Deadline New York: Superhero film genre dying

[Goliath]

A good historical parallel might be the disaster movie. These have always been around, and are still being made today, but they peaked in the 1970s. You can only perform so many variations on the same theme before people start to lose interest and look for something different.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A good historical parallel might be the disaster movie. These have always been around, and are still being made today, but they peaked in the 1970s. You can only perform so many variations on the same theme before people start to lose interest and look for something different.

Exacty.

There are once-dominant genres that have diminished to nearly nothing, like the western, but westerns are still occasionally made. And the western was huge in the country for decades.

 

[Captaindemotion]

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.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[JacksonArcher]

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.

Well said.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, they're a genre. Westerns also included quite a few different types of movies, with no need to attach a trendy prefix like "meta" to the genre.. And to be blunt, if westerns had their day and faded the considerably less robust, imaginative and more thematically narrow superhero genre absolutely will - particularly considering that its success is driven almost entirely by the most expensive films.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Ah but the article said that they're dying now, not that they'll die some day. Not quite the same.

 

[JarodRussell]

The Dark Knight was the last comic book movie I've seen, and enjoyed because it never ever felt like the base material was a comic. All the other cartoon movies out there... no interest. I really hope they will die out soon and make room for other, original movies. That comic book movie summer crap is getting lame.

And when it comes to all those superhero comic movies... First of all, I'm getting sick of origin stories, and second of all, every time I see a trailer it's like "Yeah, I get the point, the guy struggles with his inner self, and then beats the crap out of bad guys to save the world." It really is the same shit every time. And it doesn't matter if it's Superman or X-Men or Captain America or Green Lantern or Spider-Man or Watchmen or Hellboy or what else there is. That's all six shades of lame.

 

[Shazam!]

They just need to stop making fucking origin movies.

 

[Shazam!]

The Dark Knight was the last comic book movie I've seen, and enjoyed because it never ever felt like the base material was a comic.

That's why I didn't like it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

They just need to stop making fucking origin movies.

I assume they keep doing those because it's a formula that works.

 

[MacLeod]

Some of the Dates might be out

Batman (1990)
Batman Begins (2007)

a circa 17 year gap between origin movies

Superman: The Movie (1979)
The Man of Steel (2012)

A 23 year gap between origin movies

Spiderman (2002)
SPiderman (2012)

a Ten year gap

of course Captain America has had a what 20+ year gap since the previous film version came out?

So I would say they make origin movies that often. bear in mind to appeal to a wide audiance they have to indroduce the characters in an origin movie.

 

[Christopher]

of course Captain America has had a what 20+ year gap since the previous film version came out?

21 years since it was made, but only 19 years since it actually came out on home video and cable, since it never had a US theatrical release.

So I would say they make origin movies that often.

From context, I think you mean you wouldn't say they make them that often, but you're only mentioning cases of remakes or reuses of previous film characters. What about all the other first-time superhero movies that are almost always origin stories: Spider-Man, Ang Lee's Hulk, Iron Man, Fantastic Four, Thor, The Green Hornet, etc? There have been very few debut superhero movies that weren't origin stories. X-Men wasn't (except for Rogue); Daredevil only sort of was (the actual origin was in flashback, although one could make a case that it was the story of how DD went from vigilante to genuine hero, making it similar to Thor); The Incredible Hulk wasn't, since it did a brilliantly efficient job summing up the origin in the main-title montage.

 

[MacLeod]

First time around you generally have to do an origin story. To introduce the characters to a wider audiance. In the case of X-Men it wasn't needed as much, as it drew parallels with themes such as one group of people being singled out becuase they where different. As to why they where different it was explained as evolution.

As for the Hulk, many people will rememer the TV series from the mid 80's so there is already some knowledge about the character in the public mind.

But my second point stills stands, for the widest possible audiance you generally have to do an origin story

 

[Christopher]

First time around you generally have to do an origin story. To introduce the characters to a wider audiance.

Sure, you include the origin story in the first movie, but that doesn't have to be the entire movie, as The Incredible Hulk and Daredevil showed. You can get it out of the way in a flashback or an opening montage and then get on with the actual story.

 

[JarodRussell]

First time around you generally have to do an origin story. To introduce the characters to a wider audiance.

Sure, you include the origin story in the first movie, but that doesn't have to be the entire movie, as The Incredible Hulk and Daredevil showed. You can get it out of the way in a flashback or an opening montage and then get on with the actual story.

That, and nobody needs an origin story to introduce a character. And when it comes to Superman, Spiderman & Co, the "wider audience" already knows everything one needs to know.

 

[Captain Craig]

That, and nobody needs an origin story to introduce a character. And when it comes to Superman, Spiderman & Co, the "wider audience" already knows everything one needs to know.

While I don't think the genre is dying, see the Captain America opening as proof to shrug off the articles immediate implications of life support for the the genre, I do agree with this.

When WB reboots Batman after Nolan leaves I absolutely do not want another long 30-45min origin sequence for the next Batman film. I really don't want one for Spiderman but I really will not want it a third time(which is what the next Batman reboot will be).

For lesser characters getting a "try out", it's needed. Should Cloak and Dagger get a movie, we need it. Superman, Batman, Spiderman do not need it anymore. TIH did it excellently and proved you can hit the high points in a concise and effective method.

 

[Kegg]

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.

Yep. If anything what looks like the reasonable success of some of this year's B-level superheroes will probably ensure a continuing perpetuation of caped crusaders blustering around the multiplex for a long time to come. You'll see Ant-Man and Plastic Man long before I see Mountains of Madness.

I don't agree that superheroes are a genre.

And you'd be wrong.

Just because superhero films can draw on elements of other genres doesn't mean there is no such thing as a superhero genre, any more than the presence of Western influences in Firefly call into question space opera's existence.

As a genre they've been pretty repetitive and for me largely uninteresting. Iron Man, which is considered one of the better films in the genre, was merely passable for me, and even Del Toro's Hellboy films were only really worth watching once each.

By and large you're dealing with people with a peculiar dress up and peculiar given names (typically vigilantes who hide their identities) fighting other people who fit the same bill, but who are usually percieved as more criminal than the vigilantes. Varying degrees of fantasy elements - from the fantasy-lacking, action movie level plausibility with John McClane with pointy ears level of the Batman films to the alien expatriate of the Superman saga - are included. It's pretty formulaic.

 

[Christopher]

I don't agree that superheroes are a genre.

And you'd be wrong.

Actually it's not just my argument. I'm passing along an idea I read recently in an essay on a comics site, although I can't recall just where. Anyway, your response is so shallow and closed-minded that it's obviously not even worth trying to discuss this with you any further.

 

[Turtletrekker]

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.

Agreed completely!

 

[Kegg]

Actually it's not just my argument.

It's an argument you agree with, aber.

Anyway, your response is so shallow and closed-minded that it's obviously not even worth trying to discuss this with you any further.

It's an observation based on a familiarity with superhero films. It's pretty easy to see that that there's a strong formulaic element in these films, running from Hulk to X-Men, and consequently that they do indeed form a cinematic genre.

Condescension is no more an argument than pretention.