Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 4:31:30 GMT
There is no oversaturation. There five superhero movies last year as opposed to the hundreds of comedies, rom coms, spy movies, thrillers, horror flicks, and so on that get made. Is oversaturation causing disinterest in all those other genres, too? Also, there is no disinterest happening. Captain America: Civil War was the highest grossing film last year, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has been a huge hit that people love. LOL What? Superhero movies are a sub genre of the action movie genre. You are right if comparing them to spy movies and to a lesser extent rom-coms but comparing them to comedies, thrillers and horror movies makes no sense. There are many sub genre movies that people did get sick of. The slasher movie for example. You've obviously not been paying any attention to the MCU if you think it makes no sense to compare them to comdies, thrillers, or horror. Perhaps its time to look past your obvious bias and actually pay attention to the genre you claim to hate so much. Then again, irrational hatred does stem from ignorance, and you are rife with it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 19, 2017 4:42:50 GMT
LOL What? Superhero movies are a sub genre of the action movie genre. You are right if comparing them to spy movies and to a lesser extent rom-coms but comparing them to comedies, thrillers and horror movies makes no sense. There are many sub genre movies that people did get sick of. The slasher movie for example. You've obviously not been paying any attention to the MCU if you think it makes no sense to compare them to comdies, thrillers, or horror. Perhaps its time to look past your obvious bias and actually pay attention to the genre you claim to hate so much. Then again, irrational hatred does stem from ignorance, and you are rife with it. You just lost all credibility since I just said that I like superhero movies. You missed the point I was making completely. SOME PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THEM BECAUSE MOST OF THEM RELY ON A VERY SIMILAR FORMULA. The same way people will get sick of anything if they get too much of it. |
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
 
|
Post by Flynn on May 19, 2017 4:54:46 GMT
That was never my argument anyway. You bolstered someone else's argument into our conversation because you've no doubt practiced it over and over. My argument still stands that oversaturation leads to disinterest. And we currently have oversaturation. The disinterest will come. It already has for many people. There is no oversaturation. I takes way more than a handful of films of the same genre a year, even if they do receive a lot of publicity, to oversaturate the market. They made hundreds of Western per year from the days of early film to the 90s, and now they're making a comeback after a relatively short time being an unprofitable genre. Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Do an IMDB search for westerns from 1988, or 1992, or 1985. Pick any year in the 1980s and early 1990s You are not going to find "hundreds" of westerns. You'll maybe find 6 or 7, if you stretch the definition to include hybrids. You are correct that many westerns were produced each year until about the 1980s, though your numbers are again wrong, as totals often approached 100 to 120 in good years, a far cry from the hundreds a year you claim, but assuming we don't quibble with totals (since 100 westerns in a year is, after all, still a lot), comparing today's big-budget blockbuster, theater-saturated superhero films to yesterday's low-budget quickie, regionally released westerns is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Looking at raw numbers doesn't tell the whole story, as it doesn't take into account regional releases, audience size for the average film, expectations of the production, and contemporary viewing habits (where many such films were released simply for 9-year-old boys to watch each week on Saturday afternoons). Your argument about Shakespeare above has similar problems. To suggest that the economic and creative forces driving the production of Shakespeare's plays are the same or similar to those driving today's big-budget films is to disregard some major differences between the two eras of production. Sure, there are certainly some similarities, but there are also a whole lot of differences the face of your comparison seems to ignore. In general, you have displayed a tendency to either make up facts to support your viewpoint or you have stated facts that, although true in some regards, are complicated by factors you have not acknowledged. Your whole comparison of the superhero subgenre to other genres is a case in point. It would be more fair to compare the superhero subgenre with other subgenres, such as the slasher film, paranormal film, historical drama, or slapstick comedy. To compare a subgenre of one genre to an entire other genre is skewing results in your favor and calls your supporting evidence into question. But even when comparing subgenres to subgenres, you would still need to take into account a similarity in budget