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

Mon0Zer0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
994
Of course film history matters but you bemoan modern business models when compared to old ones. If there is one thing we learn from history is that society and technology changes. People are still the same greedy, self-interested short-termist, arseholes they always have been (for the most part) but the melieu in which they operate is never the same. Stuff that worked 40 years ago don't work no more.

I love film. I think the feature film is one of those pefect art forms. Even shitty ones are to be treasured. I am aware though that it is a dying art form. Its time is up. It's not going to vanish overnight; people will still make them, I mean, people are still writing and producing ballets and grand operas long past the time when there is any viable economic justification for them - but as an important driver and unifier of popular culture the movie's days are, sadly, numbered.

Hollywood is, to paraphrase the great Morty Feinman. "Just milking the cow till it is dry, then it will make hamburgers and wallets."

Like it has always done.


I'm not sure the film medium is dying, so much as in a transitional state.

I just saw this, yesterday:


U2 aside, the potential for this a some kind of mass, quasi-religious experience is untold. They're already planning on building one in London.

Now imagine changing this to a narrative format. Movies will never be the same again, and this won't be replicable in your home like movies of today are. This is iMax on steroids.
 

Harpo

Getting away with it
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,962
Location
The edge of the world. Yes, really.

KGeo777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
2,210
Location
Canada
Like it has always done.
We have been on this road before so I would just say that as a creative person and audience member--I am interested in the history of art as business and realize that while there are situations where things happen by necessity and feel like destiny, there is a lot of choice involved too. That's the nature of creativity as a natural process.


And as I have mentioned more than twice, a Pixar executive was asked by someone why movies (circa 2010) were so uninteresting and he agreed with her about that--and said the reason was because Hollywood chooses to make films like a cookie company that could make products that appeal to different tastes-but decides it would rather make one cookie that is for everyone but so bland that it never really satisfies any particular group.


This was long before a beverage company decided to make an ad campaign aimed at 1% of the public and caused a revolt by the other 99% that used the product. That has absolutely zilch to do with business necessity unless they were strongarmed into doing it. But a transnational corporation has so much money that even brand suicide can't really harm it--and that is how it is with movie studios.


There's no competition, there is a complete lock on advertising and market access, so they can pretty do what they want.
The public does not matter at all anymore.
That's why they always focus on the overseas market--because they have a cookie aimed at the world.

It's not necessity, it is choices by the type of media company owner and the fact they have so much money and prevent competition (and they certainly do--there was a Bollywood film producer who spoke candidly about this--that Hollywood does not want outsiders--it is a small club despite preaching about diversity). Creativity is the expression of human experience through talent to paraphrase Vincent Price--but when you have art patrons who have absolutely zero interest in culture and could be argued--have a hatred of it using available evidence--you are going to get a cookie that increasingly tastes like someone slipped arsenic into it.

Also, something new in the mix is that starting around 2010 or so, they began to blame the audience for not being happy with a film.
We went from "the customer is always right" to "you are evil people."
A complete breakdown in professionalism.
 
Last edited:

JunkMonkey

Lord High Vizier of Nowt
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
3,779
Location
A wet, but photogenic, bit of Scotland.
We have been on this road before so I would just say that as a creative person and audience member--I am interested in the history of art as business and realize that while there are situations where things happen by necessity and feel like destiny, there is a lot of choice involved too. That's the nature of creativity as a natural process.


Yeah, we have been down this road before. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Business will always do what it thinks will make it most money in the short term for its investors. That's all. Sometimes it gets it wrong sometimes it gets it right. (By which I mean when it 'gets it right' the business makes more money than would have done by doing nothing. That is the only criterion that business has. Nothing else matters. Don't look to business to make art. Don't look to business to care about art, or artists, or anything other than making money. The public has never mattered. The public is just a medium by which money is moved from one place to another. The more efficient the process of extracting money from people the business attracts, the more profitable the company. That's all. That's capitalism.

If you don't like the product don't buy it. (Just like all those transphobic beer drinkers who were so offended by the inclusion of someone who wasn't their idea of a beer swilling macho man in an advertising campaign.)

