The Film Directors Superhero Movie Haters Club

[Factotum]

6 minutes ago, HarmonicGenerator said:

I assume interviewers are using up parts of their time with these directors asking about superhero movies because they know it'll get clicks. Which does seem to work, but directors must now be starting to expect the "So, MARVEL eh" question as part of their press routine.

If I was giving the journalists a defence, comic book movies have been the dominant genre for the past 10 or so years and with how we view films changing, these bigger Directors who are outside of that world will be the ones most affected by it. Ridley just put out THE LAST DUEL which was a really good film (I thought so) and it bombed, nobody really goes to see those films anymore.

Sure its used as click bait, and its too simplistic to say comic book movies are the sole reason things like the 50 million film isn't made anymore, but they are a big reason for it.

Plus its just funny every time one of them does it.

[BomberPat]

I imagine they're just being asked something like, "what are your thoughts on modern cinema/the state of filmmaking today?", and you can't talk about that without discussing superhero movies and big franchises.

[DavidB6937]

I always find "comic book movie" or "superhero movie" to be a bit of a misleading blanket "genre" if you want to call it that. There's plenty that can be done within that sandbox. Sure, Marvel movies tend to have the same underlying tone etc, but that's what works for them so fair enough. That's what the audience wants. Then you can play around with type of story etc.

And the argument that "superhero movies" are just special effects and no emotional value is rubbish really so not even worth arguing against.

I get the frustrations from those that want to bring out something different though. It must be very difficult these days and I'd blame the studios more than I would the audiences. I think audiences are capable of enjoying more than one thing so I don't see why having a lot of Marvel stuff out means they wouldn't enjoy a more serious drama or whatever else. Yesterday I watched Black Widow and then a two hour documentary on Buster Keaton. Sure, my range of interest in movies is probably bigger than your average viewer but you get the point.

As Pat said above - I'm sure it's just one of those typical things that come up in conversation and they answer it honestly. I don't see Marvel etc as the death of cinema though. If a movie is good then it's good and people will go to see it. There will always be more niche films that won't catch on with a wider audience and that's been the case for many years, not just now. Popular genre movies being a success at the cinema is something that has happened throughout cinematic history. You'll get the odd surprising success story seeping through but I don't think things have really changed that much.

[Keith Houchen]

2 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

And the argument that "superhero movies" are just special effects and no emotional value is rubbish really so not even worth arguing against.

They aren’t emotionally engaging for me because there isn’t any sense of peril. Practically all the heroes who die get brought back. There are plenty of other kids film that do emotions very well, Marvel ones don’t. 

[Factotum]

55 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

I get the frustrations from those that want to bring out something different though. It must be very difficult these days and I'd blame the studios more than I would the audiences. I think audiences are capable of enjoying more than one thing so I don't see why having a lot of Marvel stuff out means they wouldn't enjoy a more serious drama or whatever else.

I think this is the point. Audiences probably would enjoy it, but is that on offer to them and therefore is the fact they aren't seeing those types of films having the affect that when those types of films are released, they flop and the studios go OH SHIT and then greenlight 4 Captain Whoever films and the Writer or Director ends up going to TV?

Also Scorsese was right in his criticism of Marvel films (I'm not sure it even was a massive criticism) They're theme park rides.

Anyway, looking forward to Clint Eastwood calling Marvel a bunch of Commie Wankers or something next week.

[Hannibal Scorch]

Cinema has always had genres that have taken over the box office. Westerns, Sci-Fi (after Star Wars) and more recently Comic Book films which, let's not forget for a long time any ones made without Batman in the title, were bombs. Whilst is absolutely annoying that, whilst a genre I enjoy, it does take over the cinema screens, however, it also keeps the cinemas open. Popular genre films generate huge surges of people to the cinema upon release. A cinema has to make money, and I am sure most of us have seen a foreign film or the latest Wes Anderson with 2 other people in the screen. That is a loss to the cinema when that happens. So popcorn films like Superhero films, or a franchise film like Jurassic World, Ghostbusters etc help keep the cinemas stay in business and the more people go, the more likely they are to return to see something else in the gap between Marvel and DC releases.

