• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Deadline New York: Superhero film genre dying

2

23skidoo

Admiral
Admiral
Why is it that whenever San Diego ComicCon rolls around, some magazine decides it's time to declare "fill in the blank genre" is dead? Deadline New York is running an obituary for the superhero film genre.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/report-studios-should-prepare-for-the-death-of-superheroes

One of the reasons why I posted this isn't just to spark discussion about the topic (for the record, I don't feel the genre is dying; it's just that filmmakers haven't been able to come up with a story/character/casting combination that has captured the imagination the way Iron Man and Dark Knight did, and on a few occasions - such as the failed Wonder Woman pilot - they miss the boat on what made the characters work), but that some of the user comments really trash superhero films. Not as "XYZ is a bad movie", but calling for the entire genre to be wiped from existence. Some folks might want to reply to that!

It's a case of standing up for the honor of SF/F! (Or at least those brave actors who dress up in superhero costumes!) ;)

PS. The punchline here is that the entire "death of superheroes" thing is based on a report from something called the Susquehanna Financial Group. Never heard of them either. Didn't they once make hats in a famous Abbott & Costello skit?

Alex
 
Superhero genre dying? I WISH.

I don't see any indication of it dying off soon. There still seem to be hundreds of them being released, and I swear last time I went to the movies almost every trailer was for some B-grade superhero getting an upcoming movie. People seem to go and see them all, so there's no reason for the studios to stop churning them out.
 
Once they stop making money and people stop going to see them, then they'll be dead. I haven't seen any indication of that this year.
 
I don't agree that superheroes are a genre. I think they're a concept that spans many genres. We've had superhero films that have been in the gritty crime genre (The Dark Knight), the high fantasy genre (Thor), the space-opera genre (Green Lantern), the historical/political thriller genre (X-Men First Class), the comedy genre (Kick-Ass and The Green Hornet), and now even the WWII genre with Captain America. I think that's what will ensure the longevity of superhero pictures -- the fact that they aren't just one category of story, but more of a metagenre. As long as filmmakers continue to broaden the diversity of the superhero stories they tell, as long as they keep growing beyond the stock origin-story movie, there's no reason these stories have to wear out their welcome.
 
Dying? I think they're bigger than ever, in fact, the proof being that there are so many of them being made these days, and they're easier to make due to the easy access of CGI. They even seem to be of higher caliber for the most part. You have your Green Lanterns of course, but then every genre has its weak points.
 
THere might be a grain of truth to this, but only so much as conepts and ideas cycle around. Sometimes they are in fashion other times they aren't. This of course applies to all genre's/sub-genres of films. Upcoming films in the superhero genre are of course the reboot of Spiderman, The third in the Nolan Batman films, The Man of Steel.

After the more well known superheroeos, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, The X-Men, Fantastic Four and maybe Iron Man. Studios began looking at second tier superhereos, The Green Lantern, Thor etc.... Which haven't entered into the public conscience as much as the former. That isn't to say they won't work or be succesul, but you don't have the same core audiance base that the former have. So it can be harder to get bums on seats.
 
Ever notice there is never an Entertainment article that decrees the death of the Romantic Comedy? The death of Animated Fare? Two genres that per year have twice as many films released? Nope, pick on the capes.
Dumb article.
Could they taper out to only 2-3 per year sure. But has any year since '98 had more than 6? Again, that's the high mark, 6. Those other two genres are easily doubled in releases per year.
 
It's all about demographs, films are a bit like TV when it comes to this. You market a film at it's core audiance, rightly or wrongly the studios percieve there to be a smaller audiance for Rom Coms aka Chick flicks which are aimed at the female market. As for animated films that aimed at the younger/family amrket. Whilst the more main stream films are aimed at least at 25-40 market. If the studios percieve a switch in that market to a different type of film then once a studio finds what that is, all the others follow suit.

What isn't helping at the moment is that we are still in uncertain econmic times, whilst things might be looking better, people are cutting back on luxuries such as goining to the cinema so whilst people might have seen 2-3 films a month they might only see 1 or 2. Others who might have gone multiple times to see the same film might only go once and wait for the DVD/Blu-ray to come out to see it again.
 
It does seem like we've already seen the peak of the Superhero cycle, now that second tier superheroes like Green Lantern and Thor are being featured in their own movies, but I'm not sure, financially, if it's time for Hollywood to be worried just yet. Green Lantern was a huge bomb, but every other superhero movie released this summer has done reasonably well domestically (and even better than reasonably well overseas).
 
