# data[].attributes.headline
WBD Can’t Succeed By Making Superhero Movies Just ‘For The Fans’

# data[].attributes.subject
WBD Can’t Succeed By Making Superhero Movies Just ‘For The Fans’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With Warner Bros. Discovery's superhero release Black Adam grossing $67 million domestic and $70 million international at the box office this weekend, the marketing - led by the film's superstar Dwayne Johnson - has focused on the message "we're listening to the fans." But fandom is divided on what they want, and these films have to be made for the mainstream global audiences if they are going to achieve blockbuster success needed to compete with Marvel Studios. WBD simply cannot succeed in the longterm by making and marketing these movies as just "for the fans."

Dwayne Johnson stars in "Black Adam"
Source: Warner Bros. Discovery

WBD's new leadership is attempting the upteenth "course correction" for their DCEU properties, and many of their decisions thus far have been controversial if not downright shocking and perplexing. This has caused further division in a fandom already split into multiple factions that are often hostile to one another (too often, and usually for too simplistic and too selfish of reasons).

( Spoiler Warning: From here, I'll be mentioning various things about DCEU projects that you may or may not be aware of, including some things about Black Adam that I'd normally not mention on opening weekend, but the marketing and Johnson himself have been so constantly hinting and winking about it that it's a bit silly to treat it as a secret or spoiler at this point - but still, here's your spoiler warning!)

Black Adam wound up an amalgamation of elements intended to appeal in nominal ways to multiple of these factions, yet in ways that also seem likely to alienate many of those same fandoms in other ways. And regardless of what any one of us personally thinks or prefers about this movie or others in the DC stable, they need to focus less on selling their films as "for the fans" and more toward appealing to what mainstream audiences want and respond to most from DCEU movies.

Black Adam's opening weekend numbers are healthy, despite mostly negative reviews (it's at 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, with just 29% from Top Critics) and a modest B+ Cinemascore from audiences. The film has a mostly open field ahead for three weeks, allowing it time to boost its grosses before the Marvel superhero sequel Wakanda Forever arrives to rule the box office for the rest of November and into mid-December, when Avatar: The Way of Water will defy all naysayers by becoming another of the highest-grossing films of all time and probably setting endless box office records.

The point is, Black Adam has a decent chance to top $500+ million if it has high-end weekly holds and bigger-than-expected weekday performances, before the competition sucks all of the oxygen out of the box office for everybody else. But if the hardcore fanbase showed up en mass for opening weekend and if the modest word of mouth doesn't help drive higher attendance and repeat business for the next few weeks, then Black Adam might wind up closer to the $400+ million range.

Aldis Hodge stars in "Black Adam"
Source: Warner Bros. Discovery

And the fact is, with a nearly $200 million budget and $100+ million in marketing, this film needs to reach at least $650+ million to cover its costs (studios only get about 40% of global ticket sales, sometimes less). While a $400-500 million result would look like a respectable result for an unknown superhero origin story released in October, it might've had a better chance at higher box office returns if it were marketed less as "for the fans" and more as "for everybody" (especially with such a relatively diverse cast compared to many other superhero movies).

I'm not trying to be a doomsayer here, I'm simply trying to make the point that in the final weeks Black Adam focused a lot of the promotion on the notion of being made "for the fans" and "listening to the fans," and pushing the wink-wink hint-hint revelation that Henry Cavill's Superman makes an appearance and signals a "return" of the actor and cinematic iteration beloved by a portion of fandom. But I don't think average moviegoers frankly cared that much about this, so the media coverage and social media narratives about Cavill, Superman, and "for the fans" was a distraction from focusing mainstream audience attention on other factors that could've been more beneficial for Black Adam's opening weekend and longterm financial health.

Meanwhile, the way Cavill's return was treated probably didn't actually have the sort of appeal WBD intended - especially in any longterm sense that would help drive repeat business and greater enthusiasm among fans the marketing and media attentino focused on.

Consider: Black Adam was completed under Walter Hamada's leadership, yet with Hamada being unceremoniously forced out of the studio, the project was forced to include Cavill's Superman cameo - which will please Cavill fans, many of whom are also fans of Zack Snyder's earlier setup movies and plans for the DCEU. On the other hand, Cavill and others have been vocal about taking a different approach to Superman than Zack Snyder took in earlier films, and the cameo in Black Adam eschews the modern Superman theme music created by Hans Zimmer in 2013's Man of Steel, instead borrowing John Williams' theme for the 1978 Superman movie.

So anyone who expects or wants Cavill's return to herald a revival of Zack Snyder's plans and approach is mistaken and bound to be disappointed, as is anyone who was expecting or wanting the latest supposed "course correction" to offer a new Superman or otherwise move on from what the DCEU offered previously. Which could leave the cameo feeling like a half-measure to these fans, trying to appease a portion of fans who constantly express anger at WB, yet unwilling to go all-in on either a new direction or a full revival. It also ignores the more important question, "Is this something average mainstream moviegoers seem to want, will it excite and please them?"

People can of course have the opinion that Cavill made a good Superman, deservers another chance at the character, and/or that he so far hasn't been utilized in ways they personally prefer. You could argue it's worth bringing Cavill back with nods at what came before within a tweaked approach pursuing a new vision for his future.

For that to work, however, there needs to actually be a vision for the future, and the studio and filmmakers need to understand what broader audiences want and expect from the character and the larger DCEU. Crucially, this requires focusing on the right audience in the first place - and fans may not want to hear this, but the fact is the audience whose opinions and desires matter most for a successful revival of Superman are mainstream moviegoers, not this or that narrow corner of fandom.

Side note: If things had gone differently in the past and WB had delayed release of Justice League in 2016 to let Zack Snyder finish his vision for the project, we could've had Zack Snyder's Justice League as the official theatrical release - ideally broken into two two-hour parts (maybe split at the point Steppenwolf realizes the Anti-Life Equation is on Earth) released in summer and Christmas the same year to maximize box office and media attention - which would've gotten much better reviews and might've solidified broader mainstream audience enthusiasm for the DCEU and finally made Cavill's Superman widely popular. Everything would've been different then. But anyway, back to the way things are...

The DCEU needs a plan, and needs leadership that stops stepping all over the plans. Fans who want a successful, good DCEU need to recognize the need for plans, even if they don't always agree with every aspect of those plans. And fans need to admit that the plans cannot simply appeal to existing fans, but rather appeal to mainstream audiences in ways that turn those audiences into new fans.

Comic book fandom is important and helps promote these movies, and their enthusiasm aids with viral marketing and other promotion to increase a film's footprint on social media. They also turn out on opening weekend and push box office higher. So I'm not at all saying fans don't matter. But fans cannot be treated as the only audience who matters, and can't think of themselves that way. Fans should recognize their role within the larger global audience for these films, instead of insisting their personal fan preferences need to drive all of the decisions and productions of superhero movies (or any movies with a large vocal fandom).

Black Adam was promoted as (and the final marketing and social media push focused on) being made for the fans, based on listening to the fans, and bringing back something fans particularly demanded. But if Black Adam performs modestly at the lower end of expectations, then what happens? Will WBD still forge ahead with making decisions and changes to keep trying to appease fandom? (I say this as someone who personally liked the previous Cavill Superman appearances and the movies he starred in, remember.)

I'm not here to rain on any fans' parades or to discount Cavill's return, nor to suggest Black Adam isn't a good or fun movie enjoyed by many fans and other viewers (you can read Scott Mendelson's review for Forbes here). My point is simply to speak to the notion of marketing this film or others as "for the fans," and to say that claiming to "listen to the fans" when deciding what to do and how to do it is not the recipe for success that fans or the marketing/promotion suggest it is. Sometimes what makes fans happiest overlaps with what makes most audiences happy, and results in good storytelling that is also popular and financially successful. Other times not. And the commitment needs to be to good storytelling and popular success, not simply resorting to saying "we made this for the fans."

More to the point, Black Adam's attempt to use "for the fans" and the Cavill cameo to get fans excited and generate more attention wasn't inherently a bad idea, but rather something that would've worked better as a viral marketing push and something for Johnson to talk about on and after opening weekend, not for days and weeks leading up to the debut.

Instead, it probably would've benefited more from pushing messaging about the film's creation of the Justice Society, that's it's build toward Black Adam fighting Shazam, and the overall idea that this film was a key part in moving the DCEU toward a new phase leading into Shazam! Fury of the Gods, The Flash, Blue Beetle, Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom - as well as confirmation that more The Batman spinoffs and sequels are on the way, as are a Wonder Woman sequel and new Superman movie (without pushing Cavill's return yet, saving that cameo reveal for opening weekend and afterward to drive attention in weeks #2 and #3 of Black Adam's release). Using Black Adam not only as a platform to highlight Dwayne Johnson's introduction into superhero cinema but also to highlight all of these other upcoming DCEU projects - as well as the Joker sequel - could've worked better to get broader mainstream interest in the film and the DCEU overall.

Alternately, instead of just a cameo, perhaps Black Adam could've included a few additional scenes of Superman and Clark Kent hearing about Black Adam's arrival, Amanda Waller reaching out to him, and then Superman showing up to talk to Black Adam at the end. Then the marketing and final push could've included scenes of Superman being part of the film as more than a cameo, making him a true value-added element. If Cavill and Superman were thought to have appeal worth using to push the film in the final weeks, then it probably made more sense to go all-in and not do a half-hearted "keep it secret but also leak it" approach focused on "this is just for the fans."

Which all gets back to the main point that it's important not to let media focus, social media footprint, and promotion become dominated by talk and speculation about "what fans want" and "making it for fans." Average mainstream moviegoers don't care about that and will tune out pretty fast when that's how you promote your pictures, and whatever bump you get from fans on opening weekend will not make up for the broader sustained loss of attention that comes from failure to use media attention, social footprint, and other promotion to appeal to the rest of the moviegoing public.

Whatever comes next for the DCEU - and much of it does sound appealing to me personally, including Matt Reeves' plans for his expanding Batman universe, James Gunn's plans for more Peacemaker and other DC project ( Green Lantern Corps, perhaps?), and Patty Jenkins' plans for another Wonder Woman film - WBD can only achieve their longterm desire to achieve MCU-level success if they listen to, appeal to, and promote to broader mainstream audiences around the world, not just existing DC fandom. And WBD needs leadership over the DC properties who recognize this truth and commit to living up to it. Otherwise, we'll be right back here in a couple of years or so, having the same conversations again, just like we have for the past too-many years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WBD Can't Succeed By Making Superhero Movies Just 'For The Fans'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Warner Bros. Discovery's superhero release Black Adam grossing $67 million domestic and $70 million international at the box office this weekend, the marketing - led by the film's superstar Dwayne Johnson - has focused on the message "we're listening to the fans."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Breitbart found polling research revealing the fascination with superhero movies in the USA is waning:

...Americans' enthusiasm for men and women in capes is waning, a Morning Consult survey found.

The poll data shows that "enjoyment of the seemingly never-ending stream of superhero content continues to drop among U.S. adults - and among even self-identified Marvel fans," the report states. Between November 2021 and July 2022 the share of adults who say they enjoy superhero movies plunged five percentage points, from 64 percent to 59 percent.

At the same time, the number of adults who do not enjoy superhero movies increased 5 points, 36 percent to 41 percent. That number has increased 9 points since the survey was conducted in 2018.

Self-identified Marvel fans are still overwhelmingly dedicated to superhero movies at 82 percent, though that number is down five points from 87 percent in November. One-third (31 percent) of those fans say they are "getting a little tired of so many of them." Notably, the number of Marvel fans who do not like superhero movies rose from 13 percent to 18 percent.

As a Marvel fan myself - specifically, of the comics up to the early 2000s - I can't stand the thought of watching them at this point, realizing where they've sunk to, and recalling that some of the wokeness these movies are suffering from now started a decade ago when the Thor movies were first made, and characters like Heimdall were race-swapped from white to Asian/Black. Why, the Marvel films are easily a big reason I've since been making efforts to watch arthouse cinema more often, where it can all go in any direction, and the foreign filmmakers are usually trying to build their movies on acting talent, not identity politics.

And let's not forget the makers of DC movies are no less guilty of PC as Marvel's been of recent, recalling the Justice League movie had a cameo by the social justice influenced Asian Atom, and Perry White was changed to Black in the earlier Man of Steel movie, played by Laurence Fishburne. Understandably, who could've guessed at the time that the filmmakers were going out of their way to change the original structure, rather than concentrate on merit? Even now, it doesn't look like WB's taking a wise path, seeing as they're reportedly following the direction Marvel's Kevin Feige goes by. From Movieweb:

It seems like there has been a constant comparison made between the DCEU and MCU, with the former always seeming to be playing catch up with the mighty Marvel machine. However, after spending many years distancing themselves from such comparisons, Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav has revealed at the company's Q2 2022 earnings call that the future of the DC franchise will be governed by a 10 year plan, which is "inspired" by none other than Kevin Feige's Marvel Studios.

Considering where the Marvel studio is going under Feige of recent, I don't think that's a good idea. They include a statement from Zaslav himself, who said:

...There will be a team with a 10-year plan focusing just on DC. It's very similar to the structure that Alan Horn and Bob Iger put together, very effectively, with Kevin Feige at Disney," he added. "We think that we could build a long-term much stronger, sustainable growth business out of DC. And as part of that, we're going to focus on quality. We're not going to release any film before it's ready. We're not going to release a film to make a quarter. We're not going to release a film unless the focus is going to be, 'How do we make each of these films in general as good as possible?' But DC is something that we think we could make better and we're focused on it now. We have some great DC films coming up - Black Adam, Shazam, and Flash - and we're working on all of those. We're very excited about them."

After all the trouble Ezra Miller caused, there's no use promoting the Flash movie, because there are people out there who'd feel awfully uncomfy about watching a movie starring an actor who committed horrific violence, and exploited an underaged girl in the past decade. Also, if the following news from The Direct says anything, there's more PC at work:

In the movie, Quintessa Swindell will play Cyclone, the grandchild of Red Tornado. The character can create powerful wind gusts and is known for manipulating sound waves. The hero is a member of the JSA, otherwise known as the Justice Society of America, a team that has been explored in other recent DC properties, such as The CW's Stargirl. The JSA is expected to clash with Black Adam, which will likely result in some interesting, dynamic battle scenes.

Ever since news broke of Swindell's casting, certain individuals have criticized DC for "race-bending" Cyclone, who is white in the comics.

Since the character was originally co-created by Geoff Johns, it's hard for me to care, if only because I can't stand his writing. But, that doesn't mean this continued social justice pandering isn't dismaying and trivial. Even more troubling, however, is if the news the Black Adam movie will feature a transgender take on Ma Hunkel (the original Red Tornado) is correct. The character was originally a woman and mother featured in All-American Comics from 1939-44 in Scribbly the Boy Cartoonist feature by Sheldon Mayer, who soon cast her in a parody of superheroes, where she dressed in a goofy outfit that looked like it consisted of a pot for a helmet. If this new movie corrupts all that, the filmmakers will have effectively insulted Mayer along with his creation for the sake of their PC agendas. But that's already typical conduct in Hollywood.

All that aside, Dwayne Johnson, who's playing Black Adam in the movie, is decidedly one of the most overrated "actors" of the 21st century, and even the IMDB's contributors seem to think so. Quite a few of his movies to date have actually gotten pretty bad reviews. I have no issues with escapist popcorn fare, but in whatever I've seen of his resume to date, including at least 2 of the Fast & Furious entries, he is so dull and doesn't offer much in the ways of humor either. Only one of his early films, the Scorpion King, ever really interested me, and since then, it's been boredomville in whatever I've seen of his movies since. (Besides, I find it hard to care about heavy special effects these days.) So I'm not impressed when he talks of Black Adam as a pet project, period, and I'm sure not many others are either, seeing how, as the Breitbart article noted, the public's tiring of superhero fare. DC sometimes seems to follow up on Marvel's approaches much too late, and this could be another example in the making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Audiences are Growing Weary of Superhero Films & TV - Bleeding Fool

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Breitbart found polling research revealing the fascination with superhero movies in the USA is waning: ...Americans' enthusiasm for men and women in capes is waning, a Morning Consult survey found. The poll data shows that "enjoyment of the seemingly never-ending stream of superhero content continues to drop among U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Warner Bros. Discovery shocked audiences everywhere with yesterday's announcement its DCEU film will not be released, not even on HBO Max. This is a huge blow to fans who were looking forward to In The Heights breakout Leslie Grace's take on the superhero role, as well as to a promised appearance by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman.

Why was Batgirl shelved entirely and not even given the consolation prize of being dumped on streaming? And could the decision become a new standard in superhero and genre films, a bellwether of an industry future limited to big-budget fare? Let's consider the Batgirl decision...

Batgirl exists as a strange in-between of the DCEU. It isn't the powerhouse spectacle of Justice League or Aquaman, but it isn't the smaller-scale fare you'd see in The CW's Arrowverse either. Instead, it is essentially the superhero equivalent of a TV movie, boasting a comparatively modest budget of $75 million that reached $90 million due to some unavoidable delays and protocols.

But canceling a film outright is incredibly rare. So what's to blame? The change in management after the Discovery merger is a leading theory, with 's sources claiming the tax write-down the movie would generate was the best way to recoup the film's ballooning cost.

The future of Warner Bros. movies looks to lie with big-budget blockbusters. Warner Bros.

Batgirl isn't the only victim of this change in hands. Scoob!: A Holiday Haunt, the sequel to the Warner Bros. Scooby Doo movie Scoob!, was also shelved. Bizarrely, HBO Max original films like Robert Zemeckis' Dahl adaptation The Witches and Seth Rogen's comedy An American Pickle are being erased from the streaming platform entirely.

This is a huge turning point for the streaming landscape at large. It seems like the streaming-only film release is being phased out entirely from one of the most popular services. If this is the case, it would eliminate a huge opportunity for mid-budget films that may not warrant an entire theatrical release but can still find an audience on HBO Max - was arguably the streamer who defined the blockbuster streaming model.

In 2021, Warner Bros. jumped at the opportunity to establish a day-and-date release of its original films on HBO Max. Fans could catch Dune at home or in theaters on the same day. So why not give the same opportunity to films now?

Dune's simultaneous day-and-date release was just a circumstantial fluke, not a show of faith in streaming. Warner Bros.

Considered completely, it looks like HBO Max is undergoing a post-merger rebrand in order to focus on the kinds of projects that made HBO a premium cable powerhouse in the first place. Some of the projects that bridged the merger will be the casualties of this decision. While this may be understandable from a corporate perspective, it could set a dangerous precedent for streaming services, as the archives people count on for rewatch-ability may not be available. In the future, we may see works that don't reflect the current culture completely pulled from streaming, limiting the scope of easily accessible content.

It's worth noting that it is not just HBO Max's future catalog that is uncertain but the very existence of the streaming service. Discovery has its own streaming service - Discovery+ - and it's still unclear how the two services would combine. Today, reported that HBO Max is expected to lay off around 70 percent of its development staff as part of a move away from scripted shows, putting the future of the streaming service further into question.

How will HBO Max as a streaming service cope with the merger? NurPhoto/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Batgirl 's shelving is a sign of the times. In this era of the streaming age, services seem increasingly wary to take risks on smaller works, especially for the franchises that superhero movies usually entail. But this ignores the on-screen superhero genre's foundation of low-budget works like the original Superman and Batman series. If those works were able to trust their audiences to overlook low production values and less-than-stellar special effects, why can't that philosophy carry on in the peak content mediascape of today?

Streaming services have been a way for media companies to distribute a wide swath of content and broaden audiences' horizons in the process, but this may be our first signal that curation is the future of the streaming service landscape. HBO Max's next evolution (if it even has one) may be as a streamer that values quality over quantity. Whether or not that will reflect well with audiences remains to be seen, but one thing is undeniable: Batgirl is the unwitting poster child of this sea change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Batgirl's cancellation is bad news for all superhero movies - here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Warner Bros. Discovery shocked audiences everywhere with yesterday's announcement its DCEU film will not be released, not even on HBO Max. This is a huge blow to fans who were looking forward to In The Heights breakout Leslie Grace's take on the superhero role, as well as to a promised appearance by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Love them like Taikia Waititi, or hate them like Martin Scorsese, superhero movies are responsible for both saving and diluting modern cinema, providing a much-needed float during the Covid-19 pandemic whilst also saturating the market with more of the same high-flying chaos. Though their modern dominance seems like a new phenomenon, the street-swinging superheroes have been around for much longer, dating back to Superman's very first outing from Richard Donner in 1978.