Scorsese isn't wrong, they are theme park rides, in the same way most popcorn films are really in most cases. But I can enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy as much as Hugo or Goodfellas. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, glad Ridley Scott said that, because most of his recent out put has been patchy at best. I don't want to see his take on Iron Man. 

[Devon Malcolm]

56 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

I always find "comic book movie" or "superhero movie" to be a bit of a misleading blanket "genre" if you want to call it that. There's plenty that can be done within that sandbox. Sure, Marvel movies tend to have the same underlying tone etc, but that's what works for them so fair enough. That's what the audience wants. Then you can play around with type of story etc.

I don't think it's a misleading blanket term at all. All superhero films that I've seen (and I've seen enough) follow more or less a similar characterisation structure and the narratives usually end up following a set route. There may or may not be plenty that can be done within that realm, but is it?  

56 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

And the argument that "superhero movies" are just special effects and no emotional value is rubbish really so not even worth arguing against.

I don't recall seeing this argument too but on the special effects front, the criticism is entirely valid. Didn't they CGI in a pub in Black Widow?

56 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

I get the frustrations from those that want to bring out something different though. It must be very difficult these days and I'd blame the studios more than I would the audiences. I think audiences are capable of enjoying more than one thing so I don't see why having a lot of Marvel stuff out means they wouldn't enjoy a more serious drama or whatever else. Yesterday I watched Black Widow and then a two hour documentary on Buster Keaton. Sure, my range of interest in movies is probably bigger than your average viewer but you get the point.

The amount of Marvel films in cinemas is stifling choice though. How much of an opportunity do many people get to go and see, say, Riders of Justice or Censor, two of the year's best films, when most of the slots at the most accessible cinemas have been taken up by Marvel films ALL YEAR? Audiences may be capable of watching other things, but the opportunity to do that is being lessened with each passing year.

56 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

As Pat said above - I'm sure it's just one of those typical things that come up in conversation and they answer it honestly. I don't see Marvel etc as the death of cinema though. If a movie is good then it's good and people will go to see it. There will always be more niche films that won't catch on with a wider audience and that's been the case for many years, not just now. Popular genre movies being a success at the cinema is something that has happened throughout cinematic history. You'll get the odd surprising success story seeping through but I don't think things have really changed that much.

Marvel may or may not be the death of cinemas - but Marvel, or more specifically Disney, are already having a terribly negative effect on high budget filmmaking, the range of choice available at cinemas, and the availability of A-list talent in other Hollywood projects. Of course popular genre movies have always dominated cinema and that will always be the case. But the point is that never, in the history of cinema, has there been two mega-franchises like Marvel and DC have going. They are unprecedented. Between July of this year and next year, Marvel will have released SIX films. Six films from the same franchise. Six huge films that will be attended in massive numbers, immediately limiting the choice we get at the cinema. That absolutely cannot be good for cinema and it isn't.

[BomberPat]

10 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

The amount of Marvel films in cinemas is stifling choice though. How much of an opportunity do many people get to go and see, say, Riders of Justice or Censor, two of the year's best films, when most of the slots at the most accessible cinemas have been taken up by Marvel films ALL YEAR? Audiences may be capable of watching other things, but the opportunity to do that is being lessened with each passing year.

That's the problem, it's an issue of oversaturation. When Marvel are releasing six films in a year, and they're all big blockbuster "events", they monopolise so much space in cinemas - every screen, every poster board, and so on. So where's the space for the smaller movies, the independent filmmakers and so on? It starts to become actively difficult for cinemagoers to even find those movies in their local cinema. That's before you factor in every other franchise owned by Disney, or any non-Marvel superhero movie. It's not just a handful of summer blockbusters any more.

