After SuperHeroes , What Do You Think Will be the Next Big Thing in The Movies?

J-WO said:
More superheroes.
*Knocks back glass of scotch and stares at wall hopelessly*
Click to expand...

I just watched some Youtuber rant about how bad Game of Thrones clones led to a slew of historical series about swordfighting where instead of low fantasy they made magic non-existent.

What we need is something else that's breakout successful where bad clones are also going to be successful enough to keep the trend alive for awhile. Didn't Star Trek manage to spawn a whole bunch of forgettable space operas like Andromeda?
 
Bramandin said:
I just watched some Youtuber rant about how bad Game of Thrones clones led to a slew of historical series about swordfighting where instead of low fantasy they made magic non-existent.

What we need is something else that's breakout successful where bad clones are also going to be successful enough to keep the trend alive for awhile. Didn't Star Trek manage to spawn a whole bunch of forgettable space operas like Andromeda?
Click to expand...

The Iron King book series by Maurice Druon A 7 book historical series was one the inspiration for game of Thones. It set in the Time of Phillip IV of France , He's the King who brought down the Templar Knights. The series spans seven books in All and has been twice adapted for French television.
 
By all accounts (I have not seen it) it was pretty dire too. I've not seen it because I didn't like the original series in the slightest. The trouble with adapting a 30 minute time slot British sitcom - is that, once you strip out the opening and closing credits, they probably only ran for 27 minutes - less for commercial TV which would have had an advert break in the middle:

I just pulled down a DVD of the first commercial TV sit com that came to hand. Granada TV's Brass. Episodes are 25: 22 minutes long opening credits are 36 seconds, end credits 1 minute. So 23: 46 scripted comedy. Much as I love Brass a film version would be what 90+minutes? Four times the length. Not sure the joke is sustainable for that long. Most sitcoms are built to a pretty rigid structure and rely on stock situations and stock responses to them from their characters. Fine once a week. Stretched that out to feature length is always going to be difficult.

I think I can safely predict the Next Big Thing is NOT going to be film versions of out of date TV sitcoms.
 
Last edited:
JunkMonkey said:
By all accounts (I have not seen it) it was pretty dire too. I've not seen it because I didn't like the original series in the slightest. The trouble with adapting a 30 minute time slot British sitcom - is that, once you strip out the opening and closing credits, they probably only ran for 27 minutes - less for commercial TV which would have had an advert break in the middle:

I just pulled down a DVD of the first commercial TV sit com that came to hand. Granada TV's Brass. Episodes are 25: 22 minutes long opening credits are 36 seconds, end credits 1 minute. So 23: 46 scripted comedy. Much as I love Brass a film version would be what 90+minutes? Four times the length. Not sure the joke is sustainable for that long. Most sitcoms are built to a pretty rigid structure and rely on stock situations and stock responses to them from their characters. Fine once a week. Stretched that out to feature length is always going to be difficult.

I think I can safely predict the Next Big Thing is NOT going to be film versions of out of date TV sitcoms.
Click to expand...

Was Coneheads a sitcom? Or was that a skit in a larger show? A-team wasn't a sitcom, again not familiar with the source but it made for a good movie. I guess I don't watch many sitcoms other than Frasier and Big Bang Theory, neither of which seems like something I'd want a large dose of.
 
Bramandin said:
Was Coneheads a sitcom? Or was that a skit in a larger show? A-team wasn't a sitcom, again not familiar with the source but it made for a good movie. I guess I don't watch many sitcoms other than Frasier and Big Bang Theory, neither of which seems like something I'd want a large dose of.
Click to expand...

It was an ongoing series sketched on Saturday Night Live doing the Belushi /Ackroyd era . There alos exists ans animated Conehead tv special does years after the original Conehead sketch's .
 
Interesting that the original question was posted in 2016. And it is now 2022. So, the answer appears to be that there is no 'next big thing'. We are stuck with superhero movies and always will be.

In a way it makes perfect sense. The public dutifully trots out to watch them. Why would a studio take a risk and produce anything else when there is a guaranteed $200M takings on a movie that costs $100M to make? They know it is guaranteed because that is exactly what the movie before made, and the one before that, and the one before that. Why would they change? Why take a risk?
 
Christine Wheelwright said:
Interesting that the original question was posted in 2016. And it is now 2022. So, the answer appears to be that there is no 'next big thing'. We are stuck with superhero movies and always will be.

In a way it makes perfect sense. The public dutifully trots out to watch them. Why would a studio take a risk and produce anything else when there is a guaranteed $200M takings on a movie that costs $100M to make? They know it is guaranteed because that is exactly what the movie before made, and the one before that, and the one before that. Why would they change? Why take a risk?
Click to expand...

Westerns were popular for several decades and then, they weren't.
 
Christine Wheelwright said:
Interesting that the original question was posted in 2016. And it is now 2022. So, the answer appears to be that there is no 'next big thing'. We are stuck with superhero movies and always will be.

