. Now joined by The X-Men, Spider-man, and Iron Man. With more to join depending on quality of the actual films and the public's fancy. Not on their hierarchy among comic book fans.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Unlike you, I don't take my cues from Rotten Tomatoes. And when it comes to box office, Watchmen did OK ($107 million) for an R-rated movie of such length (163 minutes).

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking my cues from Rotten Tomatoes". You think Watchmen was a great and important film, and that's certainly your right, but the middling critical response would indicate the movie was not as artistically successful as you think.

And I would say $107 million gross for a movie that cost $130 million to make is not quite "OK". The fact that WB decreed "no more R-rated superhero movies" in response to Watchmen's box office indicates it wasn't as financially successful as you think, either.

 

[Captain Craig]

James Cameron has no idea how deep the well really is.
Did I mention I don't care about Avatar? Idiotic statements like this irk me and give me personal reason to not see his movie for $10-14(IMAX).

OH NOES! With threats like these...

Maybe the question Cameron should ask is, "Are there too many flashy F/X ridden movies with no character depth and real drama?"

With the game-changing, magnificent visual spectacle that is Avatar (* * * out of four), writer/director James Cameron can be crowned king of the virtual world.
But he still needs to hire a screenwriter. For all the grandeur and technical virtuosity of the mythical 3-D universe Cameron labored for years to perfect, his characters are one-dimensional, rarely saying anything unexpected.
But for much of the movie, that hardly matters. The scenes in Pandora — a planet with an Earth-like environment — are so breathtaking that the narrative seems almost beside the point.

USAToday thinks its a valid question but still allow themselves to give it ***stars just for the flashy show.
If enough people feel that isn't enough then yes every $10 sale counts. It takes a lot $10.00 to equal a million $$$ film that makes its money back. Just ask Prince Caspian, Speed Racer, Terminator Salvation and we could go on. Those didn't even have nearly the budget Avatar has.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The whole idea of major vs. minor heroes is a tad misguided. The modern era of superhero movies kicked off with Blade, and he's C-list at best (never had a title that's lasted, and Marvel has tried repeatedly to capitalize on the films). Superhero films are a subcategory of action films, and most regular action movies have no source material at all.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Weren't there only two superhero films this year (Watchmen and X-Men Origins: Wolverine)?

What an argument. It'd be more valid to complain about the large amount of sci-fi films released this year (Terminator Salvation, Avatar, Star Trek, District 9, Moon, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Knowing, Push, 2012, Surrogates, The Time Traveler's Wife, The Box, et al)...

 

[Kegg]

Weren't there only two superhero films this year (Watchmen and X-Men Origins: Wolverine)?

This has been an atypical year, particularly post-Spiderman. But yes, this was the year that superheroes took a back seat to robots, aliens and toylines in the multiplex.

Maybe the question Cameron should ask is, "Are there too many flashy F/X ridden movies with no character depth and real drama?"

Maybe.

But hey, there's a ton of superhero movies. And now we've got X-Men 5 on the way, talk of a Spiderman 4, Iron Man 2, Batman 3 (or 7?), and, of course, Thor. And probably a lot more I don't know about. Avengers? What's that, I thought that was a British show.

A point, the guy has. It might be a better tack to argue that the glut of caped crusader movies is a good thing, than assert it isn't quite true.

It takes a lot $10.00 to equal a million $$$ film that makes its money back. Just ask Prince Caspian, Speed Racer, Terminator Salvation and we could go on. Those didn't even have nearly the budget Avatar has.

I don't think any of those have been as universally praised for their spectacle as Avatar did. Avatar is being touted as the king, the current final word in SFX (right up until the next thing comes along, naturally). I don't recall Caspian or Salvation ever being so lauded, and Speed Racer purely for its divisive live-action cartoon element - which, I guess, is Avatar in reverse: Avatar is the cartoon as live-action.

 

[CaptainCanada]

My pet thing-to-throw-rocks at is Thor, of course, of which I've bloviated about elsewhere. Quite simply, only in the current situation Hollywood is in does the idea of adapting a comic book about Thor sound like a better idea than going straight to the Norse myth and giving us a really robust and interesting film (which also would make a more kickass summer blockbuster). It's the 300 effect; history and mythology is better when it's Frank Miller and Stan Lee.

Why would Marvel Studios not adapt one of their big properties to film, particularly when it's part of coordinated plan to make an Avengers franchise? They've been publishing Thor comics for nearly 50 years.

 

[Kegg]

Why would Marvel Studios not adapt one of their big properties to film, particularly when it's part of coordinated plan to make an Avengers franchise? They've been publishing Thor comics for nearly 50 years.

Yes, of course it makes financial sense. I just find the idea of Thor the comic book superhero being more bankable than Thor the Norse God (which he is no doubt, so it's a good call) as being sorta indicative of comic book movie's success, though I also find the idea a trifle absurd.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'd agree - superhero movies are totally wanked out.