Silly, inconsequential and spandex-heavy, such superhero films were far different from the ones we know today, with the pioneering work of Spider-Man director Sam Raimi helping to change the landscape of the sub-genre in 2002.

Designed for the innovations in cinema at the dawn of the new millennium, Spider-Man became the poster child of spectacular modern cinema, swinging around the skyscrapers of New York with fluid grace. Fun, fresh and exciting, Raimi's take on the iconic hero heralded a brand new era for the superhero film in which spectacle was favoured and fallible heroes became commonplace.

It's not hard to appreciate just how much the character was beloved either, with the actor behind the original web-slinger, Tobey Maguire, returning to the Spider-Man franchise in 2021 to whoops and cheers from fans worldwide. Having directed his last Spidey movie in 2007, Raimi has also returned to the superhero fold for the Marvel movie Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, taking his influence in the sub-genre full circle.

In conversation with , Raimi reflected on just how much had changed when it came to superhero movies since his time in the industry. "The thing I've noticed the most is the audience reaction to the superheroes," Raimi told the publication, adding, "When I started making the Spider-Man movies in the early 2000s, they were met with a little bit more disdain, they were looked down upon much more".

Achieving great commercial success with the release of the first film of the trilogy in 2002, Raimi's Spider-Man made over $800 million worldwide and remains the 12th highest-grossing superhero film of all time. Though, despite this, Raimi doesn't consider them to be "hits".

"I couldn't find a cinematographer that wanted to shoot a movie about a spider-man, I think they thought it would be silly or it would be mocked like a lot of the later Batman movies were mocked," Raimi stated, making reference to 1997s Batman & Robin that has often been blamed for killing the superhero sub-genre. Continuing, Raimi adds, "It was just the time period when people didn't understand the great potential that all Stan Lee's pantheon of characters had. Now they're not looked up as artworks, but they're appreciated for the serious pulp material that they are".

The filmmaker attributes this change to the "respect" that such movies later gained, "because filmmakers and writers and actors have really taken the characters seriously," though it's important to remember that without Raimi such respect may have never been gained.

Creating two sequels that performed on par with the original 2002 film, Raimi's story over the course of three films exposed the raw, vulnerable underbelly of Spider-Man's character, doing something that no other superhero film had done prior in making him a fallible hero.

Through Spider-Man 2 and its sequel particularly, we deal with a character forced to consider the personal responsibility of carrying such a weighty burden, as well as an individual who merely wants to be 'normal' among his high-school peers. More than the film's sheer spectacle and size, it was this carefully crafted character arc that may have been the most influential factor in the film's influence on the future of the superhero genre.
Follow Far Out Magazine across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sam Raimi explains how superhero movies have changed since 'Spider-Man'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Love them like Taikia Waititi, or hate them like Martin Scorsese, superhero movies are responsible for both saving and diluting modern cinema, providing a much-needed float during the Covid-19 pandemic whilst also saturating the market with more of the same high-flying chaos.

# data[].attributes.headline
Seth Rogen says Marvel films cause issues for Hollywood comedies

# data[].attributes.subject
Seth Rogen says Marvel films cause issues for Hollywood comedies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seth Rogen says the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has made it harder for comedies to do well at the box office.

The Canadian writer and actor is currently promoting the release of his own new comedy An American Pickle, allowing him the chance to explain why so few films of the genre are a hit these days.

Speaking to GamesRadar, Rogen noted that many of the recent Marvel movies could be classified as comedies - making it harder for less expensive films in the genre to resonate with audiences.

"Something that me and [producing partner] Evan [Goldberg] talk about a lot is how Marvel movies are comedies," he said. "Thor: Ragnarok is a comedy. is a comedy at its core. So that's what's out there. There are $200 million comedies out there, and so that's something, as a comedic filmmaker, to be aware of. That is the benchmark that people expect!"

The filmmaker went on: "If you're going to make a big huge comedy, just know that your competition is like Marvel. Not to say you should not make those types of films, but know that's what audiences are seeing, and that, when you see those movies in theatres, they are playing like comedies. They are legitimately funny and star comedy stars.

"That's something we talk about a lot - just to be aware of as filmmakers. These huge budget films function like comedies. Audiences still love comedy, and they want that - - but the scope of them is huge. So when you're not offering them that scope, you have to think, 'What am I offering them?' That's why something like does well, because we're not offering scope.

"What we're offering is pure comedy and emotion and relatability and nostalgia. That's the trade-off. You don't get to see the God of Thunder being hilarious, but you get to see something that maybe represents your actual life, and that's very gratifying in another way."

Rogen is clear not to discount the comic book genre, as it's one he is actively involved with as one of the busiest producers in Hollywood.

His production company was behind the adaptation of DC Comics' for TV, and he's currently an executive producer on Amazon Prime Video's superhero sendup .
Digital Spy has launched its first-ever digital magazine with exclusive features, interviews, and videos. Access this edition with Interested in Digital Spy's weekly newsletter? Sign up to get it sent straight to your inbox. a 1-month free trial, only on Apple News+.
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Seth Rogen says Marvel films cause issues for Hollywood comedies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seth Rogen says the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has made it harder for comedies to do well at the box office. The Canadian writer and actor is currently promoting the release of his own new comedy An American Pickle , allowing him the chance to explain why so few films of the genre are a hit these days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The director who, this fall, has most frankly and effectively confronted the current crisis in the art of filmmaking is Martin Scorsese. He has done so not only with " The Irishman," now playing in theatres, but, more polemically, in a series of spoken and written texts. First, he told Empire magazine that Marvel movies are " not cinema" but are, rather, more like "theme parks." A commotion resulted, with directors and actors who work on Marvel's films, such as James Gunn and Natalie Portman, pushing back respectfully. Francis Ford Coppola picked up the cudgel and struck harder at the superhero-industrial complex, calling its films "despicable." Robert Iger, the head of Disney, the studio that produces the Marvel movies, responded to both directors. And, lest the issues at stake merely disperse, like ashes in the breeze, Scorsese delivered an Op-Ed in the Times, on Monday, that outlined his view of the threats that the current commercial environment of superhero-centric Hollywood imposes on the kind of movies that he makes and loves.

In the Times piece, Scorsese, who was born in 1942, explains that his distaste for Marvel movies may be generational-and he defines the cinematic battle that he and his generation fought. He reminds readers that, when his devotion to movies was formed, in the nineteen-fifties and early sixties, he and his peers argued that the cinema "was an art form." He continues, "There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance." Few people, at least in the United States, thought as much (the vanguard of critics who forged the idea of cinema as art was in France). Scorsese outlines the range of movies in which he has found aesthetic peaks and delights: a hard-nosed, low-budget B-movie directed by Samuel Fuller; a splashy, high-budget, mass-entertainment musical by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen; a brash and brutal made-for-TV movie by Don Siegel; the art-house films of Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman; an avant-garde film by Kenneth Anger; and the high-profile suspense of Alfred Hitchcock.

The two main points of Scorsese's essay are, first, that the industrial context and commercial results of the movies that he fought for were simply irrelevant-the greatness of cinema is potentially to be found wherever movies are made and shown. But he goes on to define that potential for greatness in very specific terms, which are already suggested in his brief list of early inspirations, to make his second point: that all great movies reflect "the unifying vision of an individual artist." What's more, all the exemplary film artists he cites-alongside those of his early days, he adds some from younger generations, such as Paul Thomas Anderson and Claire Denis-are directors.

There's a word that's lurking within the Op-Ed, one that Scorsese doesn't use but that might as well be emblazoned in the headline with a cruel irony, like the lighted sign beaming " The World Is Yours" at the end of Howard Hawks's "Scarface." The word is "auteur," signifying the idea of the director as an artist who, though self-evidently not the sole artist working on most movies, is more than a conductor or stage manager. The director, first of all, is responsible for the essential aspects of the composition of images but does far more. The director provides actors with the crucial guidance-or the decisive environment-that makes the performances what they are. He or she may not do the editing hands-on but makes basic decisions that influence it. Above all, even if few directors in Hollywood's classic era had screen credit for writing the scripts, the best ones usually were crucially involved in their creation. (This practical sense of power regarding not just the style but also the content of the best movies was part of the original critical discourse regarding the auteur in the seminal writings of François Truffaut, in the fifties.)

What Scorsese is decrying is not the use of fantasy characters in movies. (A few days ago, he said that he even considered making " Joker," though I wonder whether he was joking.) There's a word in the first sentence of the piece that, clearly but subtly, propels the through line of his argument. He doesn't complain about "superhero" movies; he says that, in Empire, he was speaking of "Marvel movies." He repeats "Marvel" in the second paragraph, and then, in the third paragraph, specifies what he's talking about: "franchise films." Scorsese isn't inveighing against fantasy but against a system of production that submerges directors' authority in a network of dictates and decisions issued from the top down-a network in which the director is more of a functionary than a creator.

Scorsese doesn't so much lament the existence of such a corporatized and impersonal mode of production as decry its dominance. He contends that this system is rooted in "the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption." For an example of what he means, it's worth comparing most of the superhero movies made by Marvel with another superhero movie-indeed, the ultimate superhero movie-one that Scorsese himself made, in the nineteen-eighties: "The Last Temptation of Christ." Whereas Marvel movies are conceived in terms of fan service, to gratify the affinity and the devotion of their acolytes to the characters and the series, Scorsese made a movie, based on a novel by Nikos Kazantzakis, that challenged the tradition and the orthodoxy surrounding its characters. In doing so, he encountered grave risks, risks far greater than financial matters-and so did the studio, Universal, that produced the film. When it was released in 1988, "Last Temptation" was met with furious nationwide protests ahead of its release and also calls to boycott theatres that showed it; the theatres faced threats of violence and, in France, actual violence, and the movie was banned in some countries (some of those bans are in effect to this day).

The Bible, of course, is in the public domain; the only thing that gets in the way of directors with strong and bold ideas making superhero movies is the control exerted by the studio that owns rights to Spider-Man or whomever. Scorsese never suggests that a movie featuring Marvel characters be made with the directorial freedom that he considers essential would be anything other than cinema, a movie that could stand alongside those he loves. The subject in question regarding the very nature of Marvel movies is institutional, a matter of a system of production that encourages and fosters personal directorial creation. (Also, in fairness, Scorsese does grant that "worldwide audiovisual entertainment" and "cinema" do "still overlap from time to time, but that's becoming increasingly rare.")

When Scorsese's remarks first broke, a month ago, many film critics weighed in, notably on Twitter, to endorse his distinction between Marvel movies and cinema. In response, I half-joked on Twitter, "Wait till he says that TV series aren't cinema either." I meant it, and Scorsese's Times piece, without saying so directly, also takes on this other dominant system of production, the one by which TV series, for the most part, are made: a showrunner oversees a series closely and hires a variety of directors to realize its episodes. Of course, "TV" doesn't mean a television set but, mainly, streaming, and Scorsese implicitly laments its dominance of the current mediascape-the watching of movies on computers and cell phones. The success of streaming has turned home video, which used to be a secondary market for movies, into a primary one. In his article, Scorsese challenges today's bent toward production that neutralizes directors' artistry and toward exhibition in which "franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen" and "streaming has become the primary delivery system."

Scorsese doesn't overlook the fact that Netflix produced "The Irishman," yet he nonetheless insists that movies are best seen on "the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen." I have my doubts about this stated directorial desire. In many theatres, both multiplexes and art houses, the screen isn't especially big, and where viewers tend to sit-toward the back-the angle of view that the movie occupies can be far smaller than that of a laptop screen on a lap or desk, smaller even than that of a cell phone at reading distance. What's more, many of the movies of the sort that Scorsese reveres would never have received anything like a wide theatrical release. Before worrying about how a movie is seen, a filmmaker is likely to worry whether it's seen, and the wide availability of streaming services gives (at least for now) viewers in places far from specialty theatres a great variety of independent films and international films to watch at any given time.

Whether viewers ever will venture beyond the most ballyhooed novelties to discover such films remains in doubt; what's also in doubt is the interest that streaming services and, even more, franchise-oriented studios have in maintaining such a diverse cinematic ecosystem. That's where another paradox of the current movie environment-and of its history-arises. The power of Netflix both to produce "The Irishman" and to distribute the movie on its own site-and to do the same for Noah Baumbach's "Marriage Story" and Steven Soderbergh's "The Laundromat"-has a strange and troubling precedent in the history of cinema: movie studios' ownership of movie theatres from the nineteen-twenties through the forties, a practice known as "vertical integration," which was banned by the Supreme Court in an antitrust case in 1948, a decision that led to drastic changes in the movie business.

The case, United States v. Paramount Pictures, et al., was cheered by independent producers-including Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and, yes, Walt Disney-and it led to increased access to theatres for their films and to a wide range of independent productions being made and distributed by studios. If the Hollywood of Scorsese's youth was such a playground for the imagination-with an outpouring of creativity from such directors as John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray and Vincente Minnelli, Ida Lupino (herself an independent producer) and Douglas Sirk-it's in large measure a result of the breakup of the previously dominant form of the studio system.

The synergy of streaming giants and concentrated franchise-bound studios represents a new and perhaps even more oppressive and totalizing centralization of movie production, an even more thoroughgoing corporate control of filmmaking and film distribution than what existed in the age of the almighty studios. Without mentioning the name of Disney, Scorsese deftly casts some unambiguous and defiant shade in its direction. Disney, which is about to integrate itself vertically with the launch of its streaming service, Disney+, recently expanded horizontally, with the purchase of Fox; grave concerns have surfaced regarding its stewardship of the Fox catalogue (which, of course, reaches back to the nineteen-twenties and includes classics ranging from films by Ford and F. W. Murnau to ones by Terrence Malick and Wes Anderson).

As Matt Zoller Seitz recently reported in an indispensable piece at Vulture, Disney has placed stringent restrictions on the screening of classic Fox titles, granting primacy to nonprofit venues (such as Film Forum and the Museum of the Moving Image). Seitz paraphrases the remarks of one industry professional, who asked to remain anonymous, regarding Disney's apparent motive: "Disney considers any screen that's taken up by an older movie, even one that's owned by Disney, to be a screen that could be showing the new Marvel or 'Star Wars' title instead. Or showing 'Orangutans 4' to an audience of three."

Scorsese calls out such restrictive practices, all but naming Disney: "There are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary-a lethal combination." And, given-as Seitz says-that Disney's share of ticket sales is inching up toward fifty per cent of the market, the power to control both the vital past of the art and the present state of the industry is terrifying.

That terror, that first-person sense of a world out of joint, infuses Scorsese's piece with its energy and its apocalyptic tone. It also spotlights the metaphorical power of his key idea. I confess that, when Scorsese distinguishes between the non-cinema of audience-tailored franchise films and the cinema of director-driven projects, I'm tempted to retort that there are better and worse movies, but they're all movies. What's more, his distinction reminds me that, when it comes to fan service, directors are far from immune: there's no shortage of movies made by name-brand directors (who even make their name with such movies) that appear designed to flatter the assumptions and tastes of critics and urbane viewers-movies that enter the art-house consensus. Yet Scorsese's distinction is a stark line drawn not merely on the basis of intention but also of power. He envisions the changes in the industry resulting from the upward concentration and narrowing of control as threatening not merely production and distribution but society at large-the psychology of moviegoers, the life of the mind. The Times essay isn't Scorsese's first foray into the subject. After all, the best movie of the decade (the envelope, please), Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street," is far more than a study of financial chicanery and greed. It's a story of desire and its framework: its rhetoric, its performance, and its transmission. Like a footnote to that great movie, Scorsese's new essay isn't a practical prescription; it's a personal and profound vision of a social order distorted by greed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The director who, this fall, has most frankly and effectively confronted the current crisis in the art of filmmaking is Martin Scorsese. He has done so not only with " The Irishman," now playing in theatres, but, more polemically, in a series of spoken and written texts.

# data[].attributes.body
'Of course Marvel is cinema!' Why the Scorsese backlash is justified | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Who decides what qualifies as "real cinema"? Martin Scorsese, possessor of perhaps the most potent reputation (as cineaste and film-maker) in Hollywood, has apparently decided that it is him. After describing the Marvel movies as "theme parks" and "not cinema" in an interview with Empire published earlier this month, the celebrated director of Taxi Driver and Goodfellas doubled down this week at the London film festival, where he is promoting his highly anticipated feature The Irishman.

"What has to be protected is the singular experience of experiencing a picture, ideally with an audience," Scorsese opined. "But there's room for so many others now, and so many other ways. There's going to be crossovers, completely. The value of a film that's like a theme park film, for example, the Marvel-type pictures, where the theatres become amusement parks, that's a different experience. I was saying earlier, it's not cinema, it's something else."

To say that Scorsese's comments have inspired a furious backlash would be to ignore the reverence in which the Oscar-winner is held by many of those who find his recent comments unpalatable. So let us say merely that there plenty of film-makers out there, most of whom have worked on superhero movies at one time or another, that disagree with him fiercely.

Kevin Smith reminded Scorsese that his own 1988 film The Last Temptation of Christ resembles a superhero flick for those who are not religiously minded. Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi, currently picking up Oscar buzz for his Nazi satire Jojo Rabbit, said simply: "Of course it's cinema! It's at the movies," while Guardians of the Galaxy's James Gunn tweeted: "Martin Scorsese is one of my 5 favourite living film-makers. I was outraged when people picketed The Last Temptation of Christ without having seen the film. I'm saddened that he's now judging my films in the same way."

There are a million ways to unpick Scorsese's argument. For a start, the film-maker's attempts to label superhero films as corporate entities rather than examples of high art would appear to ignore almost every big-budget, special effects-laden film that has been made since Steven Spielberg's Jaws and George Lucas's Star Wars ushered in the blockbuster era in the mid 1970s. That is to wipe a lot of other people's filmgoing experiences from the history books, purely on the basis of the director's own view of film as "human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being".

A more cogent unravelling of Scorsese's argument can be obtained by examining the film-maker's own movies, as well as the history of film that the King of Comedy director cherishes so deeply. Let us take for an example 2011's Hugo, the whimsical Scorsese fantasy set at a railway station in 1930s Paris. The movie is obsessed with the films of Georges Méliès, and particularly the French pioneer of early cinema's classic space fantasy A Trip to the Moon.

If there was ever a film to evoke a sense of childlike wonder in audiences - much like comic-book movies, some might say - it is this one. Astronauts travel to the moon, where they encounter a phantasmagorical lunar landscape of Carrollian mushrooms, cosmic rain showers and bizarre extraterrestrials. There is not much here in the way of narrative sophistication, frankly, and yet this was the film that Scorsese chose as the central pivot in one of his essential arguments within Hugo - that we need to preserve and celebrate both the history of film and the film-makers that helped make it.

The director would no doubt point out that Méliès's work comes from a different place, that it is inspired by magical inner reveries rather than the prospect of selling theme park tickets and toys. But it is hard not to see more than a hint of A Trip to the Moon in films such as Gunn's own Guardians of the Galaxy 2, in which our heroes head find themselves trapped among the psychedelic flora of Kurt Russell's Ego the Living Planet.

Moreover, technical innovation itself, as much as storytelling, is surely a valid element of cinema's capacity to manifest as high art. Méliès hand-painted individual cells to create some of the earliest colour cinematography, while his techniques were extensively copied by the earliest Hollywood film-makers, at a time when the fledgling US film industry was still lagging behind its European counterpart.

Marvel, funnily enough, is known for pioneering the art of digital de-aging, in films such as Captain Marvel and Captain America: Civil War. Those same techniques are now being used by Scorsese himself to deliver younger versions of Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci in The Irishman. Would such technologies have ever entered the conversation without the vast funds that the Disney-owned studio has to work with? That scenario seems as unlikely, sadly, as the prospect of Scorsese ever making a superhero film - though Todd Phillips' Joker at least teasingly suggests what might have happened if he had ever taken a crack.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Of course Marvel is cinema!' Why the Scorsese backlash is justified

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Who decides what qualifies as "real cinema"? Martin Scorsese, possessor of perhaps the most potent reputation (as cineaste and film-maker) in Hollywood, has apparently decided that it is him.

# data[].attributes.body
Five important superhero films

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Avengers: Endgame was a cinematic masterpiece: the MCU's action-packed and emotionally stirring conclusion to a 22-film saga fans have been expecting for over a decade. From Tony Stark's denouement - a narrative arc marked by a transition from selfish egotist to selfless savior - to Rogers' relinquishing of the shield and passing of the Cap mantle, the film may go down in history as the peak of the superhero movie genre.