Maybe the execs are right. Maybe in this Idiocracy world most of the the people ARE morons and not worthy of respect. (I can think of no other explanation for many current events.) Because the customer is NOT always right. Anyone who has ever dealt face to face with customers on a day to day basis knows that a lot of them are often totally wrong. "The customer is always right", in application, really means "Yeah, whatever - now what's the least I can do to make you go away?".

I'm bored with this conversation.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,383
What amazes me is when a movie gets horrible reviews and the theaters are still packed. :unsure::(
 

KGeo777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
2,210
Location
Canada
Yeah, we have been down this road before. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.
Except you don't refute it.
You have a view and then say you are right without providing evidence to back your view.
I quote Pixar executives.
I don't mind you restating your opinion, but not providing evidence for the view is not helpful.
And yes, I agree it is boring to read unsupported opinion over and over again. :)
 

Harpo

Getting away with it
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,962
Location
The edge of the world. Yes, really.
It makes sense there will be alot more of this, not just monsterverse, but movies that allow for multiple additions in the same universe. Especially after the success of Marvel. Hopefully this means adapting fantasy book series. Or maybe even creating something new (that's probably unrealistic tho).
Next year the fifth Monsterverse film will have Kong teaming up with Godzilla to fight an huge unknown threat, and which will expand upon the whole Monsterverse thing. Also, there has been talk about linking the Pacific Rim film series somehow.

As for creating something new, it was *all*new once upon a time.
 

JunkMonkey

Lord High Vizier of Nowt
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
3,779
Location
A wet, but photogenic, bit of Scotland.
Except you don't refute it.
You have a view and then say you are right without providing evidence to back your view.
I quote Pixar executives.
I don't mind you restating your opinion, but not providing evidence for the view is not helpful.
And yes, I agree it is boring to read unsupported opinion over and over again. :)

Why would I give a flying f*ck about what any given Pixar executive thinks? I don't buy their product.

I ate at a Pizza Express the other day (not my choice). It was one of the most depressing eating experiences - I won't deign to call what I had 'a meal' - I think I have ever had.

I have never eaten in a MacDonalds.

Do I quote MacDonald's executives to prove they are deliberately making a bland product in the clear expectation that they will sell gaizillions of whichever MacCraps they are focussed on this week?

Nope. Because I know there are other places to eat and I'll go eat in them.

There are other places than "Hollywood" making films.

If you don't like the product or think, some supra-national conspiracy of 'them's is using it to sap your vital bodily fluids (there isn't) don't buy it.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,383
It's unfortunate that that Dungeons and Dragon Honor Among Thieves wasn't. bit hit. It likes means we won't be getting any sequels.
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,383
Except you don't refute it.
You have a view and then say you are right without providing evidence to back your view.
I quote Pixar executives.
I don't mind you restating your opinion, but not providing evidence for the view is not helpful.
And yes, I agree it is boring to read unsupported opinion over and over again. :)

Please . I don't want see this thread topic locked .:(
 
Last edited:

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,383
Why would I give a flying f*ck about what any given Pixar executive thinks? I don't buy their product.

I ate at a Pizza Express the other day (not my choice). It was one of the most depressing eating experiences - I won't deign to call what I had 'a meal' - I think I have ever had.

I have never eaten in a MacDonalds.

Do I quote MacDonald's executives to prove they are deliberately making a bland product in the clear expectation that they will sell gaizillions of whichever MacCraps they are focussed on this week?

Nope. Because I know there are other places to eat and I'll go eat in them.

There are other places than "Hollywood" making films.

If you don't like the product or think, some supra-national conspiracy of 'them's is using it to sap your vital bodily fluids (there isn't) don't buy it.

Please, I don't want to see this topic thread locked. :(
 

KGeo777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
2,210
Location
Canada
Well, I never!

My main point was that the OP is saying "what will be the next big thing after superheroes?"

What do we mean by "big thing?" Genuine audience enthusiasm for a specific genre or just media circus hoopla for something that people don't really care about but it is the only thing playing?

Because there is an abundance of evidence that Hollywood is experiencing a self-induced implosion.
They put all their eggs in one basket with superheroes (which a lot of people did not care for) and now it has fizzled out.
So what can they do next? They don't seek creative variety or appeasing different audience tastes. They spend too much money, they seek global distribution, they don't limit their ambitions.