and marketing practices, not just the film subgenre and box office results. We can look at "saturation" in many different ways, and to boil it down to numbers is myopic. It seems reasonable today that 5 major films in a year would be equal to dozens of films from the Hollywood studio system in terms of notoriety, especially considering all the marketing tie-ins that fill our daily lives today. You pretty much can't go grab soft drinks, chips, or anything in a grocery store without having some superhero's face or logo plastered on it. When people speak of being tired of superhero films, this is part of what they are talking about, the inability even to enjoy a damn Dr. Pepper without a superhero looking back at you. No one making the argument really cares about the films themselves. They can just avoid them. It's all the things you can't avoid that people dislike. Is the superhero genre oversaturated? I don't know. From a box-office perspective, it doesn't seem like it. But a quick Google search does seem to turn up many results of people expressing superhero fatigue: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And those links are only from the first page of results. At some point, the superhero bubble will break--it has to, but it will be interesting to see when it happens. I would have already expected it to happen, but something is continuing to drive the market. Overall I'm looking forward to seeing how the demise happens, not because I dislike superhero films, but because the superhero phenomenon has intrigued me for over 15 years now. Can it really last 25 years? Only time will tell. You clearly love superhero movies. That's great. Enjoy them while you can. My only request is that you try to exercise greater care when wielding your supporting evidence. Don't just draw superficial comparisons that have unstable foundations. Save |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 19, 2017 5:04:50 GMT
There is no oversaturation. I takes way more than a handful of films of the same genre a year, even if they do receive a lot of publicity, to oversaturate the market. They made hundreds of Western per year from the days of early film to the 90s, and now they're making a comeback after a relatively short time being an unprofitable genre. Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Do an IMDB search for westerns from 1988, or 1992, or 1985. Pick any year in the 1980s and early 1990s You are not going to find "hundreds" of westerns. You'll maybe find 6 or 7, if you stretch the definition to include hybrids. You are correct that many westerns were produced each year until about the 1980s, though your numbers are again wrong, as totals often approached 100 to 120 in good years, a far cry from the hundreds a year you claim, but assuming we don't quibble with totals (since 100 westerns in a year is, after all, still a lot), comparing today's big-budget blockbuster, theater-saturated superhero films to yesterday's low-budget quickie, regionally released westerns is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Looking at raw numbers doesn't tell the whole story, as it doesn't take into account regional releases, audience size for the average film, expectations of the production, and contemporary viewing habits (where many such films were released simply for 9-year-old boys to watch each week on Saturday afternoons). Your argument about Shakespeare above has similar problems. To suggest that the economic and creative forces driving the production of Shakespeare's plays are the same or similar to those driving today's big-budget films is to disregard some major differences between the two eras of production. Sure, there are certainly some similarities, but there are also a whole lot of differences the face of your comparison seems to ignore. In general, you have displayed a tendency to either make up facts to support your viewpoint or you have stated facts that, although true in some regards, are complicated by factors you have not acknowledged. Your whole comparison of the superhero subgenre to other genres is a case in point. It would be more fair to compare the superhero subgenre with other subgenres, such as the slasher film, paranormal film, historical drama, or slapstick comedy. To compare a subgenre of one genre to an entire other genre is skewing results in your favor and calls your supporting evidence into question. But even when comparing subgenres to subgenres, you would still need to take into account a similarity in budget and marketing practices, not just the film subgenre and box office results. We can look at "saturation" in many different ways, and to boil it down to numbers is myopic. It seems reasonable today that 5 major films in a year would be equal to dozens of films from the Hollywood studio system in terms of notoriety, especially considering all the marketing tie-ins that fill our daily lives today. You pretty much can't go grab soft drinks, chips, or anything in a grocery store without having some superhero's face or logo plastered on it. When people speak of being tired of superhero films, this is part of what they are talking about, the inability even to enjoy a damn