'Avengers: Endgame' Premiere | Photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images for Disney

Fans and critics argue that another film of this magnitude will take years to come to fruition, and it may not boast the impressive ensemble of its successful predecessor. However, putting the nostalgia factor aside - releasing the emotions tied to bittersweet farewells - this movie is a narrative accomplishment, but is it the most influential? Is Avengers: Endgame the most important superhero movie?

When you define the word important, you will find it refers to something that is of "great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being." When referring to artwork, in particular, it's virtually synonymous with influence. So, the greater question becomes: which movies are more influential than Endgame?

When we look back, what movies will be revered as having changed the cinematic landscape for the better, having altered society's perception surrounding the genre? Which movies will be, in the end, more vital to our culture's endgame than Endgame itself.

'Black Panther:' diverse voices put forth

When you think about Black Panther, the reasons its influence will remain undying are endless. Continuing on the conversation Wonder Woman started regarding representation and diversity in the superhero space, Black Panther completely defied all notions surrounding successful western entertainment, breaking the box office and receiving critical and audience adulation to boot.

From the black director helming the film to the black cast, and African-inspired costume design, Black Panther proved that diverse voices are desired in this genre, and hopefully, will lead to many movies of its kind down the line.

'Deadpool:' genre-defying

When you take a superhero movie and slap an R-rating on it, there's no turning back. Those behind this movie took a huge risk that ultimately paid off, proving that the superhero genre must not be bound to the family-friendly shackles it has so long retained.

Deadpool was raunchy and downright inappropriate in its approach to humor; the vulgarity at play augmented the character's likability, sealing the deal for fans who have so long waited for an anti-hero with a little less of an unrealistic savior complex. Deadpool proved that big-budget superhero films can appeal to adults who don't want to take the kids along for date-night.

'Wonder Woman:' beat Marvel to the punch

DC beat the MCU to the punch with a standalone movie for a classic heroine, and the film soared. One of the only successful installments by DC in the last decade, Wonder Woman introduced a female heroine without relying on uninspired tropes and dated cliches for her personification.

Wonder Woman could have easily become a caricature - a two-dimensional savior lacking complexity - but she didn't. This movie boasts a "sincere intimacy" as the New Yorker claims, making it a voice for women, underrepresented in the genre, without faltering to overtly emphasized social justice warrior pleas. It is grand in its subtlety and efficacy.

'Iron Man:' without it, No 'Avengers: Endgame'

You can't discuss influential superhero movies without mentioning Iron Man; without the first movie focusing on Tony Stark, the entire Avengers saga would be amiss. The success of this movie catalyzed a 22-film narrative that will go down in history as one of the most successful film franchises ever. For that reason alone, it deserves a space here.

Iron Man was funny and light-hearted. The film offered up some dire consequences, without creating a dire feel, which laid the groundwork for the future of the MCU's overall tone.

'Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse:' revolutionary in the space

Heart, humor, inclusivity, humanity, pain, grief, regret, and heroism all converge in this movie via a spectacular animated telling. As most critics argue, Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse managed to do something completely "new" in an over-saturated genre. It's narrative approach made for a superhero experience unlike any other.

The action, the humor, and the need to save the day were all present, yet this film still strayed far from all its predecessors, creating a vibrant world that stands on a stage all its own, separate from the world leading to Avengers: Endgame.

While Avengers: Endgame is not to be poo-pooed, it's hard to argue that the films above do not bear more social relevance, more ingenuity, and more culturally reflective stances, leading one to the conclusion that they are "more important."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Superhero Movies More Important Than 'Avengers: Endgame'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Avengers: Endgame was a cinematic masterpiece: the MCU's action-packed and emotionally stirring conclusion to a 22-film saga fans have been expecting for over a decade. From Tony Stark's denouement - a narrative arc marked by a transition from selfish egotist to selfless savior - to Rogers' relinquishing of the shield and passing of the Cap mantle, the film may go down in history as the peak of the superhero movie genre.

# data[].attributes.body
Every MCU And DC Film In 2020 Will Have Female Directors, And Why That Matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
No, I'm not going to link to bootleg copies of the "in theaters only" teaser trailer for Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) that popped up online a few days ago. But I will note, if you've seen the teaser attached to prints of It Chapter Two as of last night, that it's a hell of a clever sell, both using It as a way both to trick audiences and as a way to assure folks who might care that Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn won't be hung up on The Joker this time around. But that can wait for another time, especially if the teaser pops up online after this weekend. It opens February 7, 2020, and it is the first big superhero movie from next year.

I don't know if 2020 will be a repeat of 2019, where (up to this point) comic book superhero movies from the Marvel or DC Comics universes ruled the roast. If for no other reason than the likely global dominance of Universal's Fast & Furious 9 and Minions: The Rise of Gru (and possible domestic dominance of Warner Bros.' Wonder Woman 1984), I imagine next year won't be quite so dependent on Disney and/or Marvel/DC superhero flicks. But whether they win, place or show, we're still getting our fair share of big comic book superhero movies next year. The good news is that, when it comes to the MCU and DC Films, all four of next year's offerings will be directed by women and (more or less) fronted by female superheroes (or supervillains).

The two big DC Films movies in 2020 are Cathy Yan's Birds of Prey (February 7) and Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman 1984 (June 5). The over/under $80 million crime melodrama, which may go out with an R-rating, stars Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn in essentially a "girl gang" flick that features Jurnee Smollett-Bell (Black Canary), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (The Huntress), Ella Jay Basco (Cassandra Cain) and Rosie Perez (Renee Montoya). The baddies this time out will be Ewan McGregor as Black Mask and Chris Messina as Zsasz. Wonder Woman 1984 doesn't need much explanation, but yes Gal Gadot and (the presumed dead) Chris Pine will return and face off against Kristen Wiig's Cheetah. That one will be, by default, DC Films' first mega-budget entry since James Wan's Aquaman swam past $1 billion worldwide.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe' two theatrical movies next year are Cate Shortland's Black Widow (May 1) and Chloé Zhao's The Eternals (November 1). The Scarlett Johansson actioner will be a prequel set between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War, and will feature David Harbour (Red Guardian, the Russian equivalent of Captain America), Florence Pugh (Yelena Belova) and Rachel Weisz an older/wiser Black Widow recruit while the villain will be Taskmaster. The Eternals features immortal aliens played by (among others) Angelina Jolie, Richard Madden, Kumail Nanjiani, Lauren Ridloff, Brian Tryee Henry, Salma Hayek and Gemma Chan. I don't know a darn thing about this property, but I'm betting Marvel and Disney will make sure general audiences are fluent in at least the character-specific basics by the time November 6 rolls around.

All four of these likely hits, relative to cost and expectation, are helmed by acclaimed indie filmmakers who got the keys to a big comic book franchise. Jenkins has been doing acclaimed TV work for a decade, but she was still primarily known for Charlize Theron's Oscar-winning serial killer drama Monster. Zhao is coming off The Rider, Yan is following up Dead Pigs while Shortland has The Berlin Syndrome, Lore and Somersault to her name. And, yes, it's a big deal, in terms of promised "not a white guy" representation in superhero cinema, that all four have female directors, two of them Chinese American no less. It's a big deal that at least three out of four of these, without knowing for sure who gets the biggest spotlights in The Eternals, are wholly female-fronted.

It's not just because "You can't be what you don't see" representation, or because it doesn't mean much for Hollywood to tout empowerment narratives without actually empowering "not a white guy" creatives via key employment opportunities. It matters, for better or worse, because audiences are far more likely to see a Marvel/DC comic book superhero movie than almost any other potential "big" flick. So, sad to say, strides made elsewhere tend to play to empty auditoriums. It's great that Jennifer Nelson Yu directed Amandla Steinfeld in the YA fantasy The Darkest Minds, but that film earned just $41 million worldwide (including just $12 million domestic) on a $32 million budget. It's neat that John Boyega was the star of Pacific Rim: Uprising "just because," but that $150 million flick earned just $290 million worldwide.

It's nice studios are finally making movies like The Kitchen (a mob drama starring Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish and Elizabeth Moss), George Tillman Jr.'s The Hate U Give (based on Angie Thomas' #BlackLivesMatter-related novel), A Wrinkle in Time (directed by Ava DuVernay and starring Storm Reid), Alita: Battle Angel (directed by Robert Rodriguez and starring Rosa Salazar) and Dora and the Lost City of Gold. It would be even nicer if moviegoers showed up to these films in numbers large enough to make them actual commercial successes. That's not happening, which means the demographics who are supposed to be empowered, inspired or just entertained by their comparatively inclusive cast, crew and/or narratives aren't seeing them. Instead, they are flocking to the big DC/Marvel superhero flicks to the comparative exclusion of almost everything else.

As such, simply put, if general moviegoers young and old (especially young) are choosing DC/Marvel superhero flicks as their prime tentpole of choice, then it matters to a proportional degree that these films are more than just "white guy-directed hero's journeys about a white guy who becomes the special" flicks. That's not to say Shazam! can't exist alongside Aquaman, or that Jared Leto's Morbious (helmed by Jorge Daniel Espinosa, a Swedish citizen of Chilean origin) or the Andy Serkis-directed Venom sequel (starring Tom Hardy) can't thrive alongside Wonder Woman 1984 or Black Widow. But when a single sub-genre of cinema earns 28% of all domestic tickets in 2018, then it matters that said sub-genre (superhero movies) expand its horizons in terms of who gets to be the hero behind and in front of the camera.

And that's not to say that non-superhero offerings of an inclusive nature ( Us, the Fast and Furious movies, etc.) can't be hits or shouldn't be celebrated. But the big superhero movies, mostly those from Marvel and DC (sorry Hellboy) are ruling the roast to an unprecedented degree now. To be fair, an embrace of comparative inclusivity is one reason why superhero movies have soared well and above the likes of John Carter, The Mummy or Jack the Giant Slayer. Making sure that the next generation of superhero movies feature more women (of all ethnicities) and men of color as the heroes, the villains and the folks making the movie will help insure that the superhero movie remains an "event" for folks who grew up in a world where superhero movies were par for the course.

With audiences comparatively forsaking "regular" genre fare for VOD/streaming options, it is vital that the likes of The Eternals and Birds of Prey become the norm rather than the exception. Yes, Joker can still thrive alongside Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse. However, comparatively inclusive theatrical features ( The Spy Who Dumped Me, Widows, Annihilation, etc.) are struggling as audiences are showing up mostly for the Marvel/DC films (alongside nostalgia-skewing Disney biggies like The Lion King and Aladdin, themselves scoring partially due to inclusive casting). That puts an increased responsibility on the powerful superhero genre to spread the wealth. That four out of six major comic book movies in 2020 are female-fronted and female-directed matters because it's the those are the movies most likely to been seen by the demographics they are meant to inspire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every MCU And DC Film In 2020 Will Have Female Directors, And Why That Matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No, I'm not going to link to bootleg copies of the "in theaters only" teaser trailer for Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) that popped up online a few days ago.

# data[].attributes.body
Welcome To Our Brief Spring Holiday From Superhero Movies | Gizmodo Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Look up at the marquee. It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... a distinct lack of superhero movies.

For the past decade or so, superhero movies have been a dominant force in Hollywood. And yet, after years of proven success, this spring sees a surprising lack of them at movie theatres. The one exception is , which is still a comic book movie, but not only does it not feature superpowered characters, it pushes the genre into dark and weird (and occasionally muddled) places in a way that makes it barely feel like what we've come to expect of the genre.

In fact, 2019 marks the first time in four years Hollywood hasn't released what we'd call a traditional superhero movie over the spring season, a season that's been a happy home to the genre for a while. Even if that wasn't the case though, considering how big those movies are and continue to be, the drought comes as something of a surprise. But it's a welcome one!

Look. We love superhero movies. Many people do. They're a shining modern example of big-budget Hollywood filmmaking firing on all cylinders and pleasing audiences all over the world. But too much of anything is still too much. A break means other kinds of films can fill those screens usually stuffed with Marvel and DC.

In that downtime, Hollywood is providing a fairly stellar selection of odds and ends. Intriguing indie movies like Jojo Rabbit, lots of horror movies like Sophia Takal's Black Christmas remake, and plenty of big-budget blockbusters, like Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker.

But among all those films, no "superhero" movies. That could mean more people come to the movies, it could mean fewer people, we don't know. But it opens a door and lets us take a step back from a genre that's dominated our consciousness for so long and will continue to do so.

It used to be Hollywood only released blockbusters over the summer or the holidays. Then it spread into spring, autumn, late winter, etc. until now where you can barely go a week without a big movie opening at the box office. So to have even the tiniest respite from one genre feels somehow noteworthy, especially as movie studios gobble up movie studios, risks get smaller, and known properties like sequels, remakes and, yes, superhero movies, become the rule, not the exception.

As for this break in particular, it's actually a very logical time for it.

Marvel just released probably the biggest superhero movie imaginable, Avengers: Endgame. Not only did that movie mark the end of a 20-plus movie "Infinity Saga" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it was a three-hour Smörgåsbord of everything people love ( and loathe) about those movies, and became the highest-grossing movie ever. Everything about it was gigantic.

That was followed by Spider-Man: Far From Home, which marked the close of Phase 3 of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and had wild revelations of its own.

There won't be a new Marvel movie until May's Black Widow, which marks a 10-month window between films.

The last time the Marvel Cinematic Universe was off for that long was from the July 2015 release of Ant-Man, up to the May 2016 release of Captain America: Civil War. What's the connection there? In both instances, the time lapse marked a changing of the phases, from two to three then and now, three to four.

DC is also a universe in transition. Though Wonder Woman and Harley Quinn are still going strong with their own movies, many of the other superheroes are finding their footing again. The returns of Batman and Aquaman are years away.

Suicide Squad, which was a big hit, is getting a reboot thanks to writer-director James Gunn. It's a lot of changes and that takes time. The gap between shared universe DC movies will end up being about 11 months, from Shazam in April to Birds of Prey in February.

Oddly though, even back in 2014 when DC put its flag down on release dates through 2020, none of those films were set to come out this spring.

It's almost as if this season was always earmarked as a no-fly zone for superhero movies. However, once the calendar changes, the comic book movies start right back up again. As mentioned, Birds of Prey comes out in February, along with another comic book-inspired movie in the form of The King's Man. Then there's The New Mutants in April (), and Black Widow in May.

But this spring? Just a single gritty, tangential movie with award aspirations. No capes, no powers, no super strength. It's odd, but it's nice to take a step back and look at where spring superhero movies have been, and where they are going. As a refresher, here's the spring comic book releases from 2008-beyond:

2008: Punisher: War Zone (no superpowers, sure, but hey, a Marvel Comics adaptation is a Marvel Comics adaptation!)

2009-2012: None

2016: Doctor Strange ( Suicide Squad came out in August, and was still out heading into the spring season)

2017: Thor: Ragnarok, Justice League

2018: Venom, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Aquaman

2020: Venom 2, probably around October 2, The Eternals on November 6

2021: Thor: Love and Thunder on November 5

2022: Aquaman 2 on December 16

2023: TBD (Let's not get ahead of ourselves here!)

Editor's Note: All of the above are U.S. release dates, with Australia's own releases likely taking place around or even before the U.S.

So enjoy your break while you can. It'll be the last one for a while.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome To Our Brief Spring Holiday From Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Look up at the marquee. It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... a distinct lack of superhero movies. For the past decade or so, superhero movies have been a dominant force in Hollywood. And yet, after years of proven success, this spring sees a surprising lack of them at movie theatres.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Diversity is Shaping the Future of Superhero Movies - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
How Diversity is Shaping the Future of Superhero Movies - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Diversity is Shaping the Future of Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.headline
[OC] Box Office Run of Every Marvel Movie : dataisbeautiful

# data[].attributes.subject
[OC] Box Office Run of Every Marvel Movie : dataisbeautiful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A place for visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc. DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the aim of this subreddit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
r/dataisbeautiful - [OC] Box Office Run of Every Marvel Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A place for visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc. DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the aim of this subreddit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you ask any film student who the greatest directors of all time are, nearly everyone will list Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick was infamous for the level of control he would exert on his films. He once said, "One man writes a novel. One man writes a symphony.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Avengers Endgame': Marvel Has Made Its Competiton Redundant And Irrelevant

# data[].attributes.subject
'Avengers Endgame': Marvel Has Made Its Competiton Redundant And Irrelevant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Avengers: Endgame'
Walt Disney

Avengers: Endgame arrives on DVD, Blu-ray, 4K HD and "priced-to-rent" VOD this morning. This, of course, follows a record-crushing theatrical run that saw it become the second-biggest movie ever in North America (behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens), the third-biggest ever in China (behind The Wandering Earth and Wolf Warrior 2), the second-biggest internationally (behind Avatar) and the biggest overall global grosser of all time. Oh, and with $2.795.5 billion worldwide for Avengers 4, $1.128 billion for Captain Marvel and (thus far) $1.097 billion worldwide for Spider-Man: Far From Home, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has earned $5.02 billion in 2019.

In a related note, once Far From Home passes Skyfall ($1.108 billion in 2012, sans 3-D), the MCU will have the highest-grossing movies in two separate studios. Moreover, only the last three Mission: Impossible movies ( Ghost Protocol in 2011, Rogue Nation in 2015 and Fallout in 2018) and the third/fourth Transformers movies ( Dark of the Moon in 2011 and Age of Extinction in 2014) have exceeded Iron Man 2's global gross ($624 million in 2010) among live-action Paramount flicks. Yes, Interstellar earned $677 million in late 2014, but it was distributed overseas by Warner Bros.

In a matter of weeks, the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be responsible for the biggest Disney movie of all time (among many big Disney earners since 2012), the biggest Sony flick and one of Paramount's last live-action mega-hits. But 2010, or even 2014 (when Marvel arguably became MARVEL), was a long time ago. Two things happened five years ago that put the MCU where it is today. First, Captain America: The Winter Soldier began the brand's gimmick of explicitly approximating specific genres within their superhero movies. Second, Guardians of the Galaxy offered a summer flick bigger in scope compared to their blockbuster brethren.

Iron Man wasn't the biggest movie of the year back in 2008, either in terms of grosses (it earned less worldwide than Mamma Mia and Hancock) or scale (it stretched every dollar of that $140 million budget). None of the pre- Avengers MCU movies explicitly "ruled" the box office. Iron Man 2 ($624 million)got bested by Inception ($792 million)and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse ($697 million)that summer while both Thor ($449 million)and Captain America ($371 million)were out-grossed in 2011 by the likes of Rise of the Planet of the Apes ($480 million), Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows ($545 million)and The Smurfs ($564 million).

While the MCU movies grew in scale after The Avengers ($1.519 billion in 2012), it wasn't until The Winter Soldier ($714 million, just above Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)and Guardians of the Galaxy ($773 million, just above Maleficent) in 2014 when you could argue that MCU blockbusters were among the biggest of the big. Those films arguably came in second in terms of size and scale only to Michael Bay's ridiculously massive Transformers: Age of Extinction ($1 billion) and Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies ($950 million). But genre approximation was their secret weapon.

You can debate to what extent The Winter Soldier is actually a Tom Clancy-meets-Sydney Pollack spy thriller in tights, but the narrative about Marvel's superhero movies being genre flicks in disguise stuck. Marvel wasn't the first studio to play this game. Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight was clearly a Michael Mann/Sydney Lumet crime epic with Batman and the Joker thrown in. Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a 1990's Cannon actioner, while X-Men: First Class was a 1960's spy caper. But the explicit pitch worked as a way to make sure audiences didn't mind getting more than one (or two) Marvel movies in any given year.

As such, we got Ant-Man (a heist movie), Captain America: Civil War (a political thriller), Doctor Strange (a fantasy freak out/kung fu melodrama) and so on. In these last few years, the superhero movie has become more and more popular for three specific reasons. First, on par, they tend to be better movies than other related blockbuster/franchise flicks. All due respect, but Wonder Woman > King Arthur and the Legend of the Sword, Black Panther > Solo: A Star Wars Story and Spider-Man: Far From Home > Men in Black: International. That's partially because they are no longer "just" superhero movies.

Second, the whole "superheroes+genre" gimmick gives them a leg up on the competition. Spider-Man: Homecoming is a teen coming of age story in tights, King Arthur is trying to turn King Arthur into a conventional superhero franchise character, and thus the film comes off as a painfully generic superhero origin story. Ditto Solo, Robin Hood and Tomb Raider. Merely being a superhero movie is no longer special, so the ones that score use that as a jumping-off point to play in different genres and take their already-established (and crowd-pleasing) characters in new directions. Or, in the case of DC's Aquaman, every direction and every genre.

