Marvel and similar movies


#1

I disagree: Thor was very nordic with a monarchy.

Combining sci-fi with traditional ideals and systems is pretty commonplace.

The Honor Harrington series by David Weber is basically Victorian military but with space ships and libertarianism monarchy. Generally speaking white “futurism” gets more categories and often has throwbacks such as 80s punk fashions in cyberpunk, etc.

An important part of Afrofuturism that distinguishes it from white futurism is it puts different cultural values first and foremost, and explores the pros and cons of those. Otherwise it’s just literally a difference in casting and very limiting.

But why is their super hero movie expected to not have any depictions of anything from African culture or examine anything? How is it “stereotypes” when they got consultants etc to actually provide authentic incorporations of African culture into the ideas? How would it have been better if they’d been more like white people but in Africa?


General News Thread 2.0
#2

@Soupienza It’s not a cycle, technology has just come to the point where superhero movies aren’t absolute trash anymore. The Dark Knight Series started this. Now any superhero movie made generates an insane amount of audience at the theater, worldwide, making these the most profitable movies that a studio can invest in.

This diverts funding from a more diverse, higher quality spread of storytelling that we saw from big-budget studios during the 90s.

Superhero movies are disgraceful and disgusting to film making


#3

That is true, but Thor is pretty much equal to nordic gods. Gods are gods, that’s it. I don’t see how Marvel can reinvent these individuals without keeping them as gods who are a monarchy themselves.

But when we talk about human kind, I see alot of varations, changes, progress or throwbacks.
For example human kind in Star Trek is post-capitalistic, post-nations, very open to other cultures with only a few foul apples, but not entire human volks being conservative. (As far as I remember). But of course it is more far-futurism and therfore not a very good comparision.

For me futurism is about the idea of a world where we got rid of the bad things, and are inspiring about where we are heading. Black Panther on the other hand seems like the present and the past of black people is put together, but only with new technology, not with new ideas.

Now that of course it legit as an idea or approach. It is just not futurism for me. Maybe it is just a bit too dystopic for me. I very much like dystopic formats, but I am used to them being more obviously labeled as such.


#4

I’d say it started with Richard Donner’s Superman and I know that the whole X-MEN thing was born when Tim Burton’s BATMAN came out - It’s one of the reasons all the X-Men wore black when it came out almost 10 years later.


#5

Not from the box office perspective, which is the basis of my whole point.

They divert funding from other projects!


#6

Well the biggest determinant of whether budget is allocated is if business is good.

In the film business, it’s money in money out. If your studio brand is strong, and business is brisk you want to keep greenlighting stuff to occupy every period of the year.

They can’t all be superhero films. Some guys like Paramount don’t have a major superhero deal. But you’re not supposed to hold on to all that money. And there’s always a movie out there that wants to be made with guys in suits trying to get them made. If times are good a LOT of films get greenlit.

Now if business is bad that’s when less movies get made.

You still see a lot of big profile and medium profile non superhero films get made and achieve success. There was MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT for example.

I know there’s serious effort being put into other kinds of films. We’re just not seeing them come out yet.


#7

This is simply not true

MI is an established franchise with a base, it does not count here as an original story

That’s what I’m trying to tell you.

Let me run some numbers I came up with.

Superman II (1980) profit: $130M
(adjusted for 2018 inflation: ~$400M)

The Dark Knight (2008) profit: $815M

That’s the jump in profitability of superhero movies. why wouldn’t a studio spend all their resources on a sure thing like that? Just as they do with established franchises like MI

They dig into the budget spent on new, big-budget original ideas from established directors like Ridley Scott, Tarantino, Scorsese, Anderson, etc. and it lessens the quality of movies we see being released these days. Why do you think everyone is bitching about that?

I like you, soup, but this is nonsense:


#8

That TDK figure affects a large part of decision making but other things do as well.

It’s not as all deciding as you think. Again, superhero deals and licences are a finite quantity and especially now where the rights would cost you about 2.5 million USD a year just for the rights to them, it’s not a track you can take lightly unless you’re Marvel Studios (who make the bulk of this genre).

In fact 2.5 million was an older figure and that’s not even what you’d pay for a high profile “sure thing” character.


#9

What’s TDK?


#10

So are a lot of film development NDA’s but I respect them. :wink:


#11

The Dark Knight.

20 BATMAN HITS


#12

Assuming what you’re insinuating is true, do you understand the gravity of what you’ve just posted?

Also, I assume an NDA from 2008 isn’t valid anymore and you’d have free reign to share whatever regarding TDK.

Also, aren’t you in southeast Asia? I wouldn’t expect you to have much authoritative knowledge (no offense) on the workings of Hollywood from there, unless maybe an animated film.

I know I’m seeming aggressively inquisitive, but your statements are bold and, seemingly to me, unfounded


#13

Look… what about JOHN WICK? That wasn’t a comicbook movie when it started but it’s grown into its own thing. It can happen. It’s just a little more work to find that lightning in a bottle and it’s true a lot of people might think comic books are where it’s at. But that’s not true in every office in Hollywood.


#14

It’s a good example, note the lack of plurality


#15

What? No… it’s not Batman related. Hahaha. It’s an original. And will stay original because I’ll say nothing about it.


#16

Even still, its a single project. or a single franchise. This is not enough to counter the myriad resources poured into the superhero film industry


#17

There’s places… think of them like game devs who really don’t go for superhero stuff…

Lionsgate
Millenium Films
Nu Image
Constantin Films

And others… It’s a bit like the Battle Royale thing. It seems like there’s a lot but we know a lot of devs who wouldn’t make one right?

It’s the same with movies. There’s houses who are just not in that line and they get their funding and they make something that’s not based on the flavor of the month.


#18

None of those are big-budget studios…

edit: maybe lionsgate, idk about that though


#19

Well here’s some more perspective.

https://m.the-numbers.com/movies/release-schedule

See how the content is spread around. And yes Lionsgate has HELLBOY. But see… it’s one superhero film.

But if you look at the entire year everyone has a spread of releases and not everything is superhero this or that even at the 6 majors.


#20

I really can’t fucking escape superhero movies can I? Even here they are discussed…