They certainly are not likely to go back to star vehicle films with no corporate brand connection. I don't think they have it in their boardroom DNA to do that.
They don't want to make films targeted regionally-they want a film to open in all countries at once. And cost $300 million (even if it could be reduced to $3 million).

And somehow I doubt Mattel-themed toy comedies are going to be a big thing either. Or films about scientists.

The only reason one would even ask about "the next big thing" is because there is such a lack of variety and choice. There's an all or nothing mentality in media about film.

So I don't think there will be a next big thing unless it is really banal and people just roll their eyes at the hype like they did with superheroes.

It went from blockbuster fantasy with fx innovation (1970s - 90s)
to CGI-promoted branded film franchises and sequels (2000s)
to superhero brands and remakes (2010s) hyper-promoted in a restricted media environment where only a few select things were talked about (i.e. GET OUT).

The media says it is a big thing-and they bring out alleged box office totals to back up their hoopla
but we don't really know.
What we do know is that a lot of these so-called big thing film events come and go and people forget about them pretty quickly.

That's my final word on the subject. I hope.
 

Harpo

Getting away with it
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,962
Location
The edge of the world. Yes, really.
Hollywood didn’t put all its eggs in the one Superhero basket. There’s always been other types of successful films.

Taking as an example the year 2019 (which I chose due to Avengers Endgame being the biggie that year) the top twenty films of the year included only a few superhero films. There were also other ongoing franchises (Fast & Furious, Jumanji, Toy Story, Star Wars) and a bunch of Disney stuff (Lion King, Frozen, etc) and - away from Hollywood itself- even some non-US films are in that top 20 (Ne Zha is in 12th place, but less than 1% of its box office was in the USA)

Superhero films are not everything in cinema, just like books aren’t everything on these forums, and cake isn’t everything at birthday parties.
 

Mon0Zer0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
994
Well, I never!

My main point was that the OP is saying "what will be the next big thing after superheroes?"

What do we mean by "big thing?" Genuine audience enthusiasm for a specific genre or just media circus hoopla for something that people don't really care about but it is the only thing playing?

Because there is an abundance of evidence that Hollywood is experiencing a self-induced implosion.
They put all their eggs in one basket with superheroes (which a lot of people did not care for) and now it has fizzled out.
So what can they do next? They don't seek creative variety or appeasing different audience tastes. They spend too much money, they seek global distribution, they don't limit their ambitions.

They certainly are not likely to go back to star vehicle films with no corporate brand connection. I don't think they have it in their boardroom DNA to do that.
They don't want to make films targeted regionally-they want a film to open in all countries at once. And cost $300 million (even if it could be reduced to $3 million).

And somehow I doubt Mattel-themed toy comedies are going to be a big thing either. Or films about scientists.

The only reason one would even ask about "the next big thing" is because there is such a lack of variety and choice. There's an all or nothing mentality in media about film.

So I don't think there will be a next big thing unless it is really banal and people just roll their eyes at the hype like they did with superheroes.

It went from blockbuster fantasy with fx innovation (1970s - 90s)
to CGI-promoted branded film franchises and sequels (2000s)
to superhero brands and remakes (2010s) hyper-promoted in a restricted media environment where only a few select things were talked about (i.e. GET OUT).

The media says it is a big thing-and they bring out alleged box office totals to back up their hoopla
but we don't really know.
What we do know is that a lot of these so-called big thing film events come and go and people forget about them pretty quickly.

That's my final word on the subject. I hope.
intolerance-crane-shot-griffith (1).jpeg


Superheroes are just a continuation of cinema of spectacle. Same as Intolerance, or Ben Hur or Jason and the Argonauts etc. etc.

Cinema has to have an element of spectacle to get people to leave their homes and go to a cinema. It has to be an experience. Your mid budget dramas are all on streaming services.

The future of cinema is stuff like this:


AI generated spectacle and strangeness that will play on the HUGE screen. Imagine a proper fantasy movie with those kind of visuals. I can imagine JJ Abram's Krull is going to use this technology for sure.
 