Dr. Pepper without a superhero looking back at you. No one making the argument really cares about the films themselves. They can just avoid them. It's all the things you can't avoid that people dislike. Is the superhero genre oversaturated? I don't know. From a box-office perspective, it doesn't seem like it. But a quick Google search does seem to turn up many results of people expressing superhero fatigue: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And those links are only from the first page of results. At some point, the superhero bubble will break--it has to, but it will be interesting to see when it happens. I would have already expected it to happen, but something is continuing to drive the market. Overall I'm looking forward to seeing how the demise happens, not because I dislike superhero films, but because the superhero phenomenon has intrigued me for over 15 years now. Can it really last 25 years? Only time will tell. You clearly love superhero movies. That's great. Enjoy them while you can. My only request is that you try to exercise greater care when wielding your supporting evidence. Don't just draw superficial comparisons that have unstable foundations. SaveGlad you pointed that out. It is because they are shoved down our throat by marketing more so than most sub genres. Another thing that certainly doesn't help and is also different from most sub genres is that they rely largely on sequels, spin-offs and reboots. This year will mark the second Spider-Man reboot in just 5 years and not only that but they are rebooting him into another existing franchise. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on May 19, 2017 5:21:55 GMT
There is no oversaturation. I takes way more than a handful of films of the same genre a year, even if they do receive a lot of publicity, to oversaturate the market. They made hundreds of Western per year from the days of early film to the 90s, and now they're making a comeback after a relatively short time being an unprofitable genre. Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Playing chess with a pigeon… |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on May 19, 2017 6:04:33 GMT
Me too (although i have to admit LOGAN was pretty fucking cool). But it wasn't as cool as JESUS' SON (1999), which I also saw recently. Man, what a fabulous, wonderful, funny, picaresque, deeply humanistic film. www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rZyFXSyf7c |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 6:35:02 GMT
There is no oversaturation. I takes way more than a handful of films of the same genre a year, even if they do receive a lot of publicity, to oversaturate the market. They made hundreds of Western per year from the days of early film to the 90s, and now they're making a comeback after a relatively short time being an unprofitable genre. Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Do an IMDB search for westerns from 1988, or 1992, or 1985. Pick any year in the 1980s and early 1990s You are not going to find "hundreds" of westerns. You'll maybe find 6 or 7, if you stretch the definition to include hybrids. You are correct that many westerns were produced each year until about the 1980s, though your numbers are again wrong, as totals often approached 100 to 120 in good years, a far cry from the hundreds a year you claim, but assuming we don't quibble with totals (since 100 westerns in a year is, after all, still a lot), comparing today's big-budget blockbuster, theater-saturated superhero films to yesterday's low-budget quickie, regionally released westerns is a little like comparing apples and oranges. Looking at raw numbers doesn't tell the whole story, as it doesn't take into account regional releases, audience size for the average film, expectations of the production, and contemporary viewing habits (where many such films were released simply for 9-year-old boys to watch each week on Saturday afternoons). Your argument about Shakespeare above has similar problems. To suggest that the economic and creative forces driving the production of Shakespeare's plays are the same or similar to those driving today's big-budget films is to disregard some major differences between the two eras of production. Sure, there are certainly some similarities, but there are also a whole lot of differences the face of your comparison seems to ignore. In general, you have displayed a tendency to either make up facts to support your viewpoint or you have stated facts that, although true in some regards, are complicated by factors you have not acknowledged. Your whole comparison of the superhero subgenre to other genres is a case in point. It would be more fair to compare the superhero subgenre with other subgenres, such as the slasher film, paranormal film, historical drama, or slapstick comedy. To compare a subgenre of one genre to an entire other genre is skewing results in your favor and calls your supporting evidence into question. But even when comparing subgenres to subgenres, you would still need to take into account a similarity in budget and marketing practices, not just the film subgenre and box office results. We can look at "saturation" in many different ways, and to boil it down to numbers is myopic. It seems reasonable today that 5 major films in a year would be equal to dozens of films from the Hollywood studio system in terms of notoriety, especially considering all the marketing tie-ins that fill our daily lives today. You pretty much can't go grab soft drinks, chips, or anything in a grocery store without having some superhero's face or logo plastered on it. When people speak of being tired of superhero films, this is part of what they are talking about, the inability even to enjoy a damn Dr. Pepper without a superhero looking back at you. No one making the argument really cares about the films themselves. They can just avoid them. It's all the things you can't avoid that people dislike. Is the superhero genre oversaturated? I don't know. From a box-office perspective, it doesn't seem like it. But a quick Google search does seem to turn up many results of people expressing superhero fatigue: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. And those links are only from the first page of results. At some point, the superhero bubble will break--it has to, but it will be interesting to see when it happens. I would have already expected it to happen, but something is continuing to drive the market. Overall I'm looking forward to seeing how the demise happens, not because I dislike superhero films, but because the superhero phenomenon has intrigued me for over 15 years now. Can it really last 25 years? Only time will tell. You clearly love superhero movies. That's great. Enjoy them while you can. My only request is that you try to exercise greater care when wielding your supporting evidence. Don't just draw superficial comparisons that have unstable foundations. Save Congratulations on typing out a whole lot of nothing. Oh, random people expressing negative feelings on the internet? Yeah, that's HARD to find. You talk to me about flimsy evidence, but then the best you can do is some links to some random whinefests by jackasses? You can Google search and find a lot of people being tired of just about everything. I remember many people being tired of Lord of the Rings after just two of the three films as well. People whining online is not evidence. If superhero fatigue has occurring at an increasingly rapid rate, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2 wouldn't be killing it right now. The box office numbers AND positive reception say that people still love these films. They were saying years ago the superhero bubble would burst long before now, and it hasn't. I've made up no facts nor have I been incorrect. Oh, boo-hoo, so I didn't count how many Westerns were made each and every year and intentionally exaggerated to drive home the point. Sue me. I didn't fail to take anything into account, by the way. So butt out, I don't want not need your help, and you can keep your advice to yourself. It's irrelevant how different the environment for writing and performing was back in Shakespeare's day were as opposed to now. Before there were remakes and reboots, there were retellings and reimaginings by authors and other story-tellers, year after year after year. How many King Arthur or Three Musketeer films or TV shows get produced every year? It's the nature of the beast. Nothing under the sun is new. Nothing under the sun has ever been new, nor will it ever be. Get used to it. The only difference between an "original" film and a remake is that the latter is being more honest. Oh, and if you're bothered by a product image on the side of the coke can, you need to get a life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 6:36:01 GMT
Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Playing chess with a pigeon… Yes, playing chess with you is like that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 6:37:12 GMT
You've obviously not been paying any attention to the MCU if you think it makes no sense to compare them to comdies, thrillers, or horror. Perhaps its time to look past your obvious bias and actually pay attention to the genre you claim to hate so much. Then again, irrational hatred does stem from ignorance, and you are rife with it. You just lost all credibility since I just said that I like superhero movies. You missed the point I was making completely. SOME PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THEM BECAUSE MOST OF THEM RELY ON A VERY SIMILAR FORMULA. The same way people will get sick of anything if they get too much of it. No, I didn't, and there is no formula for people to get sick of. Just whiners like you. Oh, and you never had any credibility to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 19, 2017 16:22:08 GMT
You just lost all credibility since I just said that I like superhero movies. You missed the point I was making completely. SOME PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THEM BECAUSE MOST OF THEM RELY ON A VERY SIMILAR FORMULA. The same way people will get sick of anything if they get too much of it. No, I didn't, and there is no formula for people to get sick of. Just whiners like you. Oh, and you never had any credibility to begin with. You have issues. 