The superhero movies that rest on their "I'm a superhero movie!" laurels, like Dark Phoenix and Justice League, are usually the ones that stumble. The third big reason why superhero cinema, and especially Marvel's Cinematic Universe, have taken such a foothold in Hollywood since 2014 is that audiences are now (generally) flocking to the theaters only when there is a specific character/protagonist whom they want to see in a grand adventure. Audiences show up for an appropriately sci-fi/body horror weird Venom movie because it's a Venom movie, and as long as the film contains Tom Hardy going full-Tom Hardy as Venom, it's a winner.

Audiences show up to Mission: Impossible because they want to see Ethan Hunt, they show up to Bohemian Rhapsody to see Freddie Mercury and they show up to Halloween to see Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode square off against Michael Myers. This notion isn't limited to superhero movies, but the character has supplanted the actor/actress as the primary draw, and comic book superhero movies tend to offer established/popular characters as their primary focus. The MCU has a huge advantage since audiences like the specific cinematic incarnations of these superhero characters. It's not just "Hey, it's Thor!" It's "Hey, it's Chris Hemsworth's Thor!"

Imagine a brand/franchise so popular and trusted that every new character+casting announcement is greeted with the same excitement and presumption-of-quality that greeted the epilogue of Batman Begins when Batman turned over that Joker card as the crowd went wild. That reveal was exciting precisely because audiences had just sat through Chris Nolan's top-notch Batman origin story/action drama, and the notion of The Joker appearing within that world was incredibly exciting to fans. That's where Kevin Feige's MCU is now. At least since 2014, the biggest marketing hook for an MCU movie is that it's an MCU movie.

Here's the proverbial endgame of all of this. Marvel's Cinematic Universe has made itself, through a series of relatively (whether I like each one or not) good/well-made character-driven action fantasies that offer a diversity of genre appropriation and spectacle on par with the biggest of the big blockbusters of any given year, a one-stop-shop for tentpole action fantasy audiences. Marvel movies are among the biggest-scaled blockbusters in any given year, and they have so successfully approximated genre and other potential franchises that they threaten to put their competition out of business by offering loose examples of almost every other potential fantasy franchise.

Paramount wants to reboot G.I. Joe? That's nice, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Captain America: Civil War are already there. Sony wants to give us another Masters of the Universe movie? Sorry, Noah Centineo, but Thor: Ragnarok is probably the best He-Man movie we're ever going to get, and Thor: Love and Thunder (featuring Natalie Portman's Jane Foster as "Mighty Thor") is going to take a crack at being the best She-Ra movie too. If Doctor Strange: The Multiverse Of Madness lives up to its pitch as Marvel's first horror movie, then it will succeed where Brightburn and Hellboy (2019) failed.

As long as audiences like the lead heroes and their heroic supporting casts, the MCU movies can pluck those characters and throw them into any genre they so choose. Universal's Fast & Furious scored (almost accidentally) for much the same reason, with the first eight flicks offering different genres (a cars-and-heists flick, an 80's drug actioner, a Karate Kid riff, a revenge thriller, a heist caper, a superhero movie, a Mission: Impossible movie and a spy thriller) for Dom and his family. With audiences choosing superhero+genre movies like Logan over genuine genre flicks, well, that's why the superhero movie is so dominant right now.

This isn't to say that MCU movies are all better than their respective competition. Heck, it's no secret that I prefer Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse to Black Panther, Shazam! to Captain Marvel and Aquaman to Avengers: Endgame. Marvel has used its genre appropriation (a teen comedy, a Godfather-meets-007 action melodrama, a romantic comedy, etc.) to justify two-to-three movies per year and to potentially displace not just genuine genre films (why see The Edge of Seventeen when you can see Spider-Man: Homecoming?) but other IP/franchises from rival studios. Yes, this accounts for many of the Fox films whose development Disney just killed.

Who needs a He-Man movie when you've got Marvel's Thor: Ragnarok? Who needs King Arthur when you've got Aquaman? Who needs, and this breaks my heart, Alita: Battle Angel when you've got DC's Wonder Woman? Let's see how this plays out, who needs Dune when you've got Eternals? We saw Paramount's Star Trek franchise, itself somewhat remolded to resemble Star Wars, crash and burn once Star Wars came back to theaters. What we may see now is a reverse scenario, where rival studios' rebooted IP gets whacked because Marvel (and, to a lesser extent, DC Films) have offered approximations that audiences prefer over the genuine article.

And that's the endgame. Marvel won't just dominate the superhero landscape (presumably alongside DC Films) but will offer so many different movies in so many different genres that it'll render much of its competition, even outside the superhero sphere, redundant and comparatively irrelevant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Avengers Endgame': Marvel Has Made Its Competiton Redundant And Irrelevant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Avengers: Endgame arrives on DVD, Blu-ray, 4K HD and "priced-to-rent" VOD this morning. This, of course, follows a record-crushing theatrical run that saw it become the second-biggest movie ever in North America (behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens), the third-biggest ever in China (behind The Wandering Earth and Wolf Warrior 2), the second-biggest internationally (behind Avatar) and the biggest overall global grosser of all time.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Boys Is the Perfect Response to the Superhero Fatigue Question

# data[].attributes.subject
The Boys Is the Perfect Response to the Superhero Fatigue Question

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Boys Is the Perfect Response to the Superhero Fatigue Question

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Boys TV series might open people's eyes to the fact that comic books are more than just superheroes.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Death of Marvel Netflix Shows: What Went Wrong?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Death of Marvel Netflix Shows: What Went Wrong?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There was a brief, shining moment when it seemed like this whole Marvel-Netflix thing was gonna work out just fine. I can tell you exactly when that moment began: around 7 p.m. on October 11, 2015. Along with hundreds of others, I was crammed into the main auditorium at New York Comic Con, where a standing-room-only crowd had gathered to hear the latest about the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe on the world's biggest streaming platform. The joint venture had already begun six months prior with the release of the somewhat-acclaimed first season of Daredevil, and the audience that night was amped up about the next outing, Jessica Jones. To our surprise, we were abruptly told that we'd be getting a surprise screening of that show's very first episode. Squealing and cheering commenced. This was a crowd that expected great things.

And hoo boy, their expectations were met. That inaugural installment of Jessica Jones was a true humdinger. It was distinctive without being flashy, mature without being ponderous, ambitious without being self-satisfied, sexy without being exploitative, and just ... . I can't tell you how much of a revelation a good superhero show was at that time. We were used to spandex outings that were inane, formulaic, and utterly uninterested in pushing a single envelope. But here was a tale that seemed like it was going to grapple with everything from PTSD to queerness and do it all with style. Showrunner Melissa Rosenberg and star Krysten Ritter genuinely seemed to be elevating the game. As soon as the screening was done, I rushed to the lobby to get reception and email my editor like an old-timey reporter clamoring for a pay phone just after getting a hot scoop. I have seen the future of superheroes, I thought, and it is Marvel Netflix.

If it ever was the future, it is now the past. This week sees the barely ballyhooed release of the third and final season of Jessica Jones, which is itself the final season of Marvel's four-year Netflix experiment. Its death has been agonizingly and humiliatingly gradual: Over the course of the past few months, each of the five ongoing series that made it up has been given the ax, one after another. Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist, The Punisher; their fans saw them all go the way of the dodo - without fanfare. It was all too clear that there wasn't much advance warning for the creative teams, given that many of the shows ended without resolution. Even though Marvel Television's corporate overlord, Disney, is launching its own streaming platform, the superhero programming there will be run by the movie folks at Marvel Studios, who don't particularly get along with the TV crew, so it seems unlikely that any resurrections will be in the cards. The loose ends will probably forever dangle in the wind, reminding diehards to never love anything too much.

So, what the hell happened? As far as I can see, the enterprise was doomed by three factors, two of them creative and one of them entirely corporate.

For one thing, all the shows suffered from an acute case of Netflix bloat. With the exception of the one-off crossover series, The Defenders, and the second season of the widely derided Iron Fist, every season was 13 episodes, with each episode clocking in at about an hour. There was simply no good reason for these stories to run 13-odd hours each. And they were, for the most part, single stories of that length; the shows tended to eschew the idea of self-contained episodes, even in the case of Jessica Jones, where individual private-investigation cases would have been a natural fit to fill out the world and liven up the pace. There were B- and C-plots, but they, too, were stretched out to unreasonable lengths. This is, of course, not a problem unique to Marvel shows, as Netflix and other streamers tend to believe that a drama is only worthwhile if it feels interminable.

But it was especially irritating in the case of the Marvel-Netflix shows, because a viewer was likely comparing them, consciously or not, to other superhero offerings. Superhero movies, though often longer than they should be, have runtimes between two and three hours - more than enough of a span to tell an epic saga of good, evil, duty, and all the other familiar tropes. More important, these stories are all adapted from comic books, which have long been oriented toward brief, dense, punchy individual issues of about 22 pages each, typically ending on some kind of cliffhanger. The sloggy Netflix approach just didn't sit well with the expectations we have for the genre and our attendant desire for super-heroic action and Manichean suspense. The creators and diehards may argue that these weren't just superhero shows - they were inspired by neo-noir ( Jessica Jones) or blaxploitation ( Luke Cage) or kung-fu ( Iron Fist) and so on - but come on, these were all stories based on the expectation of climactic action between the forces of light and darkness. Yet, over and over again, we had to see that gratification delayed beyond reason. You were never going to hold eyeballs very long with that kind of lukewarm storytelling.

If the shows struggled with format, so too did they suffer over formula. Quite simply, they rarely did anything audacious or iconoclastic. Sure, there were little exceptions, like the daring explorations of rape and trauma in the first season of Jessica Jones, the occasional interrogation of police violence and black respectability politics in Luke Cage (it's still amazing that a Marvel property had liberal use of the N-word in it), and the criticism of the War on Terror in the first season of The Punisher. But even in those cases, the general emphasis was more often on boilerplate superhero-fiction tropes like the need for friendship, the question of whether killing is ever okay, and the insistence that one should never give up in the face of even the most impossible odds. We live in an era when we are saturated with such themes thanks to the preponderance of cape-and-cowl mishegoss on the big and small screens, so we were never given a great reason to especially care about these slight variations. To make matters worse, even though these stories were ostensibly set in the same New York City as the one we see in the MCU movies, we never got to spice things up with appearances from any of the film characters - or, conversely, to see the Netflix characters register any importance by appearing in the films. In a word: snore.

Nevertheless, the shows experienced a modicum of success (some more than others; Iron Fist always seemed DOA) and generated enough enthusiasm to justify multiple seasons. Daredevil fan-fiction exploded, critics swore up and down that The Punisher was pretty good, and you'll be seeing Jessica Jones cosplayers at conventions for many years to come. And yet, perhaps these victories added up to the most fatal factor of them all: The shows became something of a victim of their own success. When the Marvel-Netflix collaboration was announced in November 2013, it was something of a revolutionary idea. The skyrocketing MCU brand had begun its forays into short-form serialization with ABC's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. that September, and Netflix had only just emerged on the scene with its first original series, House of Cards, nine months prior. The notion of these two newly successful firms joining forces was a bold step: Netflix could show off its original-content chops by hitching its wagon to the hottest brand at the box office, while Marvel could demonstrate that it was ready to take a leap into the still-fresh waters of streaming entertainment.

Trouble is, once both of them had won, they no longer needed each other. Netflix has, in just six short years, become one of the primary destinations for serialized original content in the known universe. Disney has seen its Marvel brand become a license to print money. But the ever-wily Disney suits realized they had enough cachet to pull off their own entrant into the streaming game, the soon-to-launch Disney+. Marvel's Netflix shows had proven that streaming super-people could work as a concept, but why should the House of Mouse tolerate sharing the gains of their IP with a rival streamer? What's more, Netflix has so much content that they don't need a boost from anyone else's brand anymore - and they similarly don't have any desire to lend a hand to a corporation that's about to become its biggest rival (a fact made all the more apparent by Disney's recent decision to take a controlling stake in Hulu). Marvel Netflix was consigned to being the abandoned child from a marriage that fell apart. Future generations may find the very phrase "Marvel Netflix" to be an oxymoron, after the streaming wars really heat up.

Which brings us to Disney's challenge in its post-Netflix reality. Within a few months, we'll likely be seeing the inaugural MCU shows of Disney+, such as the untitled Loki solo series, Falcon and Winter Soldier, and the questionably titled WandaVision. (You'll note that all of those shows star major characters from the film arm of the MCU. That's because Marvel Studios will be managing all of the Marvel content streaming on Disney+.) Right now, it seems like a done deal that these series will attract subscribers, but it's worth noting that Disney+ should learn from the collapse of Marvel's Netflix project. The format has to lend itself to thrills, chills, and density. In a world of streaming-content saturation, even Marvel has to worry about losing people's attention while they sit on the couch. (To be fair, they seem to be moving in the right direction when they do things like make these series attenuated in length or placed in unlikely settings.) In other words, formula has to take a back seat to innovation. If you can get the same ideas by firing up old MCU movies for a rewatch at the click of a button, why bother with inferior, lower-budget shows, especially if they don't end up being consequential for the movies and vice versa?

But most importantly, the powers that be should remember that the tectonic plates are still shifting beneath their feet. After all, there was a time, not so long ago, when Marvel Netflix was the most bleeding-edge idea in the game. How quickly the heroes of tomorrow become yesterday's news.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There was a brief, shining moment when it seemed like this whole Marvel-Netflix thing was gonna work out just fine. I can tell you exactly when that moment began: around 7 p.m. on October 11, 2015.

# data[].attributes.headline
How MCU Phase 3 subverts the superhero genre with films like Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok

# data[].attributes.subject
How MCU Phase 3 subverts the superhero genre with films like Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Editor's note: Ahead of the release of Avengers: Endgame, here is PART THREE of a five-part series that attempts to understand the relationship between the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the state of the world today. This series will seek to engage with the MCU critically, and argue how their films have real world anxieties built within it. Read PART ONE and PART TWO)
For the longest time, superhero movies had its own grammar.

In the older days - we're talking about the 1980s - when DC comics ruled the roost in the hands of filmmakers like Tim Burton, a template for the superhero film was born. In fact, Burton's 1989 Batman was influential in crafting not only the look and feel of a superhero flick, but also the economics of it. The film will turn 30 this year, and looking back, one could see how it defined the notion of the modern blockbuster, one which the MCU relies on heavily.

To begin with, Burton's Batman ensured that for a film to be a blockbuster, it had to be the king of the opening weekend. That window of three days, starting Friday and ending on Sunday, was all a studio-driven movie had to earn as much money as possible. Once it had secured this window, the rest of the week would be more smooth flowing. Moreover, the makers of Batman did something unthinkable for a blockbuster in the late '80s. Warner Bros brought out the movie as home video in less than five months of its premiere. This shorter movie-theatre-to-home-video window also ensured more sales long after the movie's theatrical run had been exhausted, as it was fresh enough in the audience's mind.

Most importantly, the film was truly revolutionary in its casting choice. Burton cast Michael Keaton in the role of Batman, a choice DC fans decried prior to the film's release. Keaton was anything but Batman-like. He did not showcase a great physique and did not have the dense voice we normally associate with Batman. But when the movie was released, fans saw how the film stayed true to the roots of the Batman mythos, stripping it down to its psychological basics.

Burton, in an interview long after the film was a success, had said that the decision to cast Keaton was his and was deliberate. He wanted an Everyman to be a Batman. This is a choice we see being repeated even now. Spiderman's Toby Macguire and Tom Holloway are your everyday teenagers. Similarly, Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man's Tony Stark is not tall, does not showcase a perfectly chiseled physique, and sometimes even when he is in his suit, he gets beaten to pulp, like in Iron Man 3, for example.
MCU's Early Experimentation
But with the release of Iron Man and the beginning of the MCU, we arrived at a critical juncture where the superhero movie as a genre began to receive an overhaul.

With the dominance of DC, films from Tim Burton's Batman to Christopher Nolan's interpretation of Gotham's guardian of the night, followed a similar tone and timber, although each filmmaker imprinted their own unique stamp on the movies they made. Burton's Batman and Nolan's The Dark Knight, for example, relied heavily on creating a psychological portrait of the Joker. As a stark contrast, MCU, phase one onwards, began to employ snappy dialogues in their films, and for the first time used a combination of darkness with humour.

The first Avengers is a case in point. While the theme of the movie is dark, the tone Joss Whedon used was totally opposite. Loki, in his megalomania, did not come across as a 'supervillain', but rather a funny version of the same. And this drove the point even strongly that villains are, at their core, absurd. And only humour can express this absurdity better.

But the experimentation that tepidly started in the first and second phase, truly became revolutionary from the third phase onwards. Phase Two saw the release of the Guardians of the Galaxy, which in itself is a unique film in the superhero genre. The Guardians are a team of misfits, and a lot of humour is expressed just by focusing on their interpersonal relationships and banter. Even tonally, James Gunn incorporated a lot of 80s popular music and cultural references, which themselves became a fodder for jokes within the movie. It was unimaginable to see this shift in a superhero film before.
Coming of Age with Phase 3
With the arrival of Phase Three, what were mere filmmaking experiments before began to acquire the idea of subversion. Captain America: Civil War was the first film in this 3rd phase, and we saw how overtly political that movie became. One of the core superhero stereotypes has been the good versus evil dichotomy, with the good winning the day. But the Russo Brothers not only distilled that preeminent question - if superheroes are watchmen, who watches them - into the movie, but the movie in itself had no resolution. In the end, the Avengers splits into two camps. There was no triumph.

Coming to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, the movie had no concrete plot to speak of. Yet Gunn navigated his characters through a series of adventures - or should I say misadventures - and not once did we as viewers feel bored. Thor: Ragnarok was even more subversive. The movie is about the end of Asgard, yet there is rarely a scene where Taika Waititi does not elicit a laugh or two just by throwing Hulk and Thor against each other. The casting of Jeff Goldblum as the Grandmaster is pure genius. The Grandmaster is neither wily, nor does he have an evil plan. He is just plain stupid, out to have his own few kicks at the expense of others.

The movie was also subversive in casting Cate Blanchett as Hela, the real supervillain. With supervillains in a superhero movie, the stereotype has been to either to cast someone who is hyper-masculine or a femme fatale, like Poison Ivy in the Batman series. Hela's character is irrespective of her gender. Her femininity is not constructed as either a hindrance, or source of strength, as it does in a femme fatale. Hela is powerful enough to break Thor's Hammer and her femininity is just beside the point. As if the movie was making a statement: yes she is powerful and she is a woman. So?

We see this idea being carried forward in a different way in Captain Marvel. The female superhero was always seen through a distinct male gaze, but Captain Marvel becomes truly liberating because the focus is not on objectifying her, but in trying to see her as she is. In the beginning, Jude Law's character might seem like he is saving Brie Larson's character, in turn making her realise her worth. But towards the latter half, the movie totally subverts this notion, where the saviour becomes the villain, and Captain Marvel becomes the arbiter of her own destiny. Not aided by a man, she comes of age by her own.

If gender is subverted in Ragnarok and Captain Marvel, Black Panther subverts race and racial stereotypes. Wakanda, though concealed as a third world nation, is shown to be even more advanced than the West. It embraced the idea of blackness wholly, and also proved that a film made largely by a black technical crew, starring a predominantly black cast, can make a huge mark at the mainstream box office.

These collective subversions in Phase 3 has ensured that superhero movies may never be the same (stereotypically) again.

Updated Date: Apr 22, 2019 18:08:07 IST

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How MCU Phase 3 subverts the superhero genre with films like Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok- Entertainment News, Firstpost

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Editor's note: Ahead of the release of Avengers: Endgame, here is PART THREE of a five-part series that attempts to understand the relationship between the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the state of the world today. This series will seek to engage with the MCU critically, and argue how their films have real world anxieties built within it.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Fast Color' movie review: Women of color shown with superpowers, literally - The Washington Post

# data[].attributes.subject
'Fast Color' movie review: Women of color shown with superpowers, literally - The Washington Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
April 19
Rating:

The origins of modern superheroes can be found in classical myth and legend. That's easy to forget now that every comic-book movie arrives with an endless, borderline-self-perpetuating chorus of excitement and hype. "Fast Color," the low-budget superhero film from director Julia Hart, strips away many of the genre's bells and whistles. By whittling its apocalyptic premise down to the scale of a modest drama, the film explores superheroes at their most mythical, finding genuine resonance along the way.