KGeo777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
2,210
Location
Canada
View attachment 110851

Superheroes are just a continuation of cinema of spectacle. Same as Intolerance, or Ben Hur or Jason and the Argonauts etc. etc.
Not just a continuation because in the case of Intolerance and Ben-Hur 1920s version--that was before dialogue sound so there was a limitation on dramatic presentation by necessity. And Harryhausen films were considered 90% special effects and 10% acting and story. No one raved about Todd Armstrong. RH films were not mass market either. They were small fry in the Hollywood film distribution web. Columbia financed most of them and they were once a poverty row studio. And I have heard that the only reason they financed them was because Charles Schneer was married to someone with connections to the boss. If not for that--RH films may never have been made.

So yes--we are seeing a cinematic regression of sorts--but it is different from the 20s or the 60s since this is not due to technological limitations--it is due ENTIRELY to decisions to limit artistic range as they seek more of a global audience, and this is caused by company choice not necessity. The ownership is regressive, primitive, cannibalistic in creative designs. If one examines the cultural field of expression this is what can be observed. "Let's make a big budget movie of a 1950s girl toy!"

There's less choice even for those who like spectacle. There were a lot of film companies in the 1910s and 20s. Many of those films are lost.

And on spectacle: the difference between Star Wars 1977 and The Force Awakens is that the original film did not dominate the media waves. It was talked about-but so were a lot of other things. When TFA came out-the media treated it like the Second Coming--the concentration of media ownership allowed them to spread it everywhere at once (and block out everything else).
The same thing was done on a smaller scale with the Halloween sequels--these were like Halloween 9? 10? And they had already done a remake as well? A well-worn story property--but they had mass marketing to everyone so as to make it seem like it was a big event when it was not. They brought back the guy who wore the mask in the first movie or the girl Lindsey. Now that's a pretty weak marketing hook if we are being honest. Likewise for the new Exorcist film.

And relegating alternative films to streaming while the big budget spectacles are in 4000 plus theaters-- they say streaming is not providing much of a revenue and the corporate owners don't really care. Amazon etc. don't care about it.
Plus watching movies on a tv probably takes some of the sheen off it--especially if it was designed for big screen presentation.

It is a kind of film ghetto which is what Scorsese and others were concerned about.

JJ Abrams is doing Krull?
 

BAYLOR

There Are Always new Things to Learn.
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
23,383
Not just a continuation because in the case of Intolerance and Ben-Hur 1920s version--that was before dialogue sound so there was a limitation on dramatic presentation by necessity. And Harryhausen films were considered 90% special effects and 10% acting and story. No one raved about Todd Armstrong. RH films were not mass market either. They were small fry in the Hollywood film distribution web. Columbia financed most of them and they were once a poverty row studio. And I have heard that the only reason they financed them was because Charles Schneer was married to someone with connections to the boss. If not for that--RH films may never have been made.

So yes--we are seeing a cinematic regression of sorts--but it is different from the 20s or the 60s since this is not due to technological limitations--it is due ENTIRELY to decisions to limit artistic range as they seek more of a global audience, and this is caused by company choice not necessity. The ownership is regressive, primitive, cannibalistic in creative designs. If one examines the cultural field of expression this is what can be observed. "Let's make a big budget movie of a 1950s girl toy!"

There's less choice even for those who like spectacle. There were a lot of film companies in the 1910s and 20s. Many of those films are lost.

And on spectacle: the difference between Star Wars 1977 and The Force Awakens is that the original film did not dominate the media waves. It was talked about-but so were a lot of other things. When TFA came out-the media treated it like the Second Coming--the concentration of media ownership allowed them to spread it everywhere at once (and block out everything else).
The same thing was done on a smaller scale with the Halloween sequels--these were like Halloween 9? 10? And they had already done a remake as well? A well-worn story property--but they had mass marketing to everyone so as to make it seem like it was a big event when it was not. They brought back the guy who wore the mask in the first movie or the girl Lindsey. Now that's a pretty weak marketing hook if we are being honest. Likewise for the new Exorcist film.

And relegating alternative films to streaming while the big budget spectacles are in 4000 plus theaters-- they say streaming is not providing much of a revenue and the corporate owners don't really care. Amazon etc. don't care about it.
Plus watching movies on a tv probably takes some of the sheen off it--especially if it was designed for big screen presentation.

It is a kind of film ghetto which is what Scorsese and others were concerned about.

JJ Abrams is doing Krull?

It like to see Martin Scorsese do a Superhero film . Id also like to see what Guillermo Del Toro could do with Krull :)
 

Similar threads


Top