They won't be saying the genre is dead for a while after The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises do mega-business next year.
 
It's an overstatement to say Green Lantern was "a huge bomb." It underperformed and got weak reviews, yes, but it was still #1 in its first week and the studio is seriously considering a sequel. Not every failure has to be described in hyperbolic terms.
 
Saying it underperformed is a bit generous, given expectations. It hasn't even made $150 million worldwide.
 
Christopher said:
It's an overstatement to say Green Lantern was "a huge bomb." It underperformed and got weak reviews, yes, but it was still #1 in its first week and the studio is seriously considering a sequel. Not every failure has to be described in hyperbolic terms.
Click to expand...

The production budget was $200 million, and we know that the cost of advertising was tremendous -- another $100 million on top of that might even be on the low side. Worldwide, it's struggling to reach a gross of $150 million (right not it's at $146.8 million, and being taken out of theatres rapidly).

Accounting for the fact that studios earn about 60% from domestic grosses and 40% from international grosses, that places their total earnings from the film at an embarrassingly low figure -- $81.44 million dollars. That's less than half of the production budget, and less than a third of what the studio has spent on the movie when you factor in print and advertising costs.

It's a bomb -- and it's one that's hurting the studio right now. Any talk of sequel potential for the franchise is nothing but hot air.
 
Skywalker said:
They won't be saying the genre is dead for a while after The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises do mega-business next year.
Click to expand...

Well with regards to The Dark Knight Rises, we are talking about a top tier superhero, and the third in series of films. Nolan was very succesful in brining Batman back, some of the other attempts at brining/intrdoucing a superhero haven't worked as well.
 
MacLeod said:
Skywalker said:
They won't be saying the genre is dead for a while after The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises do mega-business next year.
Click to expand...

Well with regards to The Dark Knight Rises, we are talking about a top tier superhero, and the third in series of films.
Click to expand...

And, perhaps most importantly, these film series are closer to the end of their life than their beginning. The Dark Knight Rises is being advertised as the final film in the series, and I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Downey Jr. opts out of the role of Tony Stark after finishing The Avengers and Iron Man 3.
 
Captain Craig said:
Ever notice there is never an Entertainment article that decrees the death of the Romantic Comedy? The death of Animated Fare? Two genres that per year have twice as many films released? Nope, pick on the capes.
Click to expand...
The mainstream, making fun of geeks? Never! :rommie:

Christopher said:
I don't agree that superheroes are a genre. I think they're a concept that spans many genres. We've had superhero films that have been in the gritty crime genre (The Dark Knight), the high fantasy genre (Thor), the space-opera genre (Green Lantern), the historical/political thriller genre (X-Men First Class), the comedy genre (Kick-Ass and The Green Hornet), and now even the WWII genre with Captain America. I think that's what will ensure the longevity of superhero pictures -- the fact that they aren't just one category of story, but more of a metagenre. As long as filmmakers continue to broaden the diversity of the superhero stories they tell, as long as they keep growing beyond the stock origin-story movie, there's no reason these stories have to wear out their welcome.
Click to expand...
... And you, sir, win the board for the day. :bolian:
 
The super-successful superhero genre consists, thus far, of Spider-Man, Batman and Iron Man. That's pretty much it. There've been a fair number of absolute duds - Daredevil, shit like that skull-faced motorcyclist that I can't even remember the name of right now - underperformers like Green Lantern and respectable-but-not-spectacular earners like the Fantastic Four and Thor. So it's not like the genre has been all that magically successful up to this point.

There's probably at least a grain of truth in the report. And no, I won't shed a tear when the current orgy of tights-clad kindergarten movies sputters to its end.
 
MacLeod said:
What isn't helping at the moment is that we are still in uncertain econmic times, whilst things might be looking better, people are cutting back on luxuries such as goining to the cinema so whilst people might have seen 2-3 films a month they might only see 1 or 2. Others who might have gone multiple times to see the same film might only go once and wait for the DVD/Blu-ray to come out to see it again.
Click to expand...

People frequently say that during a recession, you go to the movies less often--and perhaps on a per-person basis that's true, however movie attendance in aggregate goes up during hard economic times, as it has with the most recent recession. If a film does badly at the moment it is likely not because of any wider economic problem, but because of stiff competition, bad marketing, or it just plain being a bad movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top