At first, the film unfolds like a thriller. Gugu Mbatha-Raw plays Ruth, a young woman on the run. Her predicament is not explained, but her desperation is real: She is prone to violent seizures that shake the walls surrounding her (literally), and every friendly face may be a government scientist who wants to perform invasive tests. She finally makes her way to an isolated home where her mother, Bo (Lorraine Toussaint), lives with Ruth's estranged daughter, Lila (Saniyya Sidney). Their reunion is tense - Ruth is a recovering drug addict - but still they are able to bond over the supernatural abilities they share.

Atmosphere is key to the film's success. Hart and her co-screenwriter Jordan Horowitz imagine a barren landscape where water is a scarce resource. They do not see a breakdown of society and instead prefer a more incremental approach: This is a future where everything is simply worse than what we're used to now. This austere landscape is also a shrewd way to explain the economical production values. "Fast Color" has few characters, location changes or special effects, but its limited resources are still convincing.

Race and gender are important undercurrents to the film. Ruth and Bo, both black women, want to teach Lila what it takes to live in a country that's indifferent or even hostile to that identity. All of Ruth's pursuers are white men, and they do not understand her potential, background or spirituality. Their attempt to "tame" Ruth is where the film finds an allegorical dimension. "Fast Color" is ultimately about black women whose power is misunderstood and how they sacrifice their individuality for the greater good. Its final minutes conflate that sacrifice with a superhero movie's climax, creating fantastical imagery that is actually meaningful.

Although the ending is sublime, "Fast Color" can drag a little. The lengthy middle section nearly falls into the trappings of a typical indie drama. You may have seen the dynamic before: There is the proud, vulnerable protagonist who tries to reconcile with her skeptical child, while an older figure observes them with reluctance. Superpowers add some intrigue - Bo and Lila can deconstruct and reassemble objects with their mind - but this section is talky to a fault. A gnawing sense of impatience is only barely overcome by the strong performances of Mbatha-Raw and Toussaint, both terrific actors.

Pacing notwithstanding, "Fast Color" succeeds on the strength of its ideas. Superhero movies do not need huge budgets or A-list actors to connect with audiences. They need plausible characters, made so by their reactions to extraordinary situations. This film can be frustrating - but then, we have been desensitized by talking raccoons and superhuman strength. Ruth, Bo and the others in "Fast Color" do not know they are in a genre riddled with cliches, however. So when something miraculous happens to them, they are awed and humbled by it. By finding the right note of empathy, Hart creates a space for the audience to share their doggedly earned hope.

PG-13.  At area theaters. Contains a scene of violence and brief strong language. 100 minutes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review | The excellent 'Fast Color' shows women of color with superpowers, literally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
April 19 Rating:  The origins of modern superheroes can be found in classical myth and legend. That's easy to forget now that every comic-book movie arrives with an endless, borderline-self-perpetuating chorus of excitement and hype. "Fast Color," the low-budget superhero film from director Julia Hart, strips away many of the genre's bells and whistles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Animation: The Earnings of the Biggest Movie Franchises Over the Last 20 Years - Visual Capitalist

# data[].attributes.subject
Animation: The Earnings of the Biggest Movie Franchises Over the Last 20 Years - Visual Capitalist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Iron Man to Luke Skywalker, viewers love watching their favorite heroes triumph over evil time and time again. These successful movie franchises have won our hearts, and padded film studios' wallets in the process.

Today's animation comes from Reddit user /u/rebellious_scum and it charts North American box office sales for select movie franchises, as reported by movie data website The Numbers. The daily ticket earnings were captured from May 19, 1999 (release date of Star Wars: Episode I) to April 4, 2019 and adjusted for inflation.
What stands out the most?
The clear takeaway from the animation is Marvel's exponential earnings growth since it debuted with Iron Man in 2008.

As of April 4, the franchise had earned inflation-adjusted revenue of $7.63 billion - almost double that of runner-up Star Wars, which totaled $4.03 billion. Of course, this does not take into account data from the record-shattering release of Avengers: Endgame on April 26th, which would skew numbers in Marvel's favor even more.

Average Revenue Per Movie

While these numbers sound impressive, what's the average revenue each movie has generated in North America?

Using the animation's inflation-adjusted numbers, here's how it all breaks down:

Star Wars and Middle Earth top the list in terms of average revenue per movie. Meanwhile, Marvel lands in third place and is closely followed by Pirates of the Caribbean, the Wizarding World, and the DC Extended Universe (DCEU).

Compared to direct competitor DCEU, Marvel earns roughly $30 million more per movie.

The Rate of Movie Production

The secret, in part, to Marvel's astronomical surge?

They produce movies at breakneck speed. The studio knows it has a winning recipe, and cooks up movies quickly to stay fresh in viewers' minds.

In twelve years, Marvel Studios has produced 22 movies including Avengers: Endgame. By comparison, the giant James Bond franchise has produced 24 movies since its inception 57 years ago in 1962.

Source: 007.com, Marvel.com

The Market Share Leaders

With Disney's recent purchase of Fox, the ownership of movie franchises became even more concentrated.

Today, Hollywood essentially has three parent companies: The Walt Disney Company, Universal/Comcast Corp., and WarnerMedia (previously TimeWarner).

Here's who owns the above eight franchises:

Sources: Business Insider, Forbes, Fortune, The Tolkien Society

Disney is a major player in the franchise space, and shows no signs of slowing down. There are even talks that the company is looking to reboot the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

In an industry full of risk, studios are looking to capitalize on a winning franchise formula: build a trusted brand with beloved characters, and produce movies as fast as time will allow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animation: The Earnings of Big Movie Franchises Over 20 Years

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Iron Man to Luke Skywalker, viewers love watching their favorite heroes triumph over evil time and time again. These successful movie franchises have won our hearts, and padded film studios' wallets in the process. Today's animation comes from Reddit user /u/rebellious_scum and it charts North American box office sales for select movie franchises, as reported by movie data website The Numbers.

# data[].attributes.headline
Has the R-rated superhero flick lost its powers? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Has the R-rated superhero flick lost its powers? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Has the R-rated superhero flick lost its powers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Deadpool opened up the market for ultra-violent, profane superheroes, but the new Hellboy's box-office nose dive shows they need more than shock value

# data[].attributes.headline
After 'Black Panther,' What Black Superhero Movies Are Next? | Hollywood Reporter

# data[].attributes.subject
After 'Black Panther,' What Black Superhero Movies Are Next? | Hollywood Reporter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse took home the Oscar for best animated feature on Sunday, it capped off 12 months that have changed the notion of what a superhero movie could be. Spider-Verse, which centers on Afro-Latino teen Miles Morales, and Marvel Studios' Black Panther gave black and brown kids superheroes who looked like them, and also won over movie audiences and critics alike.

"When we hear that somebody's kid was watching the movie and turned to them and said, 'He looks like me,' or 'He speaks Spanish like us,' we feel that we've already won," said producer Phil Lord during the team's acceptance speech. Added co-director Peter Ramsey: "We want you all to know, we see you, you're powerful, this world needs you."

Black Panther, which earned more than $1.34 billion at the box office, made Oscar history by being the first superhero movie nominated for best picture. While it didn't take home that prize, it did nab statues in three categories. Ruth Carter became the first African-American woman to win in the costume design category, while Hannah Beachler was the first African-American woman to take home a production design win, sharing it with Jay Hart. And Ludwig Goransson won in the original score category.

Panther and Spider-Verse proved to studios that black stories - specifically black-led superhero stories - can excite and resonate with audiences of all backgrounds. The questions now is, what's next for representation in the superhero genre?

"I'd like to see more and deeper explorations of the core ideas of the superhero genre - responsibility, idealism, resilience, compassion. But those are the things I'd want from any movie in this genre," Spider-Verse co-director Ramsey tells The Hollywood Reporter. "I guess what I'd want most would be stories and characters that bring something truly new to the idea of superheroes by embracing as much of the reality of black life and its nuances as possible."

There are a number of representative comic book films in the works. Director Ryan Coogler is signed for Black Panther 2 for Marvel, which also has Asian superhero movie Shang-Chi in development. A Spider-Verse sequel and spinoff are in the works at Sony, while Jamie Foxx's is set up at Universal and Blumhouse. Over at Warner Bros. and DC, a Blue Beetle movie about the Latino superhero is in development.

Meanwhile, Black Panther star Michael B. Jordan's production company Outlier have stated they are looking for stories like Black Panther. It is teaming with Warner Bros. to adapt Marlon James' novel, Black Leopard, Red Wolf. Jordan and Netflix are also adapting the Dennis Liu short film Raising Dion, about a superhero family drama following a young black boy who develops superpowers.

In addition, comic books continue to champion more inclusive characters that could someday make their way into the movies. Spider-Verse protagonist Miles Morales was introduced in 2011 by writer Brian Michael Bendis and artist Sara Pichelli. A few years later, Bendis and artist Mike Deodato introduced Riri Williams, an African-American engineering genius who became Ironheart, a hero similar to Iron Man. She currently stars in her own Ironheart series written by University of Chicago assistant professor Eve Ewing.

"People like a dose of humanity with their superhumans," says Ewing says of the appeal of characters like Riri Williams. "Being asked to think about how racism and history and identity and culture and politics intersect with the other big themes that superhero films tackle...that all just makes it more interesting."

Hollywood may be getting a clue about content for diverse audiences, and Captain Marvel star Brie Larson has also shined the spotlight on diversity amongst those covering her upcoming Marvel film by requesting that her press tour be made more inclusive. It's a sentiment appreciated by USC assistant professor Miki Turner.

"I've been in rooms where there have been only all-white journalists from xyz.com covering films featuring ethnic themes. There are a couple reasons why this is wrong," says Turner. "One, studios need to realize that there is a certain awareness that comes from people of color being able to report on films with cultural themes. Secondly, the studios need to get over themselves. Some publicists continually underestimate the power of ethnic outlets and publications and in 2019 that is a gross misjudgment of the power of the press."

Ramsey notes that the appeal of Spider-Verse transcends its lead character's background.

"Yeah, it's about a guy in a funny costume, but the core story of Spider-Man - that ordinary people called by chance can rise above their limitations and problems - is big enough to hold anyone, no matter who they are or where they come from," Ramsey says. "So to me, Miles means that 10-year-old me who read and loved Spider-Man comic books belonged, even when I didn't think I did, and always did belong, and always will."

Black Panther Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse took home the Oscar for best animated feature on Sunday, it capped off 12 months that have changed the notion of what a superhero movie could be. Spider-Verse, which centers on Afro-Latino teen Miles Morales, and Marvel Studios' Black Panther gave black and brown kids superheroes who looked like them, and also won over movie audiences and critics alike.

# data[].attributes.headline
Academy Awards Still Aren't Ready to Embrace Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.subject
Academy Awards Still Aren't Ready to Embrace Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While the 91st Academy Awards marked major wins for Black Panther and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, it also served also a clear reminder that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has not yet fully embraced the superhero genre as an art form on the same level as period-pieces and prestige dramas.

That isn't to say the genre has been ignored by the Academy entirely; superhero films have been nominated for Academy Awards ever since 1978's Superman starring Christopher Reeve. However, the overwhelming majority of nominations received by the genre across the four decades of movies have been for technical awards, usually for visual effects. Often, these nominations also are awarded to different films, the prevailing assumption that just being nominated by the most prestigious award ceremony in Hollywood is recognition enough.

RELATED: Black Panther: CIA's Twitter Account Was All In for a Wakandan Oscar Win
This also isn't to say there hasn't been progress made by the Academy in increasing its recognition of the superhero genre over the years. One of the first Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature went to 2004's The Incredibles, while 2008's The Dark Knight remains the superhero film to receive the most Academy Award nominations at eight, winning two, including Best Supporting Actor for Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker.

This was a historic year for the genre, with ten nominations across four films, seven of which were for Black Panther. The Marvel Cinematic Universe not only garnered Marvel Studios its most nominations in a single year, but also its first ever Oscar wins across 20 films produced over the course of the past decade. The MCU film was also nominated for the ceremony's top honor, Best Picture, the first ever superhero film to be in contention for prestigious award, though it ultimately lost to Green Book.

RELATED: Black Panther Didn't Win the Best Picture Oscar, But It Still Made History

While Black Panther was the top choice of movie audiences polled by Fandango and USA Today to win the top award, it was never seen as a particularly serious contender to win Best Picture. This isn't to diminish Black Panther's accomplishment or directly compare it to the other films nominated this year; whether Black Panther is better than Green Book is a completely different discussion. But Black Panther is the latest film to go against decades of tradition and self-fulfilling expectation the Academy has built up for itself.

For years the Academy has been criticized for largely ignoring films outside of traditionally acclaimed genres. Sci-fi, horror and comedy have been largely overlooked by the Academy in favor of dramas, historical fiction and lavish musicals. Among the often snubbed genres, of course, is superhero films, with Black Panther getting the nod against the odds, buoyed by labor of love efforts from filmmaker Ryan Coogler, an impressive ensemble cast, gorgeous design and audience-pleasing acclaim as it garnered industry awards and nominations across various production guilds and other entertainment organizations.

RELATED: Into the Spider-Verse Heroes Accept Academy Award in New Image

This past August, the Academy attempted to appeal to wider audiences while retaining its own tendency to give top honors to traditional award season fare by proposing an award for Best Popular Film. Theorized to have been created after being criticized for ignoring 2017's Wonder Woman completely and for the early Academy Award buzz going towards Black Panther, the planned award addition was ultimately cancelled to due fan outcry. The proposed award was a pretty bold attempt for the Academy to have its cake and eat it too, creating a category entirely for genres that the organization tends to overlook entirely.

It's unlikely the Academy will make a serious change in its bias towards popular genre films in the immediate future. Black Panther and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse are among the most acclaimed superhero films ever made, but while they're certainly deserving of the awards they won, they hardly exceeded expectation by the end of the night. Marvel Studios or Warner Bros. would really have to pull out all the stops for their future films to get Best Picture nods. While certainly not an impossibility, the Academy traditionally has an even bigger bias against sequels and continuations of established cinematic universes would have more riding against them at future award shows.

RELATED: Into the Spider-Verse's Peter Parker Dresses Down for Oscars Red Carpet

Neither Black Panther nor Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse's achievements at this past weekend's Academy Awards should be understated. Both films exceeded the conventional expectations of the superhero genre and brought home Oscar gold in addition to a historic nomination for superhero films everywhere. Despite this, the Academy still has to overcome its own notorious bias of popular genre films to recognize superhero movies as worthy of the top honor over more traditional award season fare. Regardless of the controversy facing Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody, both stood better chances than Black Panther of taking Best Picture. Perhaps as the Academy continues to diversify its membership, the likelihood of a superhero film one day taking the top honor could be more likely but, as it currently stands, a rare nomination is as good as the genre will get at the Academy Awards for the foreseeable future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academy Awards Still Aren't Ready to Embrace Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While the 91st Academy Awards marked major wins for Black Panther and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse , it also served also a clear reminder that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has not yet fully embraced the superhero genre as an art form on the same level as period-pieces and prestige dramas.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why The Future Of DCEU Movies Looks Brighter Than Ever (Updated)

# data[].attributes.subject
Why The Future Of DCEU Movies Looks Brighter Than Ever (Updated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As always, I will include the disclaimer -- surely unnecessary by now, if not for the inevitable angry reactions I get when I forget to include it -- that I personally loved Zack Snyder's vision of the DCEU. So recognition of the new vision does not erase my enthusiasm and affection for the previous films.

For 2019, the studio has pushed back director Patty Jenkin's Wonder Woman 1984 starring Gal Gadot, so Shazam! starring Zachary Levi and directed by David F. Sandberg, and the Joker movie starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips, will have to carry the DC Comics banner this year. Both films appear more than capable of doing the heavy lifting in 2019.

Then again, with 2018 proving so successful for the superhero genre and audience enthusiasm likely to continue into 2019 with another rockstar slate including Captain Marvel, Avengers: Endgame, and Spider-Man: Far From Home, it could be the proverbial case of rising tides lifting all ships, so perhaps Shazam! will perform at the higher end of potential. Indeed, since it releases in proximity to Captain Marvel and Avengers: Endgame, and since there should be lingering good will toward DCEU films in the aftermath of Aquaman's record-setting performance, there is definitely reason to think Shazam! -- with its sensibilities and tone consistent with the sort of pictures audiences reward most -- will beat expectations.

Meanwhile, Hellboy, Dark Phoenix, and New Mutants are the only real question-marks on the calendar for superhero cinema, but hopefully they'll at least be okay enough for audiences to avoid holding it against the genre or otherwise letting them sour enthusiasm for other entries in the genre.

If Joker earns good reviews and enough positive word of mouth in October, then the popular villain could wind up overperforming by a wide margin -- with a roughly $55 million budget, even an enormous $100 million marketing campaign would still make it a relatively modest investment in the comic book genre, with great potential to score blockbuster box office numbers off the character's own branding and the proximity to Batman's brand. And I don't expect a $100 million ad campaign, so more likely total investments will amount to somewhere around $125+/- million.

With Aquaman finally lifting the DCEU to the magic $1+ billion number, if Shazam! and Joker can combine for something close to the $1+ billion mark (as I think they will), and if in 2020 Wonder Woman 1984 likewise performs in the $800-900+ million range while Birds of Prey's cume falls in the $700 million range, then DC will have clearly gotten its feet under it even without Batman's and Superman's help. So by the time The Batman and Supergirl arrive in 2021 to revive and revamp those two properties' fortunes, there's a high likelihood the DC movies will have overcome whatever remaining audience uncertainty slowed it down in the initial years.

But consider, $658 million represented the box office basement for the DCEU, and Justice League went on to top $100+ million in Blu-ray/DVD/Digital-HD sales and rentals. So the fact their worst-performing movie went through a chop-shop of editing and reshoots, faced months of dragging by the press, and carried the negative baggage accumulated by the DCEU, yet still performed at a level making it a blockbuster with box office receipts consistent with what we normally consider a good, solid performance for a big movie, is important context to keep in mind.

The Justice League budget and potential of the brand obviously should've scored vastly higher results, without a doubt, but the point is box office itself doesn't really care about those considerations in literal terms. So judging the pure dollar figures at the box office and on home media outside of that context, the point remains that $658 million theatrical and $100+ million home entertainment is a lot of dough for a (pardon the pun) doomsday outcome.

I do not in the least underestimate or deny the extent to which the DCEU had trouble that pointed to longterm problems for financial viability and the health of the major IP involved. It's not sustainable to face constant mixed-to-negative reviews and box office underperformance while competitors are scoring billion-dollar results and rave reviews, not to mention merchandising revenue streams to drool over. What I'm saying is, the degree of trouble was manageable, it had plenty of silver linings, and it only took a couple of years for the studio to recover and find a good path forward. So as a foundation, the DCEU wound up working fine, all things considered, and in a larger historic context it was really just a speed-bump in an otherwise mostly smooth and impressive journey for DC movies.

The combined budgets of all six DCEU releases to date is about $1.26 billion, while the combined worldwide box office results from all six DCEU films is $4.88 billion. Add in roughly $750+/- million for marketing the six films, and the total costs (in simplified form) total around $2.1 billion, five or take a few million bucks. And when Aquaman's theatrical run is over, it will boost the final box office total for the DCEU to somewhere near/over $4.9 billion.

Now add in $400 million from just domestic Blu-ray/DVD sales alone for the first five DCEU movies ( Aquaman hasn't had its home release yet, but will probably match Wonder Woman's $100 million in this regard), plus another likely $150+/- million from Digital-HD domestic sales and the domestic rentals from Blu-ray/DVD/Digital-HD. Finally, add at least a few more hundred-million dollars for all of the international sales and rentals on the home entertainment market. After Aquaman joins the fray, the home release figures for the first six DCEU movies will approach or exceed $1 billion, in addition to the $4.9 billion from DCEU total box office. Not bad for an overarching franchise brand widely considered to have been in trouble for the past several years.

That DC faces a brighter future and looks likely to win over audiences and critics with their upcoming slate of films is, then, not really a surprise.

Now, let's discuss a few elephants in the room. The Flash movie has been repeatedly delayed in the past, and recently once again slowed down and pushed back the expected start of production (although to be perfectly clear, there was no actual start date set for the film, so this is all about expectations rather than firm plans). We could fairly ask whether the delay to allow lead actor Ezra Miller's filming schedule to free up will eventually lead to another change of direction that might wind up seeing the project switch directorial hands again, and/or even evolve into a reboot with a new lead actor.

