TV/Movies Megathread

[garbon]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A boring theory: an already-existing body of visual lore in the form of comic books creates a built-in audience and relieves the film-maker of the difficulty of making up compelling new stories and visuals. They can just keep plundering the existing stash.

Comic book sales are very low though. The built-in audience is negligible. I think this answers the question from the POV of Hollywood: "Hey, we make a ton from those movies, and we have all of these characters and stories we can draw from, let's make a conveyor line of this crap". But why the audiences keep coming for more despite so many iterations on the same theme?

I think I bought maybe 5 comic books in my entire life. Nevertheless, I had a lot of exposure in the US as a child via television shows (both live action - Wonder Woman, Batman, Lois and Clark, Smallville, etc. and many, many animated series).  Superheros are wrapped up in a bit of nostalgia for me despite not having purchased/read many comic books.

[Malthus]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A not very mature nor imaginative audience?

As opposed to the mature, discriminating and imaginative types who can appreciate the finer points of "... the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films ... "?

[Malthus]

Comic book sales are very low though. The built-in audience is negligible. I think this answers the question from the POV of Hollywood: "Hey, we make a ton from those movies, and we have all of these characters and stories we can draw from, let's make a conveyor line of this crap". But why the audiences keep coming for more despite so many iterations on the same theme?

I'm with Garbon on this - comics enjoy awesome nostalgia and name recognition, even as the actual readership of present-day comics declines.

Nearly everyone knows who Batman or Superman is, even if they never read another comic book.

What is interesting is that lesser-known comic book heroes can also work (Ant-Man, etc.) even though few will know anything about them. I can only attribute that to the public having gained an appetite for the genre from those which did have name recognition.

Edit: when Hollywood attempted to resurrect "John Carter of Mars", it bombed - which was attributed in part to a lack of recognition of the character.

[The Brain]

Why isn't Ant-Man Mant?

[mongers]

Thing is, the levels of visual spectacle provided by superhero movies could be achieved through many genres/devices. And there's many examples: the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films... none of those - while very successful by themselves - has engendered a trend. Yet superheroes stick for some reason. So to me there's got to be something more to the ubiquity of superhero narratives than "it's an easy way to shove in impressive visuals and action scenes".

A not very mature nor imaginative audience?

As opposed to the mature, discriminating and imaginative types who can appreciate the finer points of "... the Transformers flicks, Star Wars, the Fast & Furious films ... "?

Be my guest, lump them in with the comic book crowd too. 

[Eddie Teach]

What do discerning audiences like Mongers crave, Antiques Roadshow?

[The Brain]

What do discerning audiences like Mongers crave, Antiques Roadshow?

It's the best TV show ever.

[The Minsky Moment]

A boring theory: an already-existing body of visual lore in the form of comic books creates a built-in audience and relieves the film-maker of the difficulty of making up compelling new stories and visuals. They can just keep plundering the existing stash.

I think that's definitely true.  Not only is the brand and name-recognition there but as a bonus there is a bunch a plot and story lines that can be easily plugged into a screenplay without much work.

[Malthus]

Why isn't Ant-Man Mant?

Can't.

[Sophie Scholl]

Edit: when Hollywood attempted to resurrect "John Carter of Mars", it bombed - which was attributed in part to a lack of recognition of the character.

  I really liked that movie.  I wish it had caught on.  The terrible marketing and name certainly didn't help.

[The Minsky Moment]

The flip side being that the "small" screen is now big enough to accommodate all but the most spectacular of audio-visual experiences.  And on TV it is much easier to budget and target particular demographics.  So the would be auteurs move more and more to TV and Hollywood plays it more and more safe.

[Malthus]

The flip side being that the "small" screen is now big enough to accommodate all but the most spectacular of audio-visual experiences.  And on TV it is much easier to budget and target particular demographics.  So the would be auteurs move more and more to TV and Hollywood plays it more and more safe.

Indeed. It's why we are often thought to be in a 'golden age' of high quality TV dramas.

On a side note: we are also in a 'golden age' of Western children's animation for TV. 

[celedhring]

Edit: when Hollywood attempted to resurrect "John Carter of Mars", it bombed - which was attributed in part to a lack of recognition of the character.

  I really liked that movie.  I wish it had caught on.  The terrible marketing and name certainly didn't help.

I thought it was too bloated and with an unnecessarily complicated plot (nowadays blockbusters have more of everything, even plotlines), but it certainly felt fresher than your usual blockbuster fare. Loved the retro sci-fi setting, it really felt very pulpy without being silly.

Dejah Toris was smoking, too.

[Sophie Scholl]

Edit: when Hollywood attempted to resurrect "John Carter of Mars", it bombed - which was attributed in part to a lack of recognition of the character.

  I really liked that movie.  I wish it had caught on.  The terrible marketing and name certainly didn't help.

I thought it was too bloated and with an unnecessarily complicated plot (nowadays blockbusters have more of everything, even plotlines), but it certainly felt fresher than your usual blockbuster fare. Loved the retro sci-fi setting, it really felt very pulpy without being silly.

Dejah Toris was smoking, too.

Agreed on Dejah.  In terms of the plot, I think it was a complicated as it was because they were building for a series as well as world building.  With the character not in the popular consciousness anymore, it required a lot more explanation than a typical superhero flick.  As it turned out, a lot of that could have been cut since it was just the one film.  I wonder if it would have done better that way. I think it was doomed regardless due to how it was pushed.

[celedhring]

Took my mother to The Greatest Showman (she being a big Hugh Jackman fan). It's like a Baz Luhrmann film, without Baz Luhrmann. The movie is so earnest and silly sometimes it's embarassing.

Also, I'm not that familiar with P.T. Barnum's life story but I'm sure as hell it isn't as presented in the film. It's over-sugared to the nth degree.