 

[payndz201]

I agree with Cameron; the only truly iconic superheroes (that everybody knows even if they have no interest in the genre) are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and maybe the Hulk. They've now been done, several times in Batman's case, and beyond that you just get variations on a theme that become increasingly more obscure and appeal only to hardcore comics nerds. You may be prepared to fight to the death to defend the Green Lantern, but 99% of people would have no idea who he is, and probably think it was the name of some kind of cleaning product.

We've had optimistic superheroes (Superman), dark superheroes (Batman), tortured superheroes (Hulk), rebellious superheroes (Wolverine), gosh-wow superheroes (Fantastic Four), deconstructed superheroes (Watchmen)... what's left? Is a Captain America or Green Lantern movie really going to offer anything that hasn't been seen half a dozen times already in the past five years alone?

Unless they go the sex-comedy superheroes route by filming Empowered, the only further one I'm interested in seeing on the big screen is satirically self-loathing superheroes (Marshal Law, in which the entire concept of superheroes is ridiculed as stunted adolescent power fantasies... and then shot to bloodied pieces.)

 

[Trent Roman]

Honestly, I think that's selective memory at work. I would say most superhero films of the last ten years have ranged from mediocre to outright terrible. But in discussions like this one, people tend to remember Dark Knight and Iron Man and forget all about The Spirit, Wolverine, Punisher, the Fantastic Four movies, etc.

Or rather, subjective appraisal. You're almost certainly right that the bad ones sink while the good ones remain vibrant, but even at that, an honest accounting of (my own) likes and dislikes in the modern era of superhero films finds it to be pretty top heavy.

Awesome: X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, Dark Knight, Watchmen
Good: X-Men 2, Daredevil (Director's Cut), The Incredible Hulk, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Hellboy, V for Vendetta
OK: Fantastic Four, Spider-Man 3, Ghost Rider, Wolverine
Meh: Punisher, X-Men 3, Hellboy 2
Teh Suckz: Fantastic Four 2, Elektra, Hulk, Superman Returns
Haven't seen: Punisher: War Zone, Catwoman, The Spirit

Granted, those last films are likely to gets classified in the lower tier if I ever watch them, but even at that, the genre's doing well where I'm concerned. And for the sheer pleasure of the films in the 'awesome' category, I'm more than willing to put up with the occasional stinkers like FF2 or Superman.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

With inflation, it's number 6. So yeah, it is kinda' close. And inflation numbers tend to only include domestic, and Titanic made more in foreign, so...

Not really because I saw another list, inflation numbers are kind of hard to figure out, it wasn't even in the top 10. Oddly 6 of the top 10 were Disney Cartoons, and then there was Star Wars. In that list Bambi was the number one movie ever.

My point is they should go by tickets sold, biggest movie ever lines are just a joke and Titanic looks amazing, great works on the sets, the movie itself isn't anything special, that can be said about almost any movie.

If you don't adjust for inflation, it gives an unfair advantage to newer movies. If you just count tickets sold, it's not necessarily fair either. Newer movies are handicapped because there are so many alternate forms of entertainment that exist now that didn't exist back then. Gone with the Wind didn't have to compete with the internet, video games, TV, & home video. And while it's true that tickets are more expensive now than they used to be, doesn't it say something about the quality of a movie that people are willing to spend a larger amount of their income on it? If I saw Snow White for $1 and Star Trek for $10, doesn't that mean I wanted to see Star Trek 10 times more badly?

 

[Harvey]

$1 had a lot more buying power when it was enough money to afford a movie ticket, so your comparison doesn't quite work out.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

Gone with the Wind didn't have to compete with the internet, video games, TV, & home video.

On the other hand, at the time Gone With the Wind came out, there were about 130 million people in the US, and by the time Titanic came out there were over twice as many people, which certainly gave Titanic the edge in selling more tickets.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Another factor would be that people tended to go see movies repeatedly more often in that era (after all, with no home video, if you didn't get your fill when it came out the chances were good you wouldn't see it again).

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Here's what makes no sense about Cameron's statement: most movies are based on books, short stories, etc. Seriously. Check the credits on most of them. You'd be surprised how many movies are based on novels and short stories and don't make a big deal out of this fact. If it's not a major book like a Harry Potter or a Twilight, little attention will be drawn to this fact.

Cameron might as well say there are too many movies based on books.

 

[Harvey]

Not really. If Cameron had said, "there are too many movies based on comic books," you'd have a point. But he wasn't attacking the medium, just the narrow genre of the superhero.

A genre which has been oversaturating the movie market in the past few years. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Catwoman, The Spirit, and The Fantastic Four weren't based on wildly popular stories ready to be told on film. They were based on the studios desire to cash-in on the superhero genre.

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Not really. If Cameron had said, "there are too many movies based on comic books," you'd have a point. But he wasn't attacking the medium, just the narrow genre of the superhero.

A genre which has been oversaturating the movie market in the past few years. X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Catwoman, The Spirit, and The Fantastic Four weren't based on wildly popular stories ready to be told on film. They were based on the studios desire to cash-in on the superhero genre.

Personally, I'd take a Road to Perdition, a Men in Black, a Sin City or an American Splendor over any of those films given the opportunity.