In a way it makes perfect sense. The public dutifully trots out to watch them. Why would a studio take a risk and produce anything else when there is a guaranteed $200M takings on a movie that costs $100M to make? They know it is guaranteed because that is exactly what the movie before made, and the one before that, and the one before that. Why would they change? Why take a risk?
Click to expand...
I agree, but there is likely more to it. Other things to consider. (1) the increasing polarization of the world today might make film makers worry about doing something too contemporary. (2) the increasingly more lifelike CGI special effects make comic book action and violence much easier to put on film. (3) Western audiences are so jaded about real life heroes and villains that only stereotypical stuff plays. (4) perhaps in our present day human psyche there's a subconscious dread about the world which has us believe that only something superhuman could help.

Edit: On some further contemplation. I think we also have to make some allowance for streaming. There are a ton of different and some really, really good stories being told there. And these are a ton easier to get made than tradition movies.
 
Parson said:
I agree, but there is likely more to it. Other things to consider. (1) the increasing polarization of the world today might make film makers worry about doing something too contemporary. (2) the increasingly more lifelike CGI special effects make comic book action and violence much easier to put on film. (3) Western audiences are so jaded about real life heroes and villains that only stereotypical stuff plays. (4) perhaps in our present day human psyche there's a subconscious dread about the world which has us believe that only something superhuman could help.
Click to expand...

I think you make four very good points there, Parson.
 
Bramandin said:
Was Coneheads a sitcom? Or was that a skit in a larger show? A-team wasn't a sitcom, again not familiar with the source but it made for a good movie. I guess I don't watch many sitcoms other than Frasier and Big Bang Theory, neither of which seems like something I'd want a large dose of.
Click to expand...

The A-Team was a longer format - and was much more like a film to start with. Sitcoms tended to be studio bound, recorded before a live audience, and using the same end-on sets week after week. Much more like plays than films though they would often have filmed insets (I'm talking about British sitcoms here). The A-Team got out - ok it was the same three bits of road in Bronson Canyon but they got out of the studio and it was shot like a movie. The transition to a bigger screen was more natural.
 
JunkMonkey said:
The A-Team was a longer format - and was much more like a film to start with. Sitcoms tended to be studio bound, recorded before a live audience, and using the same end-on sets week after week. Much more like plays than films though they would often have filmed insets (I'm talking about British sitcoms here). The A-Team got out - ok it was the same three bits of road in Bronson Canyon but they got out of the studio and it was shot like a movie. The transition to a bigger screen was more natural.
Click to expand...

Would that make Fraggle Rock a sitcom? Either way, I would either love or hate for that to be made into a movie. I think the Sesame Street crew managed to do some longer things.

BAYLOR said:
It was an ongoing series sketched on Saturday Night Live doing the Belushi /Ackroyd era . There alos exists ans animated Conehead tv special does years after the original Conehead sketch's .
Click to expand...

That would explain why I don't know Coneheads. I was pretty young when I watched the cartoon and I'm not sure how old I was when I was in the room while the movie was playing.
 
Bramandin said:
Would that make Fraggle Rock a sitcom? Either way, I would either love or hate for that to be made into a movie. I think the Sesame Street crew managed to do some longer things.



That would explain why I don't know Coneheads. I was pretty young when I watched the cartoon and I'm not sure how old I was when I was in the room while the movie was playing.
Click to expand...

The Conehead while entertaining and funny in some places and has a grain of a story . Its Didn't really translate as a film. It lacked the comic genius of the tv sketches .
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about this thread last night while watching Season One Episode One of Batwoman - and realising with sinking dread that each and every person in it wasn't going to die before the end of the episode but become a recurring character - and I thought, "The next big thing in movies... Superheroes without Daddy Issues!"

Has it been tried?
 
Interest in superhero films seems to waning a bit.
 
My gods no!
That said its not abnormal. I've often noticed that you get a wave of a couple of films that seem to share very similar themes and ideas. I figure when news of a studio doing one kind of story; another might well jump on board thinking its the next hottest thing and might at least generate them healthy money. So you get two projects that "ape" each other somewhat. This is just a more blatant example and likely just because the source material is in the public domain .
 
The other day, actor James Earl Jones retired from voicing Darth Vader, instead the voice will be done by AI using archive recordings of Jones’ voice.

And just today, it’s announced that Bruce Willis is selling his likeness rights so that Deepfake versions of Bruce Willis can appear in future films.

These two big-name instances are probably only the start of a new trend, and therefore a forthcoming Next Big Thing.
Retired actors giving permission for the continued use of their image and voice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
AlexH The surprising cinematic origins of superheroes (and villains) General Film Discussion 2
B If SuperHeroes With Superpower and Abilities Existed Why Would They Necessarily be Selfless and on the Side of Right ? SFF Lounge 12
Mouse Superheroes and the NaNo Writing Discussion 34
Brian G Turner DC superheroes to get YA novels Young Adult Fiction 1
Ihe Superheroes Writing Discussion 19

Similar threads


Back
Top