[Keith Houchen]

29 minutes ago, Hannibal Scorch said:

Scorsese isn't wrong, they are theme park rides, in the same way most popcorn films are really in most cases. But I can enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy as much as Hugo or Goodfellas. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely, they’re popcorn flicks, not artistic statements. That’s what family/kids films do and do well. My issue, aside from the monopolisation of the industry which Devon and Pat cover, is when you have the temerity to not like them and think they’re shite. Same goes for Star Wars. They are boyband by the numbers X Factor formula movies, nothing more. If you like them, great! If you don’t, great!

[BomberPat]

Absolutely. It's about recognising them for what they are - there's no shame in liking them (though if you catch me in the wrong mood, I'm far more Alan Moore about all this), but to like them as big colourful popcorn movies is a very different thing to arguing that they're cinematic masterpieces. If you go by IMDB rankings, The Dark Knight is the fourth best movie ever made. And that's bonkers and wrong.

[DavidB6937]

13 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Absolutely. It's about recognising them for what they are - there's no shame in liking them (though if you catch me in the wrong mood, I'm far more Alan Moore about all this), but to like them as big colourful popcorn movies is a very different thing to arguing that they're cinematic masterpieces. If you go by IMDB rankings, The Dark Knight is the fourth best movie ever made. And that's bonkers and wrong.

'Best' is a weird one isn't it. I just checked and they have Return of the King at number 7 which is fucking madness because it's not even the best LOTR film, let alone deserving of being that high. I was surprised to see Inception so high too. I mean I love it and it was an awesome cinema experience for me but in terms of historical significance or whatever, it's hardly there.

Anyway I remembered why I don't really look at 'top' lists. They make me too angry and I'll be here all day nitpicking.

But yes, Marvel movies are my comfort films. They're the most fun I have at the cinema. They make me laugh. I love the visuals. I occasionally cry. There's nothing really challenging about them but that's not what I'm looking for when I go to see them.

So on a personal level I'd certainly put something like Endgame up there with my best films ever - I liken it to that wrestling topic about the most emotional title wins or however much you were invested in them etc. Very few movies have ever had me feeling as nervous as I did before Endgame. To be able to deliver a payoff movie like that after so many things coming together over such a period as Marvel did.. yeah, that's incredibly rare and I was so emotionally invested in that film. Masterpiece? Probably not in the conventional sense but for what it was in context as a Marvel film I couldn't have asked for more. I guess maybe that's why ROTK is so high on that list for LOTR fans.

Completely get where people are coming from from an overall film business perspective. It'll be interesting to see how the next 5 years go in terms of the projects they're coming out with and cinema as a whole now post-pandemic (and I use the word 'post' loosely obviously). As much as I enjoy the comfort and familiarity of a Marvel film, I also love those completely random films I know little to nothing about and end up totally surprised by. Cinema definitely needs that diversity.

[Tommy!]

2 hours ago, DavidB6937 said:

I always find "comic book movie" or "superhero movie" to be a bit of a misleading blanket "genre" if you want to call it that.

 

3 minutes ago, DavidB6937 said:

Masterpiece? Probably not in the conventional sense but for what it was in context as a Marvel film I couldn't have asked for more

You can't complain about blanket terms for marvel films then use that same blanket term as a caveat to view a film through a unique context, surely. 

[Factotum]

On another note, I think Marvel films actually stop original Blockbuster/Popcorn flicks from coming up now. Its not just its impact on the mid level films.

[Hannibal Scorch]

10 minutes ago, Factotum said:

On another note, I think Marvel films actually stop original Blockbuster/Popcorn flicks from coming up now. Its not just its impact on the mid level films.

Care to share some examples? Free Guy was an original blockbuster which id really well this year, but I wonder what you think have been impacted.

[Merzbow]

I get it's not Marvel but using a Disney owned movie as an example just shows what monopoly they have on blockbuster cinema.