You almost come off like a studio plant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 19, 2017 17:52:14 GMT
It's a freaking travesty that in an age of popular TV shows like Got, Breaking Bad, TWD, we are mainly served with blockbuster movies with brawling, indestructible teletubbies for manbabies. Give the kiddies their formula, they need it. But for the rest of us it's a colossal bore and annoyance. Ye gods let that bubble burst, so that cinema may have a chance at producing something more worthwhile eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsthatguyme on May 19, 2017 21:49:41 GMT
Super Hero movies, reboots , sequels , and cartoons with an occasional horror flick. That's all u see nowadays.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on May 19, 2017 22:20:17 GMT
Many of the facts you have used to support your arguments in this thread have been outright incorrect, and these are among those. Playing chess with a pigeon… I know, but just in case someone happened upon this thread and thought Mr. Raptor was making good arguments, I wanted to at least put his facts in doubt. I wasn't really writing to him, as I knew what kind of half-thought response I'd get for my efforts. Still, I wanted to call out the absurdities, for posterity if nothing else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 23:43:55 GMT
Playing chess with a pigeon… I know, but just in case someone happened upon this thread and thought Mr. Raptor was making good arguments, I wanted to at least put his facts in doubt. I wasn't really writing to him, as I knew what kind of half-thought response I'd get for my efforts. Still, I wanted to call out the absurdities, for posterity if nothing else. No, I made good arguments. You just misunderstood their point. In any case, someone who makes a living off of indoctrinating youths has no business calling me out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 23:46:23 GMT
It's a freaking travesty that in an age of popular TV shows like Got, Breaking Bad, TWD, we are mainly served with blockbuster movies with brawling, indestructible teletubbies for manbabies. Give the kiddies their formula, they need it. But for the rest of us it's a colossal bore and annoyance. Ye gods let that bubble burst, so that cinema may have a chance at producing something more worthwhile eventually. Yeah, a guy with a Boba Fett avatar has no place whining about formulaic blockbusters. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on May 20, 2017 9:09:12 GMT
It's a freaking travesty that in an age of popular TV shows like Got, Breaking Bad, TWD, we are mainly served with blockbuster movies with brawling, indestructible teletubbies for manbabies. Give the kiddies their formula, they need it. But for the rest of us it's a colossal bore and annoyance. Ye gods let that bubble burst, so that cinema may have a chance at producing something more worthwhile eventually. Yeah, a guy with a Boba Fett avatar has no place whining about formulaic blockbusters. The weirdraptor doth protest too much, methinks. Thank you for agreeing on my point; your surrender is hereby accepted. But don't you worry, you will get your manchild formula - fatten up on it until you burst out of your superhero costume. Bon appetite! |
|
|
|
Post by thenewnexus on May 20, 2017 18:58:31 GMT
I am getting there as far as the movies go. The shows are good though |
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on May 21, 2017 4:31:34 GMT
I usually enjoy the ones I see, but I worry that they're all beginning to have too similar tones. (I'm not a comics guy, so I fully admit I may not know the depth of all the characters). This is why I think "Guardians of the Galaxy" (haven't seen the second) and "Watchmen" worked...and even the first "Iron-Man." They were just tonally a little different than the others. To be fair, I had the same problem with zombie and vampire movies when they were the soup of the day. When there are too many, even the posters start to look the same. And hey, I'm going to watch Dr. Strange tomorrow night (have no idea who or what he is). Superhero movies are rarely not a fun ride at least. You'll enjoy Doctor Strange. Just like those films you mentioned, it's something different. Visually it's incredibly trippy, and the storyline works, to carry the weight of the visuals, and it has some solid turns from Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton and Chiwetel Ejiofor. I went into it knowing nothing about it, save your reply. I thought it was great, and was a refreshing superhero story...didn't know anything other than this character's name going in. Cool story overall, and great casting. On the larger topic, I saw this movie only because I had my nephews over. My family is mostly women, so they take off for drinks and dinner and leave me with the boys (I don't mind and always have a lot of fun). We usually barbecue, dig holes, and work on our golf swing outside, but have a movie just in case it rains (or the little guy takes a fall and needs a break). It was definitely going to rain the other night, so my sister-in-law recommended picking up "Dr. Strange." This is a movie I'd probably not have checked out hadn't she recommended it. Really enjoyed it! So did the kids. One of my favorite childhood memories was watching Batman 89 when it came out on VHS. I watched it home sick one afternoon (right after the "Price is Right.") My grandfather was in town and decided to watch it with me. I'll never forget him yelling "holy shit" when Batman backhands the guy from around the corner in Axis Chemicals. From then on, he was glued to the screen...and he was a hardened WW2 vet, gravelly handed, hairy chested, silverback...but in that moment, he was a kid again. I kinda did that with Dr. Strange, except this time I was the old guy. Not saying superhero movies are just for kids, but that (as cliche as possible) they really can bring out the kid in you. Even though I was in early college when the first Spiderman came out, I felt like a kid watching him kick ass. I don't want them to go away, I just want them to stay creative. |
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on May 21, 2017 6:02:23 GMT
they are so empty
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on May 21, 2017 7:52:15 GMT
Here's an idea. Don't watch them.
|
|