I suspect it's simply hard to make a Flash movie at the same time a successful, beloved, high-quality TV series has already gotten the character so perfectly right while adapting some of the best, most iconic story arcs alongside a larger shared world of DC superheroes. While there's of course plenty of room and opportunity for a feature film adaptation that leans into some of the same material but finds its own unique voice and approach, doing so without feeling redundant or stepping on the TV show's toes, and also adding something rich and popular to the DC film slate, requires a deft hand and careful consideration of the right time and right way forward with a Flash project.

So, while I fully understand fans' frustrations and desires for the Flash project to get moving, I think it's smart to remember the context, to temper frustrations and avoid trying to pressure anyone into hurrying a project, and to appreciate DC Films' choice to proceed with caution to ensure they don't screw it up.

Superman has been shelved for now, as a temporary measure to let Supergirl step into the limelight and carry the Kryptonian banner for a little while on the big screen, as the worlds of DC continue to evolve and solidify a path forward. Superman will of course inevitably appear again in movies some day, and I'd remind impatient fans that it has literally only been 14 months since Superman showed up in Justice League, his third outing in the current version of the DCEU and his fourth feature film appearance overall in a 12-year period.

Superman has had a total of nine feature films, starting with Superman and the Mole Men way back in 1951. Counting his big-screen serials in 1948 and 1950, plus all of his live-action TV shows (including Adventures of Superman, Superboy, Lois & Clark, Smallville, the CW Arrowverse version of the character, and Krypton), Superman has had more live-action appearances in film and television than any other superhero in history. He's been around a long time, we've seen a large number of versions and approaches adapting all sorts of source material and new concepts, so there's no reason to pretend he's somehow not getting his due.

Nor should we forget that Henry Cavill -- who, contrary to recent rumors, is not on the verge of making another Superman picture and did not film a secret cameo for Shazam! -- played Superman in a solo origin film, a Trinity team-up with Batman and Wonder Woman, and in a Justice League team-up movie, all of which combined to adapt portions of some of the most famous and historic Superman comic book series ever written. So if as expected Cavill doesn't don the cape again, he still leaves behind a fine legacy of film portrayals as Superman, as part of that large library of live-action adaptations I described above. And for what it's worth, my understanding is that the rumors of Superman being actively shopped around are exaggerations (like most rumors floating around right now).

It seems the reports about James Gunn being "offered" Superman were misunderstood by a lot of folks, and that Superman is one of many characters technically "on the table" for filmmakers to pick from when they are negotiating with Warner about potential projects. If a filmmaker actively chose Superman and made a pitch the studio liked, then of course that would be a different situation, but it's not accurate to portray it as if the studio are actively shopping around a Superman project to try to get a director attached.

Likewise, The Batman has had some ups and downs including Ben Affleck dropping out as writer-director-actor, and negotiations with current writer-director Matt Reeves temporarily ending before he was (thank god) lured back. Reeves has finished his script and is working on rewrites, and the film will enter production later this year (although maybe not as late as everyone thinks). Yes, it will release later than many assumed -- not in 2020 as had originally been hoped, but in 2021 -- but the delay is no big deal, so fans and fan sites should stop treating it like a problem and just learn to be patient and realistic. You can read more about the details concerning The Batman in my recent post here -- and I'll add that the new rumors about Robert Pattinson are just fan rumors right now, nothing more (although for the record he's a good actor and any negative fan reactions are unwarranted).

Now throw in some casting like Tom Cruise, John Krasinski, Matt Damon, or Bradley Cooper as Hal Jordan and with Daniel Kaluuya, Stephan James, John Boyega, or Algee Smith as John Stewart. Add in a supporting cast with Ethan Hawke as Sinestro (channeling Vincent Price for the characterization) and Thandie Newton, Eva Mendes, or Penélope Cruz as Star Sapphire. Then get a director like F. Gary Gray, Kathryn Bigelow, Christopher McQuarrie, the Wachowskis, Mimi Leder, Dee Rees, Brad Bird, or J.J. Abrams for example, and we are talking about one heckuva big trilogy project with massive box office potential. Heck, I'd even say it's worth asking Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson if they're interested in directing a three-film sci-fi space opera.

But you get the picture -- Green Lantern Corps could launch a blockbuster franchise that lends itself to an endless array of spinoff potential for different characters and situations. So keep New Gods and Green Lantern Corps in mind, then, as you contemplate the directions and scale the DC movies can pursue in the future, alongside the other projects we already know are in the works...
Shazam! Joker. Wonder Woman 1984. Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn). Supergirl. The Suicide Squad. The Batman. Batgirl. The Trench. Aquaman 2. New Gods. Green Lantern Corps.
That's a nice looking list, to which we can probably add Aquaman 2, and Wonder Woman 3. Other projects we haven't heard about yet will also make their way into the schedule too in the coming months and years. So we have a dozen or more DC movies to look forward to in the next half-dozen years.

There were also projects in the works involving Booster Gold and Blue Beetle, Nightwing, Deadshot, Justice League Dark, Cyborg, Lobo, and a few others, but most of those seem to be either on hold, cancelled, or in some stage of development Hell for the moment. I think we might eventually see a couple of them revive and join the list of future DC films, but for now I'm not counting on it (even though I'd love to see all of those projects). Which is fine, since right now there are plenty of DC projects in the works for coming years, more than enough to satisfy fans and audiences. Perhaps instead some of these projects will wind up evolving into serialized series on the new WarnerMedia streaming service.

Be of good cheer, then, DC fans. There is lots of great news already out for the future of DC on film, and even more good news coming soon -- and I'll be sure to pass it all along to you when I can, so stay tuned!
Box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office Mojo , Rentrak, and TheNumbers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why The Future Of DCEU Movies Looks Brighter Than Ever (Updated)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As always, I will include the disclaimer -- surely unnecessary by now, if not for the inevitable angry reactions I get when I forget to include it -- that I personally loved Zack Snyder's vision of the DCEU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Any genre allowed to stagnate will die, so superhero films have to innovate every year -- 2018 included. The innovations don't need to be dramatic. They don't have to be revolutionary. They just have to happen.

2018 changed superhero movies forever.

10. Escalation

Let's get the obvious out of the way: with the release of Avengers: Infinity War, we now know that it is possible for a superhero film to get ridiculous and over-the-top without losing its audience. If you have a good story, audiences will not care that you have wizards and green rage monsters fighting alongside Norse Gods and a sentient tree. So long as prior films have established these characters, audiences will accept it.

Because of this, we now understand that audiences can deal with over-the-top antics. However...
PREVIOUSLY: 10 Heroes That Need to Step Up in Avengers: Endgame (And 10 That Will Be Useless)
9. De-Escalation

While Ant-Man and the Wasp was definitely not nearly as big a film as the MCU films preceding it, it did prove that audiences are willing to tap the breaks a little after a big crisis crossover in order to enjoy a smaller story. In comparison to the recent massive build up of the MCU, Ant-Man And The Wasp was a great little comedy break, and audiences loved it.

This was reinforced by both Deadpool 2 and Venom, which both feature a smaller, shorter story that audiences appeared to enjoy more than Ant-Man and the Wasp (more on that later).

8. Superhero Comedy Works If You Have a Good Plot

What do Deadpool 2 and Teen Titans Go to the Movies have in common? Humor.

While both are good movies that found a passionate audience, it's undeniable that the commonality between them is their humor. Sometimes, the humor is meta-humor. Other times, it's slapstick. Other times, gross-out humor.

But directors have crafted comedic superhero movies since the start of the genre. Why did Deadpool 2 or Teen Titans Go succeed, while films like Batman Forever or Fantastic Four fail? A plot. Conflict. Drama. Real stakes that suit the story it's trying to tell. As we learned with both prior categories, 2018 proved that audiences are willing to enjoy any and all types of stories, so long as there is a story to ground them.

PREVIOUSLY: 10 Animated Superhero Movies to Watch If You Liked "Into the Spider-Verse"
7. Superhero Animation Can Sell

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is regarded as one of the greatest Batman films of all time. It also failed financially. Despite having an incredible plot and incredible fan reception, its initial box office didn't do so well. Since then, DC has resorted to making its animated features direct-to-video, which has proven successful. However, it's increasingly clear that there is an audience for animated superhero films, but 2018 proved how big that audience truly is.

While LEGO Batman proved audiences are interested in animated superhero films, that film didn't really launch animated superhero movies into the mainstream like Teen Titans Go to the Movies and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse did. Each made a boatload of money, which should assure studios in the future that, yes, you can take risks in the future of animation.

6. The Chinese Market is HUGE

It is a truth in the film industry that China is a huge marketplace. Film doesn't do so well in America? The international box-office might elevate it up. This happened with Pacific Rim and Warcraft, which did poorly in the states but phenomenally in China.

Ignoring the juggernaut that is Avengers: Infinity War, two films that perhaps surprised people monitoring the box office were Venom and Aquaman, whose incredible success was, in part, due to the films' popularity in China. This tells us that films will be increasingly made to appeal to an international audience.

5. Sony was Right

Time to apologize to Sony. We laughed at them for years now, with them trying to launch Spider-Man into his own cinematic universe. We were so happy when the MCU took the reins of the Spider-Man franchise, and many of us cringed when we heard Sony was going ahead with their own pet projects in the vain attempt to spin a web of interconnected movies surrounding Spider-Man.

Thing was... Venom and Into the Spider-Verse were good. 2018 has proven that the future of superhero movies features a lot more of Sony's good ideas now that they no longer feel the need to chase the MCU formula, but, instead, create their own web alongside the MCU instead.

4. Audiences Can Wait for the Sequel

The Incredibles remains one of the best superhero films ever made, despite being an animated Pixar film from way back. Many fans of the original film have clamored for a sequel to be made, but Pixar has instead focused on making sequels to their other IPs, such as Cars or Monsters Inc. Some feared that a sequel to this superhero animated movie might have come a little too late.

The Incredibles 2, however, shattered those concerns with its box office. Despite years passing, the audience still received it with open arms. The lesson learned? The time between sequels is less important than making good movies people can love and enjoy for years to come.
PREVIOUSLY: 2018 Was the Biggest, and Best, Year for Superhero Movies
3. Long-Term Continuity Works

It has been a long time since Ant-Man. Longer still since Captain America: The First Avenger. And the first Raimi Spider-Man film came out back in 2002. Yet in 2018, superhero movies featured plot-threads from old films (the Janet Van-Dyne mystery continued into Ant-Man and the Wasp), the return of seemingly forgotten characters (Red Skull's surprise return in Avengers: Infinity War) and references to films that seemed to have come from another era of cinema ( Into the Spider-Verse contained quite a few Raimi-era references -- as well as references to the 1960s Spider-Man series).

Audiences, thanks to the internet and nostalgia, remember continuity from years past. 2018 has changed superhero movies forever by reminding everyone that people do, in fact, care about their old superhero memories from yesteryear.

2. Marvel isn't the Only Name in the Game

One-third of superhero films to come out in 2018 came from the MCU. The other two-thirds came from Fox, Sony, WB, and even another brand under the Disney conglomerate.

While most of the films to find success came from Marvel in some way, the fact remained that the MCU isn't the only company to find success in producing superhero films. With films like Hellboy and Spawn coming in the future, 2018 proved you don't have to be part of the bigger Marvel Universe to be a hit.

PREVIOUSLY: Shazam! Is the First True Test of the Post-Snyder DCEU
1. There is No One Way to Make a Superhero Film

If we learned anything in 2018, it is this: the Marvel formula is not the only way a superhero film can work. This year alone we saw a comedy about fatherhood ( Deadpool 2), an epic swashbuckling fantasy ( Aquaman), and a coming-of-age story seen through the lens of interdimensional travel ( Into the Spider-Verse). We saw films embrace diversity and new ideas ( Black Panther) and films that fall back on old formulas and cheese ( Venom).

If we learned one thing about the future of superhero films from 2018, it is this: there is no one path to success. You can be silly. You can be fun. You can be serious. You can be mature. The genre of superheroes is not a singular entity but a medium that will continue to diverge and evolve as time goes on. So long as each film tells a different story, the genre will live on. 2018 showed that superhero movies have a long future ahead of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Ways 2018 Changed Superhero Movies Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Any genre allowed to stagnate will die, so superhero films have to innovate every year -- 2018 included. The innovations don't need to be dramatic. They don't have to be revolutionary. They just have to happen. 2018 changed superhero movies forever.

# data[].attributes.headline
2018 marked a big change in superhero movies - Polygon

# data[].attributes.subject
2018 marked a big change in superhero movies - Polygon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ours is a media environment saturated by superheroes. But even by that standard, the sheer number of big superhero movies released in 2018 deserves emphasis. Warner Bros., Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures all put out at least two superhero films; even Pixar got in on the act with The Incredibles 2.

The year kicked off with a movie that we are still talking about, Black Panther, and hit its stride with the massively anticipated release of Avengers: Infinity War and 20th Century Fox's Deadpool 2. But it was been the final stretch of 2018 that has produced the most surprises, with the unexpected success of Venom, Aquaman, and the electrifying Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.

Ten years after The Dark Knight and Iron Man changed the genre forever, the biggest superhero studios are finally starting to figure out what comes next.

In 2018, Marvel prepared for its post-Robert Downey Jr. Era

Robert Downey, Jr., then as risky a proposition as the idea of a movie about Iron Man, is the reason the entire Marvel franchise didn't simply flash and die in 2008. What a difference 10 years makes!

There hasn't been a major event in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that hasn't rested on at least a cameo appearance from him since. All three Avengers films - and even one Captain America movie! - have found their emotional turning point in Downey's equally egotistical, hubristic and charming portrayal of the smartest Avenger. And when Marvel needed someone to establish the MCU's official footprint in another company's superhero universe, it was Downey, Jr.'s Iron Man who gave Spider-Man: Homecoming its Avengers tie-in.

In 2018, Marvel Studios laid the groundwork to leave Tony Stark and his incarnation of the Avengers behind - potentially forever. Avengers: Infinity War, for all its zipping across the galaxy, was ultimately a setup for Endgame 's punchline: a last (perhaps tragic) hurrah for the original seven Avengers. Thanos' snap cleared the board of nearly every character in the roster but, in a way that is impossible to ignore, left Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye standing.

And with most of the Avengers actors reaching the end of their contracts, Marvel has also been preparing for a very different future. This year's Ant-Man and the Wasp finally brought the Wasp to the prominence she deserved, while Infinity War prepped audiences for the introduction of Carol Danvers' Captain Marvel; and next summer, Spider-Man will swing back into theaters. In 2018 alone, Marvel Studios announced the production of an Eternals movie and a long-awaited Black Widow film, starring Scarlett Johansson. (Meanwhile, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 remains in limbo.)

And, of course, there was Marvel Studios' biggest cultural success of 2018, Ryan Coogler's Black Panther, the second-highest grossing movie of 2018. Not since The Dark Knight has a superhero movie stood such a good chance of seeing its box office receipts actually turn into Oscar gold.

And Black Panther's success does not seem to have gone unnoticed by Marvel. The studio's most recently revealed film project is Shang-Chi, which will reportedly be an attempt to reach Asian and Asian-American audiences by using the same tenor and nuance with which Black Panther reached black and African-American audiences.

Marvel Studios' legendary producer Kevin Feige has said that Avengers: Endgame will wrap a 22-movie story arc for the franchise. What comes after will represent an entirely new future with new characters. Whether that future succeeds will depend greatly on decisions the studio made in 2018.

Warner Bros. might have finally realized that it can't make The Dark Knight happen twice

If 2018 seemed like a comparatively light year for Warner Bros.' DC Films universe, it's because it was. After 2016's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, and 2017's Wonder Woman and Justice League, 2018 slipped quietly along until its very end, when Aquaman arrived as an implausible box office splash smash.

As of this writing, the Momoa-led vehicle has made nearly $800 million. By the end of Aquaman's second weekend in US theaters, it had grossed more than Suicide Squad reaped in its entire run. And it's the kind of superhero movie that Warner Bros.' DC franchise is known for not being - colorful, earnest and cheerful. It's pure escapism, and proud of it.

When Warner Bros. shifted in favor of producing a loose franchise of films over a directly interconnected superhero universe like the MCU, it was easy to read as a retreat, not a regrouping. What should have been grand slams for the studio - a live action film with Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman in it! A Justice League movie! - had underperformed and been excoriated by critics. Both Justice League and Suicide Squad had gone through troubled and disrupted productions.

It takes a long time to turn a ship as large as Warner Bros.', but 2018 saw the first concrete glimmers of that the new direction wasn't a scrambled solution but a learned adaptation. The studio has a comically large slew of movies in some stage of production, but the ones we saw solid movement on in 2018 represent a much different tone than the pessimistic, grim, and gritty one that has been so associated with DC Films.

Shazam's kid-oriented take on the venerable sort-of-just-a-kid superhero will hit theaters early this year, and Wonder Woman 1984 will grace screens in 2020, dressing the character in all the neon design work of that decade. And 2018 was the year that Birds of Prey finished scripting and casting stages, revealing the delightfully silly full title Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn).

Improbably, Joaquin Phoenix's gritty, 1980s-set Joker vehicle now seems like the odd one out. Add in the potential of a pulp-y Steven Spielberg-helmed Blackhawks and a trippy New Gods from Ava Duvernay, and we're finally seeing the long-gestating results of a sea change in how Warner Bros. makes superhero movies.

Nearly 10 years after The Dark Knight, the studio has finally realized that its success can't be replicated by grounding the entire DC Universe in somber stories about trauma and Pyrrhic victory - but rather by finding focused, inventive and skillful filmmakers who have something to say, and then letting them say it.

The biggest cliches of comics came to the big screen

In 2018, superhero movies brought some of the most unique tropes of the genre to the big screen, but at differing levels of success. The Avengers movies have always had all the upsides of a traditional comic book event crossover: All your favorite characters are here! The world is in danger! Nothing will ever be the same!

Avengers: Infinity War also introduced audiences to many of the downsides: There's no time for anyone to really have a character arc! A cliffhanger ending will strike half the audience as a cheap, because it'll be clear that most characters will have to return from the dead, for money reasons!

Infinity War was an expertly designed blur (to be fair, there's really no way it could have been anything else) but still a blur. And how we feel about its cliffhanger now rests entirely on how Avengers: Endgame - or, let's be frank, Avengers: Infinity War - Part II - turns it all around.

While Infinity War may have brought the idea of necessary comic book resurrection to wide audiences, the best intro to a core concept of the superhero universe came from a late and unexpected corner. Sony Pictures Animation released an animated, family-friendly action movie with in which no fewer than eight separate Spider-Persons appeared, from seven separate parallel Marvel earths. And it worked.

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse was the best comic book crossover event of 2018, and it wasn't even in a comic. The success the movie has seen with audiences and critics just goes to show the biggest lesson behind the success of the superhero movie:

That the "niche" genre of superhero stories has always had the potential for universal appeal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2018 marked a big change in superhero movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Warner Bros., Marvel, Sony, Pixar and 20th Century Fox all got in on the superhero act in 2018. From Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War and Deadpool 2 to Venom, Aquaman and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, we look back on 2018 in superhero movies.

# data[].attributes.headline
A diverse league of superheroes is remaking the genre

# data[].attributes.subject
A diverse league of superheroes is remaking the genre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's taken some 20 years and approximately 40,000 superhero movies, but the faces behind the masks are finally getting a little more diverse.

December's "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse," featuring a black-Latino version of the character, caught both critics and audiences in its web, raking in more than $200 million so far around the world.

Viewers seem eager for more, and filmmakers are ready to give it to them. Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige says he wants the movies to "reflect the world in which they are made," as he told IndieWire last year.

The shift could be happening soon, as a massive changing of the guard is hitting the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Many of the original cast members are set to move on after April's "Avengers: Endgame."

Chris Evans, who's played Captain America since 2011, has said he'll retire from the role, and the other Chris - Hemsworth, who wields Thor's hammer - told an Australian TV program last year that his Marvel contract is up and, "at the moment, that's it" for the God of Thunder.

Robert Downey Jr., the OG Marvel hero who launched Iron Man a decade ago, is also reportedly moving on.

Perhaps these characters will survive "Endgame" and drift comfortably into retirement, where they'll spend their days tracking down pudding thieves at a seniors' community. It's also possible they'll simply be killed off.

But what then? No more Iron Man movies?

Not if you like money.

