Help me understand the constant Superhero movie reboots.
- Thread starter DarkHelmet
- Start date
But when original movies are made very few people go to see them in the cinema, so it's a vicious circle.
Cephus
Master Member
That's how it used to be. Today, not so much.
Cephus
Master Member
Then they shouldn't make so many really stupid, indefensible decisions. People tell them why their movie is going to fail, they make it anyhow, it fails miserably and they blame the audience instead of their own in competence. Maybe they ought to listen.
I agree, but by my statement I just mean “merchandise” in general, anything with the logo on it gets royalty’s
Analyzer
Master Member
As mentioned earlier...
The target audience changes every decade or so, and the older moves become dated and out of touch with current generations
Few if any of these movies are really "classic" cinema anyway
Although, I don't know if we really need to see another "origin" story with each reboot
The target audience changes every decade or so, and the older moves become dated and out of touch with current generations
Few if any of these movies are really "classic" cinema anyway
Although, I don't know if we really need to see another "origin" story with each reboot
Cephus
Master Member
There's a difference between westerns and an endless string of Rooster Cogburn movies. You can have lots of war movies, so long as it isn't Tora Tora Tora Part 63. That's especially true when it stopped being about Pearl Harbor back in Tora Tora Tora 17.
joberg
Legendary Member
There's a formula to every genre of movies (list is too long).
RedCircle
New Member
Artists create - they write and illustrate stories about interesting characters. Back when comics were getting started, the artists didn't get a lot of credit - they were made to feel they were lucky to have a job. To be fair, there wasn't a huge market nor profit margin, but the nature of the industry required them to pump out a lot of product, quickly - and, it was treated as disposable. The kids influenced by those comics grew up. As adults we often have both nostalgia for where we came from as well as a little disposable income. Because these original comics were treated as disposable, there's very few left, making them "rare." Rarity in the collector market translates to value. Now, these characters are also valuable because they are anthropological time capsules, teaching us about the people and the times they came from. There's an interesting rabbit hole about the symbolism of the superhero when viewed through the lens of the politics of the time and the fact that the majority of creators were Jewish. But the mythology and morals are universal and timeless... again, creating value. Flash forward several decades and you get to where we are now. Huge, global entertainment corporations now own the rights to these universally recognizable characters. In the specific case of Disney, they paid a fair amount to acquire those properties. Corporations are in the business of creating value for share holders. This means they need to continually crank out new product. They have no artistic integrity or vested moral interest in these characters (though, lucky for the audience, writers, directors and actors often do), only milking them for money. This means they will continually keep cranking out new product. The fact a fantastic movie was made 40 years ago doesn't earn them a dime right now. Sure, they legally own the rights to that old movie and make a few bucks when it's re-run on tv or streamed or a DVD gets sold... but the big money is in a big budget remake. New media also produces a new audience which will one day grow up, creating nostalgia for the remake that will happen 40 years from now... We just happen to be in a time where corporations see profit by pandering to the nostalgia of Generation X and the super hero genre is still selling tickets. I'd say we're just about at maximum saturation and we'll see fewer super hero flicks...
RedCircle
New Member
Don't kid yourself. Action figures are still a huge market - but that demographic has shifted. Kids are no longer the target market, it's adult collectors so the best sellers are older properties. Internet sales have eclipsed brick and mortar inventory. I predict as the current demographic ages out the market will shrink if not disappear entirely. The future is in selling licensed 3d files and collectors printing their own collectibles at home.
squirrelstailor
New Member
The latest Superman movie was turned into a big advert for Warner Brothers. A basically look what we got come buy us.
I would argue that Marvel had it right in that they were making different genres of films under a superhero banner and then they made money which resulted in the back to standard studio insanity. You could even argue that the bad films are when they made superhero films rather than other films set in a superhero world.
It is really interesting to look at successful shows and how often they sit on the lets cancel it bubble. West Wing, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel and the list just goes on.
Finally I have solved the Artemis Fowl nightmare, apprently it needed to be made by Brits as in the US a kid cannot be the villain unless it a horror film.
I would argue that Marvel had it right in that they were making different genres of films under a superhero banner and then they made money which resulted in the back to standard studio insanity. You could even argue that the bad films are when they made superhero films rather than other films set in a superhero world.
It is really interesting to look at successful shows and how often they sit on the lets cancel it bubble. West Wing, Supernatural, Buffy, Angel and the list just goes on.
Finally I have solved the Artemis Fowl nightmare, apprently it needed to be made by Brits as in the US a kid cannot be the villain unless it a horror film.
joberg
Legendary Member
Because there no Western/War/genre movies every 2 years, or so. Rom-Com are always churned by the studios, either on the big screens, or T.V. (Hallmark, anyone?) or streaming.
WB considers their superheroes to be Superman and Batman. Everybody else is "and the rest" on Gilligan's Island.
There is always a new generation coming up, and it's all new to them.
That's the story with everything. People like us get old and we forget that younger people operate on a much shorter memory scale.
Christopher Reeve's Superman stint was 1978-87. They almost rebooted it in the late 1990s. It didn't happen, but my point is that after only 10 years it was considered reboot-able. The reason why it didn't happen was not lack of demand.
Batman was done well in 1989 and it descended into poop with Schumacher by the late 1990s. After what felt like a long wait, it was finally rebooted with 'Batman Begins' in 2005 (less than a decade since 'Batman & Robin').
The Indiana Jones trilogy finished in 1989 (and it went out with a banger). 'The Mummy' came out 10 years later, and by that point nobody was saying "It's too early for another movie like this!"
'Return of the Jedi' came out in 1983. The SE theater release came out in 1997 and 'Phantom Menace' was 1999. Today we are that far removed from 2009 and 2011.
Last edited:
Similar threads