Instead, expect "different incarnations of the characters we know" to take over, as Feige said at the Producers Guild of America's "Produced By" conference last year.

And those new incarnations are likely to be more diverse. The print comic books have used a similar tactic for decades - swapping out classic heroes for fresh characters that echo the old ones.

Here are five diverse heroes who might be coming to a screen near you.

Could replace: Iron Man
Her story: She's an African-American teen genius who's inspired by Iron Man to build her own suit of armor.

The existence of a script for a solo movie (by Jada Rodriguez) was revealed last year by the Black List, a rundown of Hollywood's best unproduced screenplays. Another plus: Writer Brian Michael Bendis, the character's co-creator, also co-created Miles Morales of "Spider-Verse."

Kate Bishop

Could replace: Hawkeye
Her story: She's a teen archer who first appeared in Marvel Comics back in 2005. She is later taken under Hawkeye's, er, wing and becomes his protegee.

Last October, it was reported that Katherine Langford from "13 Reasons Why" had joined the cast of "Endgame" in an undisclosed role. Rumor has it, she'll be playing Bishop.

Could replace: Iron Man
Her story: She's Pepper Potts, Tony Stark's trusty assistant and love interest, who dons one of Stark's suits of armor. In the comics, she goes by the handle Rescue."

Potts, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, has already suited up, in 2013's "Iron Man 3," but the trailer for "Endgame" suggests that we could be seeing more of her. The teaser finds Stark adrift in space with no water or food and dwindling oxygen. In a voiceover, Stark mentions a "rescue" his compatriots have planned. Could that be a Rescue with a capital R?

Could replace: Captain Marvel
Her story: She's Kamala Khan, a Jersey City-based Muslim teen who gains stretching powers after being exposed to an alien gas.

Kamala is one of the most successful heroes introduced this century, and Feige revealed at last year's "Produced By" that a movie is in the works. But: "We wanted to get 'Captain Marvel' [starring Brie Larson] out there first so that there is something for a young Muslim girl to get inspired by," Feige said.

Blue Beetle

Could replace: Batman or Superman
His story: With Ben Affleck (Batman) and Henry Cavill (Superman) reportedly leaving their capes behind, the DC Extended Universe is in search of new characters to potentially build franchises around.

Jaime Reyes is an updated version of a character that first appeared in 1939. He's a Latino Texas teen who is granted powers by an alien artifact. A film is reportedly in development, with Mexican-born writer Gareth Dunnet-Alcocer penning a screenplay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A diverse league of superheroes is remaking the genre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's taken some 20 years and approximately 40,000 superhero movies, but the faces behind the masks are finally getting a little more diverse. December's "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse," featuring a black-Latino version of the character, caught both critics and audiences in its web, raking in more than $200 million so far around the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Isn’t Marvel’s Netflix Strategy Working?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Isn’t Marvel’s Netflix Strategy Working?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's no secret that Netflix doesn't dish out its audience numbers, but new data shows a trend that, until the cancellation of Iron Fist and Luke Cage, was somewhat of a secret: people aren't watching Marvel-Netflix shows like they used to. Is this a reflection of the overall streaming climate, or of the superhero genre?

Jumpshot, a San Francisco-based analytics company, says Netflix viewership for Marvel shows has steadily decreased since Daredevil Season 2 (via ScreenRant). Anyone who calls themselves a comic book nerd has noticed the trending discussion and hype around each series has noticeably declined over the years, even if a show is great (like Daredevil Season 3). So why aren't even the most devoted of comic book fans tuning in for every Marvel Netflix show?

It may be that Marvel is asking too much. There's essentially two separate cinematic universes: the film universe and the Netflix universe. Each universe is sequential. Yes, you could watch each movie or show individually, but it's not the optimal experience. And even if you don't miss anything, you'd think you were missing something. That chase used to be half the fun, but now keeping up with Easter eggs and references and inside jokes between shows feels like a chore. And a two hour Marvel film is a much more approachable, and action-packed, universe to follow than a Netflix TV show spanning 13-hours.

"I'm already behind, I couldn't get through Iron Fist or Defenders and I have one more Luke Cage episode," said one disgruntled Newsgeek staffer. And it's not an uncommon sentiment.

Binging TV can be great, but it can be daunting too. One look at the Netflix home screen is all the reminder one needs that there's just too much to watch. Back in 2015, when Daredevil kicked things off, Marvel wasn't as ubiquitous and Netflix had far less original content. Now, Netflix has six original superhero shows (and even more streaming, such as The CW's offerings). That's not to mention more options across overlapping fandoms like science fiction, anime, fantasy and adaptations. Catching up with Luke Cage to watch The Defenders to watch Daredevil Season 3 is too much work...why not just watch Maniac instead?

Another major disadvantage of the binge-watching formula; you have to wait a year-often longer-before the next season comes out. There was a three-year gap between Jessica Jones Seasons 1 and 2. The act of binge-watching also affects how these shows are covered. For better or worse, traditional weekly broadcasts allow hype to build, creating more excitement for the next episode. The Marvel-Netflix formula does not allow for that type of ingestion, no matter how good the show is. DC's new streaming service plans to stick to a weekly schedule. Going forward it will be interesting to see how each platform's original shows are received by fans. Is bulk delivery of episodes the problem, or is the streaming audience simply oversaturated with superhero stories?

Streaming platforms seem to be reaching a breaking point. There's just too much, too many apps, too many providers. It's arguably more annoying keeping track of them all, and all the separate release dates, than forking up the extra bucks for cable. Marvel's about to make it even harder with the upcoming launch of the Disney streaming service. The Marvel-Netflix approach attempted to replicate the successful design of the MCU, and according to Jumpshot's data, it hasn't worked in the long-run. That being said, everything good must come to an end, and if the end of this era means ditching the past to advance the oversaturated superhero formula, than so be it.

Thoughts? Sound off in the comments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why isn't Marvel's Netflix strategy working?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marvel-Netflix attempted to replicate the success of the MCU, and it didn't work.

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero Movies in 2019: What the Genre Should Become in the Future | Observer

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero Movies in 2019: What the Genre Should Become in the Future | Observer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By the end of 2018, a whopping nine superhero blockbusters will have been delivered to multiplexes around the world. As of publication, roughly 20 films based on comic book characters are scheduled to hit theaters through 2020. Thanks to the X-Men, Marvel Cinematic Universe, DC Extended Universe and an avalanche of disconnected standalones, the comic book genre doesn't look to be losing steam anytime soon.

Today, superhero films have taken the place of traditional action blockbusters from the 1980s and '90s. In place of John McClane ( Die Hard) and Roger Murtaugh ( Lethal Weapon), we now have Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne. Superhero tales are our modern-day mythology. And while there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of comic book characters that have yet to hit the big screen, the bubble is sure to pop eventually if those at the helm don't find different ways to tell these stories. To that end, we suggest a simple solution: original superhero movies. This route would help clear up some of the biggest existing and future issues that plague the genre.

In terms of live-action representation, nearly all of our main heroes have already been through multiple iterations. In the very near future, we'll be getting new versions of Batman and Superman; Spider-Man is on its third actor as is The Hulk. The X-Men have two versions of each character running around and will be recast once Disney absorbs Fox; we'll also eventually see new stars in your favorite MCU roles such as Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man.
Subscribe to Observer's Entertainment Newsletter
Remakes and sequels are more common than stale popcorn-eventually, reboot fatigue will exact a toll. The genre is precariously teetering toward saturation. We're already seeing studios branch out into different genres with their superhero properties in order to avoid repetition. On top of that, it's increasingly challenging to walk the fine line of fan appeasement for cherished titles. Staying true to the original and making a killing at the box office don't always go hand-in-hand. And we haven't even touched on the troublesome trends of whitewashing and the lack of diversity on several levels.

Original superhero movies are not a novel concept, they just haven't been properly reevaluated in today's theatrical context. In reality, we've been given a war chest of quality superhero features not based on any preexisting material. Robocop (1987), Darkman (1990), The Matrix (1999), Unbreakable (2000), The Incredibles (2004) and Hancock (2008) all proved that such concepts can be commercially successful, critically acclaimed, or both.

Yes, original concepts are riskier bets for studios in a time when theater audiences are shrinking yearly. We understand the drawbacks. But the upside is undeniable.

From a pure business perspective, multimedia originals can emerge as gold mines with endless expansion opportunities and without all of the fussy character licensing deals that leave exciting projects buried in red tape (good luck ever getting another solo Hulk movie). The Matrix franchise has grossed more than $3 billion worldwide from all sources (box office, home entertainment, video game, album sales, merchandising, etc.) and there are whispers of a comeback of sorts.

From a storytelling standpoint, more original superhero narratives would help eliminate the constant recycling of tired characters and avoid reboot fatigue with stagnant brand names. They could also offer greater freedom and flexibility. Studios would no longer have to appease toxic "fanboys" that hurl vitriolic hate at non-white male parties involved in these blockbusters-there's no reason people should be getting bullied off of social media. A quick look at Twitter reveals just how low a minority of certain fan bases can stoop when it comes to their [ insert Gollum voice] "preciouses."

Finally, such an approach will allow for updated characters and stories. These new franchises can break ground that the constraints of 60-year-old comic books cannot. Iron Man 3 needed to bake in a twist reveal in the third-act to smooth over the racist undertones of The Mandarin. No more of that. More superheroes played by diverse actors, a wider range of voices behind the scenes, more LGBTQ representation, updated villains, darker material, greater realism or fanaticism depending on your preference-these are the benefits offered by starting from scratch.

Thankfully, we're already making slow but steady progress in some of these areas within the framework of existing comic book films. But with each low quality reboot or underwhelming sequel that sells audiences the same prepackaged story over and over, the superhero genre loses a bit of its luster. Studios will need to change up the formula if they want to sustain success. One way to do that is to embrace the original creations that once wowed audiences long before the superhero genre officially became Hollywood's bread and butter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the Future of Superhero Movies SHOULD Be

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What needs to happen to keep the superhero bubble from popping.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review: 'Venom' Is The Bane Of Sony's Superhero Plans

# data[].attributes.subject
Review: 'Venom' Is The Bane Of Sony's Superhero Plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But make no mistake, Venom -- despite whatever rumors & attempted muddying of the waters you've heard -- is not set in the MCU. Sony might hope to parlay any box office success into a crossover between this Venom and the newly minted MCU-based Spider-Man since Sony retains the rights to Spidey and the studio's deal with Marvel Studios technically ends with Spider-Man: Far From Home, but everyone expects a renewal of the deal, which in turn will undoubtably translate into keeping Sony's other supposed Spidey-centric spinoffs clearly outside the realm of the larger MCU and the new Spider-Man movies created by Marvel Studios.

Spider-Man's six solo movies have combined for a massive $4.8+ billion in global receipt over a 16 year period with three distinct incarnations by various actors (Tom Holland currently portrays the wall-crawler in the MCU). The lowest gross of any Spidey flick was the $709 million cume of 2014's Amazing Spider-Man 2, which translates into about $750 million in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.

The character Venom appeared in Spider-Man 3 way back in in the ancient superhero cinema days of 2007 (I'm torn between thinking "has it been that long?" versus "was it really that recently?"). That incarnation faced much derision from critics and mainstream audiences, and vast disappointment from fans of the character. But that bad reaction didn't stop the film from garnering a massive $890.8 million worldwide at the time (which would be more than $1 billion in today's dollars), still the all-time best box office performance for a Spider-Man solo picture.

Tracking has suggested Venom will open domestically in the $55-65+ million range, with some bullish predictions pegging the film's bow closer to $70+ million. But I've been skeptical of those numbers, and feel a $50-55 million opening is more likely for a dark superhero-horror mashup that fans recognize is adjacent to Spider-Man but without actual tie-in content recognizable by mainstream audiences who aren't comic readers and who won't necessarily recall Spider-Man 3 (and the studio sure better hope average folks don't make the connection before Friday).

Thursday night's previews took $10 million, which is greatand set a new record for an October release. That said, front-loading is common with a lot of these films. The Martianand Gravity both made far less from their Thursday previews, yet still landed in $55 million range, but theyalso had fewer screens and started hours later than Venom's basically wide-release half-day Thursday with its screenings starting at 5pm.

We'll need to see Friday's full numbers, and then how it holds into Saturday, before we know whether the Thursday data points to a record-setting weekend or a front-loaded mid-range to low-range performance. A film like Venom sees its most eager fans lining up Thursday and Friday, which is why it's harder to gauge the meaning of the Thursday box office.

The target audience is mostly young male fans seeking the next edgy super-antihero adaptation, and older male fans who grew up loving the Venom character in 1990s comics. But besides the fact those demographics are the same ones upset by the previous failed adaptation of Venom in Spider-Man 3, there's also the fact sports programming this weekend could take a bit of a bite out of Venom's box office hopes. Add to this the fact female audiences and date-night audiences (including a lot of those male viewers Venom is counting on) will be hearing tremendously positive buzz about A Star Is Born and opting for that movie instead.

Plus, with early social media reactions coming in decidedly mixed to negative, followed by reviews overwhelmingly trashing the film (even the positive reviews are really a mixed bag, many of them saying Tom Hardy is what saves the film from otherwise being unworthy of a viewing) -- and with the film's supporters in the fan-site and film reviewer crowds already gearing up to defend it against what they assume will be mostly negative media and mainstream audience reactions -- there's additional reason to believe Venom will have a tough time keeping its legs under it.

Which could all add up to problems for Venom if it opens in the $50 million range in North America, has a typical 2.5x final multiplier pushing it to $125 million domestic repping roughly 33% of its business. Because that would translate into a $250 million international run, and a final worldwide total of about $375 million. With a production budget of $100 million and perhaps $75 million in worldwide marketing (to give it some benefit of the doubt and help widen the range for it to turn a profit) that still means break-even point sits somewhere around $350 million, give or take. So anything beyond that, take about 50% and call that Sony's initial cut, and then assume there are some backend points for stars and others -- Marvel included -- that cut further into the profit margins. At $375 million, then, Sony would initially come out roughly $12.5 million ahead, and then have to divide that money up among anyone with their hand out for their cut too.

The point is, I think Venom needs to play closer to $400 million to really return enough money to Sony to make the endeavor worthwhile. But for Venom to be called successful enough to earn a sequel and declare "we've kicked off our Spider-verse tie-in movies, now we'll make more," this film needs to play much higher than $400 million. And the worse the critical reviews are, and the lower the audience scores, the higher the box office should be to pad the "victory" and alleviate concerns a sequel might flop.

On the other hand, if the film actually opens in the $70 million range, is popular enough to leg out to a 2.8x multiplier, and has a similar 33%/66% breakdown of domestic to foreign box office, then it would hit near $200 million domestically and $588 million worldwide. Those are much better numbers, and if it combined with decent B+ or A- audience scores, then the critical reviews will matter much less. If the reviews are good too, then the whole equation shifts even further in favor of Sony's future spinoff plans. This, I feel, is where Sony really needs to hope the movie falls -- at the higher end of opening estimates, strong legs, north of $550 million, and acceptable audience scores.

Highest-end, it's possible the movie could open to $75 million in North America, enjoy a 3x multiplier and a $225 million domestic run, get extra love in Asia Pacific markets where Spider-Man is popular and Marvel branded content is beloved, and run up a 70% foreign share of global receipts. That would put the film squarely in $750 million territory, which I think pushes hard against the highest end of realistic possible outcomes. But I think while possible, this outcome is unlikely.

The moderate expectation would be a $60 million domestic bow, a 2.5x final multiplier for a $150 million stateside cume, and a 33%/66% split that puts international numbers at around $300 million and a final worldwide total of $450 million. To offer a rough range of performance in the vicinity of that precise figure, I'd say $400-450 million represents a reasonable moderate outcome territory.

Sadly for fans and the studio, I don't know if Venom will get to those numbers if reviews plus tepid audience scores plus strong competition combine to cut against it. I'm already anticipating a lower opening than tracking suggests, the critical reception has been poor, and I think audiences will wind up grading it in the B-range. I'm expecting a $50-55 million opening (with a chance to fall short of that figure if word of mouth is bad enough and if A Star Is Born significantly overperforms), a domestic total of $125-135 million, a foreign cume of perhaps $250-300 million, and a grand total of $375-425 million in global ticket sales (I'm eyeing $400 million or slightly less as my precise guess).

I'll be mildly surprised if it tops $450 million, but I'll be outright shocked if it manages to top $500 million (unless it has a crazy-big run in China, which could skew the final results). Because it's got too many things working against it, and it simply isn't good enough to perform like a major popular superhero release. Why not? Read on for my full review...

Venom has been in development a long time, and for a few years I frankly didn't think it would ever really be made, mainly because I thought it wasn't a real project -- I suspected Sony would use the threat of making a separate standalone Venom movie as a negotiating tool to get Marvel Studios to offer a better deal for Sony in exchange for delaying that project, or alternate that Sony sought to boost the perception of value for their collection of Spider-Man tie-in characters in order to set a higher overall price for Marvel to buy back the total character rights.

So when this film actually began shooting, I was mildly surprised. However, the build-up to it was a tale of increasing reason to trust that it could really be a good project -- first they got a great director, then Tom Hardy signed on, then Michelle Williams joined up too, and Riz Ahmed came aboard. I started to actually get excited for the project and looked forward to the first trailer. When that trailer dropped, I had a few quibbles with it but still felt there was plenty of good stuff in it, so I maintained hope it would wind up being a unique, pleasant surprise further expanding the genre's potential and reminding studios you can make a good superhero movie with a $100 million budget.

When word hit of significant edits to Venom, and the rating changed to PG-13, I wasn't too concerned, since films undergo plenty of editing before release and I feel PG-13 tends to offer plenty of room for darker, adult storytelling and violent action. However, I'll admit that Venom is one of the few concepts that I think benefits from pushing past boundaries to embrace the extremism of the character's behavior, notably his tendency to eat humans and engage in rampant violent destruction and murder. So I did think this was a case where an R-rating would be earned organically on the merits of storytelling best suited for the content.

The eventual PG-13 rating, then, surprised me and I wondered if Sony was concerned the film's quality wasn't good enough to ensure a big box office result if it was rated R. When it turned out screenings were limited and slated so close to release, with a late-lifting embargo to boot, buzz started swirling that maybe Sony was indeed worried, but I try not to read too much into such things since I've seen plenty of late screenings with last-minute embargoes where the films were perfectly fine.

Then came the bad social media reactions, followed by brutal early reviews. So my expectations couldn't help but be affected, since I'm a rational human being who doesn't walk through life like a robot incapable of caring or paying attention to external influences and other humans' reactions. Yes, I know this sound like the evil "bias" so many fans rant and rage against while they insist everybody should watch movies without attention to what anybody else says, and that our subjective opinions and reactions should instead be emotionless robotic assessments akin to mathematical calculations always resulting in agreement with whatever the fan personally feels.

But that's infantalized thinking. We live in society with other people, we rely on one another's ideas and reactions to help us make choices and consider our best options all day long. And somehow, we manage to remain individuals with our own opinions, even if we listen to what other people think and develop expectations that can then be proven or disproven by our own personal experience later. We are all biased, period, no matter how much some folks think their own bias is legitimate and acceptable because they like it and think it's the only "right" bias.

So sure, I had preconceptions about Venom before I saw it. First, my preconceptions were that it sounded like a promising project full of talented people. Then my perception was that it had a good trailer but needed to show us a little more. Then my perception was that the more I saw, the more it looked like it could be a good film that successfully launches a larger franchise. And as long as my preconceptions were positive, none of the fans eager to see Venom complained or told me I was biased for judging the film before seeing it, or to wait to form my own opinion after I saw the finished movie.

I say all of this precisely because we were treated to a week of nonstop defensiveness by sites and fans and critics who not only liked Venom but also insisted everyone should ignore bad reviews or negativity because it's some sort of sheepish, slavish devotion to collectivist thought.

The intensity of this advance offensive to defend the film against other reviewers ignored the fact there wasn't a bunch of lead-up negativity toward Venom, it wasn't subjected to lots of anticipatory bashing or handwringing, and in fact most coverage and fan discussion was decidedly positive and eager. When you're making a case for some sort of vast negative backlash effect that can't be trusted because it undermines rugged individualism and subjective freedom of decision, you better have more than just "when some people saw the trailers their enthusiasm went down a bit, and when I saw a press screening a lot of other press didn't like the movie after all."

I've always said that of course entertainment journalists are just like everybody else when it comes to having personal biases and preferences, and that we are likewise like all other journalists when it comes to the fact sometimes there's a lazy tendency among a significant portion of writers to hop on bandwagon narratives or to avoid taking a position too far afield of consensus opinion (aside from that corner of the media that thrive by being contrarians who decide their "opinion" based on what will look controversial and generate more clicks on articles and outraged sharing of articles). So I've complained if and when I perceived a bandwagon effect transpiring and could identify the stages of it across a period of time.

But like any claim, it's not fair to simply toss around the accusation just because everybody else hates something you like, or vice versa. And in the case of Venom, the pretense there is a pile-on or bandwagon effect is not supported by evidence and seems driven largely by disagreement about the actual quality of the film. Besides, too much of the defense sounded an awful lot like the precise sort of collective narrative-building and opinion-influencing motives/claims that these folks were arguing against in the first place, right down to repeated catch-phrases and terms from one post/review to another. And all of it is rooted in a simplistic misrepresentation of how film review -- and mainstream public consumption of film reviews -- works in the first place.

Remember, the average person only sees a handful of films each year, and with ticket prices in the $8-10 range for a regular screen -- and much higher for 3D and IMAX -- people are smart and right and reasonable to want some sort of general guide to help them figure out which movies are worth spending their hard-earned dollars to watch in a theater instead of waiting to rent it on TV in a few months. People tend to have their own preconceptions, and then they look at what reactions a film received from other people, and they weigh their preconceptions against other reactions to decide if it's worth risking their money to see the film in theaters right now. Which is rational and perfectly fine.

The bottom line is, if you really need someone to explain to you that reviews are just the personal opinions of writers, and that you can form your own opinions regardless of what a reviewer said, then welcome to planet Earth because I assume you're an alien creature who has no understanding of how humans behave. You don't get browny points for shouting "that's just your opinion" at movie reviewers, any more than you look thoughtful if you scream at Yelp restaurant reviewers, "I'll eat there and decide for MYSELF whether I like rats in the kitchen!"

Now I've seen the movie, and nothing I heard in advance -- good or bad -- altered how I reacted to Venom. The movie itself is what formed my opinion, not imaginary bandwagon hatred or bias against Sony (I'm among the few reviewers who liked all of the Spider-Man films and defended them vigorously, including Amazing Spider-Man 2), nor an evil secret conspiracy of Lady Gaga fans determined to destroy Venom and ruin the happiness of fanboys across the world. So what did I think of the film?

Venom is a weak B-movie with A-list talent working gamely to try to elevate the material. They succeed sometimes, and even when they don't their efforts are often admirable. Tom Hardy in particular never tries to coast through a scene, he embraces the weirdness and absurdity of the situation and characters with a performance that deserved a better project around it, particularly in the first 40-45 minutes While the story is relatively flat, Hardy makes it interesting and keeps his sense of humor, boosting the watchability of that early portion of the film. When we get his first full "Venom sequence" in his apartment and then a vehicle chase, that's when it quickly starts to go downhill. But Hardy won't give up trying to keep us interested, to his credit.

Sadly, though, he had the project he had, and in the end it's too much of a mixed bag of tone and erratic plotting to escape its own limitations. And I walked out thinking my earlier fear was correct -- Upgrade did it already, and did it much better for a fraction of the budget.

Hell, I'd recommend fans who want a better quality (although less literally faithful to the comics, obviously) Venom experience should just rent Life (the 2017 sci-fi/horror film starring Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds, and Jake Gyllenhaal) and Upgrade, watch them back to back, and mentally pretend the alien symbiote from Life disguised itself as a computer chip in Upgrade and that it's all the same story arc. It's a stretch, yeah, but the result is still a superior experience. Plus, Life and Upgrade are both pretty cool and entertaining -- but fair warning, most critics liked those two films and Upgrade in particular got enthusiastic reactions from audiences, so if you're in the "popular opinion is evil" camp then maybe you should just skip them.

But here's the problem for Venom -- the creature-hero persona simply isn't likable enough to work as a hero we buy into and root for consistently, yet also isn't allowed to be monstrous or villainous enough to win our morbid curiosity or fascinated fear-thrill. And the setup is already weak, but when the "big threat" is finally revealed, it's a rushed nonsensical plot point tossed in right before the climax simply to HAVE a climax. Venom doesn't give us any reason to understand or buy into his own arc, to the extent he even has one.

Another problem is the Eddie Brock character, the human personality infected with the Venom symbiote. Eddie is a hard-charging investigative reporter who risks his life and sacrifices his relationships (work and personal) to expose corporate malfeasance, yet he becomes absurdly inept at solving problems because the script needs him to avoid the obvious answers that would quickly solve a lot of his problems. His moral outrage at the loss of life among the homeless community is undermined by how little he winds up doing about it and by his greater interest in checking the "help wanted" section in the newspaper for a new job. Which is all the more unforgivable from a character who has literally become a walking representation of the exact corporate-spawned threat to public safety Brock supposedly dedicated his life to preventing and exposing.

The choice to play up laughs and downplay horror after the first 45 minutes simply doesn't work, causing a sudden tonal dissonance that grows increasingly worse for the remainder of the film.

None of the actual plot winds up being interesting, so the characters need to deliver and draw us in -- but that doesn't happen consistently enough with Eddie, or much at all with Venom. Meanwhile, we spend too much time frustrated by everybody's ridiculous choices, including Eddie's early violations of trust with his fiancé and everybody's else's reactions to it, which is just one of several things making it hard to connect or like just about every character from one moment to the next.

Again, Hardy is struggling mightily to make each scene work, but therein lies much of Venom's problem -- it feels like "this happens, and then this happens, and then this happens" storytelling instead of an organic transition from moment to moment driven by character choices with a larger thematic point. Eddie is smart and capable one moment, delivering thoughtful lines while doing some detective work, then becomes a one-liner straight man to a sequence's slapstick action the next moment, and so on. His reactions and persona fit the tone of individual scenes, each of which ricochets between thriller and superheroism and horror and comedy for the back hour of the story, so Eddie morphs into different personas accordingly, turning his arc into that aforementioned meaningless recitation of "this happens, and then this happens."

Venom gets more of an arc, to the extent it learns some self-control and appreciates its relationship with Eddie, but since Venom is neither a superhero nor an outright villainous monster here, he winds up just a CGI creature effect with occasional funny lines -- mostly when it's Hardy talking to himself as both personas. On the one hand, the physical concept of Venom is fine, just a black oil slick that slithers and flexes slimy-veined muscles while a ridiculous mouth full of jagged teeth threaten to bite off nearby heads. However, the squiggly instances of fluidity and extra appendages lashing out of Eddie's body are mostly just black CGI lines and shapes moving around, and after the first couple of times it happens, we get it and it offers nothing really interesting or unique.

As a result of the limitations of portraying Venom visually in a film of this sort, when the action scenes come, they're mediocre filler rather than highlights to which the story has steadily built. A huge problem is that Venom is a sort of deus ex machina -- there's not much he can't do when he's fighting regular people, and when he does this or that particularly effective shape-shift and attack to save the moment, we have to wonder why he doesn't just handle every situation like that. No danger is a real danger, unless he's fighting an equally powerful opponent -- and when that happens, it's almost impossible to even tell what's happening on screen, the fast-cuts and CGI shapes are a big, blurry mess that's boring to watch -- and boring is the last thing you want an action scene to be.

And thus we have to talk about "the Spider-Man problem." Venom up against Spider-Man, in a story with a lot more visually weird and fascinating elements, would look better and could retain more interest since he's not the singular visually outrageous character with the only visually outrageous powers. We'd also get to see more examples of Venom doing things overtly related to his connection with Spider-Man, such as web-swinging and other mimicry. Oh, and he'd have the white spider emblem on his body, to help break up the visual aesthetic of "he looks like a body builder with shiny pitch-black skin." But there is no Spider-Man here, at least not this time around.

In Venom, Eddie and his alien buddy are mostly just fighting people with guns (I won't spoil things, but you probably can guess he doesn't go the entire film without facing a different opponent at some point), getting into car chases, and other typical action-movie situations. None of which, unfortunately, are even of the above-average variety for an action film, it's standard stuff. The only thing unique about them is when Eddie/Venom uses his powers, which quickly stops being interesting up against normal gun-toting baddies, especially since Venom has to keep things in PG-13 territory, which is fine for normal comic book violence but feels restrained and inadequate for a horror-monster character of this sort who has to win our interest and sustain it through the entire film without another comic superhero to shoulder some of the burden.

If Venom wanted to be a PG-13 buddy-action-comedy film, it should've chosen a different story and setting and portrayal of the main characters. For example, Eddie Brock as a war photographer who accidentally gets exposed to a military prototype symbiote and becomes Agent Venom (in a mashup of the Flash Thompson and Eddie Brock characters from the comics) could've worked much better in a humorous PG-13 comic book action film, delivering something akin to the first Iron Man movie. Venom as a secret agent soldier in war zones, struggling to constrain his appetite lest his military handlers and his host Eddie start distrusting Venom's loyalties and usefulness, would been an interesting approach, and opens the door to an evolving relationship in which Venom could turn into more of a monstrous creature unleashing his worst tendencies while Eddie fights to regain control.

But by instead going for the horror template and trying to swivel between horror and slapstick without a firm commitment to either, the film loses its edge and its potential in both regards. It has the same problem as Tom Cruise's The Mummy last year, trying to put one foot in PG-13 action and the other foot in PG-13 horror, while getting neither right enough to work, and thus leaving us dissatisfied scene after scene. However, The Mummy at least maintained its tone throughout and kept its character motivations and actions consistent.

In fairness, though, I have to admit that the comics are generally PG-13 territory anyway, so if you're a fan of the 1990s Venom solo comic stories then I will admit this movie is probably what you're looking for. It's "edgy" compared to some other mainstream PG and PG-13 superhero movies, akin to the Venom comic stories being comparatively "edgier" while still falling within the boundaries of acceptable mainstream comic storytelling. If you can imagine a weak 1990s Venom solo comic in live-action, that's close to what this film is, except imagine someone spilled water on the last few pages of the climactic battle so it's all blurry and smeared and illegible. If you just want to see Venom in live-action and portrayed similar to the comics in a PG-13 fashion, and you don't mind a weak plot and visually boring action, you might be satisfied by the movie even though you probably will also be a bit unsatisfied with the overall experience.

One quick note about the whole "Spider-Man's not in a movie spinoff based on the Spider-Man comics" thing -- while Sony is unlikely to risk tainting their freshly minted Tom Holland MCU Spidey any time soon, there IS another sneaky option the studio might use to pit Venom against Spider-Man. I think there's a greater-than-zero chance Sony producers have considered and talked about the idea of using Miles Morales for a versus/team-up movie with Venom. That's just a guess, but if Venom scores a big enough opening weekend and a final cume in near $500 million, then I won't be surprised if we start hearing hints and speculation that Sony is thinking about this option for real.

With a $100 million budget, an all-star cast, a name character brand, and the Marvel brand logo, it's crazy that Venom still somehow turns out to be a B-movie. Yet there it is, and even a lot of the reviewers and fans who like the movie are noting it's a B-movie.

Mind you, it's not as if I'm incapable of enjoying a B-movie, even a mostly bad one, if I think it's entertaining. I've defended bad B-movies I enjoyed when most critics hated them, and I can admit when a film I happen to personally enjoy watching also happens to be a bad film. Here's an awful example: Fantastic Four from 2015 was pretty bad, but it reminded me of a David Cronenberg body horror flick (with overt homages to Scanners) and I really liked the cast a lot. So for me, it was a crazy indie-horror version of the FF that didn't totally fall apart until the last 15 minutes. Faint praise, I know, and I willingly admit you're 100% correct if you say it's bad. And it wasn't even remotely the Fantastic Four movie I wanted, and I am glad they didn't make any sequels to it. But I can't deny I enjoyed a lot of it, to varying degrees, even while I realized it wasn't very good. It was a bad B-movie that I still kinda sorta liked anyway.

No doubt, we all like certain movies everyone else dislikes, because they speak to us on some level or simply entertain us so damn much we can't help liking it. It doesn't mean the films really are good just because we like them, any more than it means films are bad just because everybody else hates them. But the point is, liking one bad B-movie doesn't invalidate disliking a different bad B-movie, any more than liking one such film invalidates disliking another. If you like Venom, you can hate Fantastic Four, and vice versa, in other words. It happens.

So to all of you who need to be regularly told that it's okay for you to like things that you like -- yes, I can confirm it's fine for you to like things you like. Why it's the job of film critics to tell you simplistic condescending claptrap like that, I have no idea, but apparently some fans seem to increasingly need and demand affirmation of their "right" to like things (akin to their need to point out film reviews are just an opinion, in case we all forgot the definition of opinions). Are we all clear on that now, then? Good. Now you can watch Venom or skip it if you want, and like it or hate it as you wish, with solid assurance it's your right to do whatever you want because I'm not the boss of you.

None of that stuff is the fault of the film, mind you, so let's be sure to separate my criticism of how some corners of fandom have reacted, and my criticism of the film itself. Had there not been this larger context of debate and conflict among fans and critics leading into the film's release, then this review would be shorter.

However, since there's already more than enough negative reviews pointing out the film's problems, I think it's worth taking a broader view of the situation to include the expectations, reactions, and wider argument about how fans and critics interact, plus the debates within reviewer circles as well. If nothing else, it's good to work through where artistic critiques come from amid the various influences -- some passive, some active -- that affect our awareness and presumptions before and after experiencing a film. It's not often that I get a chance to dissect my own evolving reactions and thoughts on a film, while speaking about trends in fandom and film criticism overall, and how it all relates directly and indirectly to a particular film. The result is, I feel certain of my reactions to Venom and my assessment of what works, what doesn't, and why.

Unlike a lot of the negative reviews I've seen, I can see precisely the things that will appeal to some viewers and I can even understand why those things will appeal to them. On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to say that I could understand anyone asserting Venom is an outright "good" or "great" film -- this is where we need to distinguish between being able to enjoy something and admire various parts of it, without mistaking the sum of those parts for an overall good or great piece of work.

But sometimes that's enough. It doesn't have to be true that everything we like is also of good or great quality. It's okay to like mixed bags. It's okay to like bad movies. I do, sometimes. We wind up arguing in defense of things we enjoy, as if our own validity as a human being relies on the outcome, but it doesn't. McDonalds Quarter Pounders are not good, well-made meals, but I could them til they come out my ears and I won't apologize for liking them. So if you like Venom, I'm glad for you, no matter how much I disagree.
Box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office Mojo , Rentrak, and TheNumbers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review: 'Venom' Is The Bane Of Sony's Superhero Plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sony's Spider-Man spinoff without actual ties to Spider-Man kicks off this weekend hoping to score blockbuster results and launch a shared world of other heroes and villains. But with terrible reviews and anxious buzz, will "Venom" be poison to Sony's plans, or another critic-proof fan-driven hit?

# data[].attributes.headline
It's Up To 'Captain Marvel' And 'Birds Of Prey' To Save Comic Book Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.subject
It's Up To 'Captain Marvel' And 'Birds Of Prey' To Save Comic Book Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The future is female." That's the quote that popped up in bold letters on the Entertainment Weekly cover which offered the first behind-the-scenes look at Brie Larson's Captain Marvel. It is, of course, both a current political slogan and initially a tag-line created in 1975 by the owners of a Greenwich Village women's bookstore and pertaining to lesbian separatism, but I digress. Kevin Feige has discussed the idea that the post- Avengers 4 MCU will have more gender parity in-front-of and behind the camera. It may not mean much from the company that took 20 movies and 10.5 years to get to a female-led solo superhero flick (and has spent four years pinkie-swearing about a solo Black Widow movie), Captain Marvel is just one of a handful of high-profile female-led superhero flicks opening just over the next 1.5 years.

Cathy Yan's Birds of Prey seems like the most exciting of the bunch. It is directed by a Chinese-American female director with only one indie darling to her name (just like any number of white male filmmakers who made the indie-to-tentpole jump), and star/producer Margot Robbie will return as Harley Quinn alongside a bunch of female DC Comics superheroes and supervillains. As of today, Mary Elizabeth Winstead will play The Huntress while Jurnee Smollett-Bell will play Black Canary and we should be getting word about who will play Renée Montoya/The Question (and whomever else gets to join the fun) soon enough. The alleged R-rated "girl gang" movie will open on Feb. 7, 2020. Not only is it unlike anything we've seen from the genre, but it may be the first non-period piece female superhero flick since Elektra in 2005.

If I'm being optimistic at the moment, then I would argue that the comparative flood of female-led superhero flicks is more than just a coincidence. It's not that studio executives are magically getting more "woke" or magically realized that, hey, major studio superhero flicks with chicks can make money too! It's that the next batch of superhero movies will indeed offer more gender parity not because Hollywood has become enlightened but because there's nowhere left to go. After exhausting most of the well-known white male superheroes for the last 20 years, there is no choice but to highlight the female superheroes and minority superheroes who have yet to have their moment in the sun. It's the next stage of evolution for the superhero movie and a necessary one if it wishes to remain the dominant Hollywood blockbuster.

That changed in the late 1990's when New Line's Spawn and Blade showed that audiences would indeed embrace a currently popular superhero in a present-tense story. Yes, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and The Mask (both New Line, natch) paved the way, but the success of Marvel's Blade (which was sold as a Wesley Snipes star vehicle that happened to be based on a comic book) paved the way for X-Men and eventually Spider-Man. The 1998-2008 era was flooded with present-tense superhero movies featuring characters that today's kids knew and liked. It was this era that gave us Batman Begins, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Superman Returns. By coincidence of the times, they gained an added pathos (and additional subtext) via the complicated response to the 9/11 attacks. Like the 1990's, the sub-genre was dominated by one over-and-above franchise ( Spider-Man).

The next big change-up occurred, in 2008. It was two-fold. The first most obvious evolution was with Iron Man which announced the arrival of what would become the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The topical, present-tense, comparatively adult-skewing (it starred your parents' favorite actors) origin story used Robert Downey Jr.'s towering star performance to herald what would soon become an interconnected mythology. No longer would the likes of Batman & Robin merely quip about Superman working alone, but now the likes of Thor, Captain America and the Hulk eventually rub elbows in each other's movies and in cross-over events. After the success of The Avengers in 2012, Hollywood spent six years fruitlessly chasing their own extended universe success, with only (thus far) New Line's horror franchise The Conjuring pulling it off in spades. But the other change was arguably more important.

When Captain America: The Winter Soldier is significantly better than Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, and Spider-Man: Homecoming offers coming-of-age melodrama and superhero action, it's that much harder to get an audience to embrace conventional genre flicks like The Edge of Seventeen or Blood Father. When Hollywood keeps trying to make new franchises by taking older properties and molding them into by-the-numbers superhero origin stories ( King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Pan, Solo: A Star Wars Story), the result is that the competition comes to resemble the kind of "just a superhero movie" flicks that don't do well. The genuine article can't help but prove to be the superior entertainment. Even if you aren't a comic book fan, something like Wonder Woman or Black Panther is clearly the superior choice compared to The Mummy or Tomb Raider.

After next year, even the genre-specific superhero flicks from Marvel and DC and Fox (or Fox/Disney) will threaten to become "just a superhero movie." The notion of a white male-led superhero flick (even a Batman movie) may not remain an event movie for much longer. That's especially true when general audiences haven't actually heard of the hero in question. Even Marvel has essentially run through the most popular and well-known characters in their stable, meaning that Phase Four and Five (give or take the Fox properties) will have to dig into truly cult characters. Breakouts like Guardians of the Galaxy will have to become par for the course. So how do you continue to make these movies special when folks haven't heard of the new heroes? By giving underrepresented demographics their time in the spotlight.

Birds of Prey will be new and different in a way that Venom won't be. The only thing unique about the first Captain Marvel teaser was that it was for an MCU movie with a female protagonist. That may be enough, even if Marvel has earned our benefit of the doubt and if I presume that there's lots of fantastical stuff yet to be revealed. By default, a lot of the classic comic book characters tend to be copies of each other, with the origin being akin to the same drink being poured into different glasses. Telling these stories with underrepresented demographics is a way to keep the formula fresh and maintain the notion of a comic book superhero movie as a genuine event film for at least some demographics.

And yes, in a time when white men are (somewhat accurately) credited with being the author of all of our pain, it will feel that much phonier to watch superpowered white dudes enacting heroic fantasies meant to appeal to the very demographic that has become (or has been) the villain. In a time when merely existing as a woman and/or minority in America almost qualifies as a superheroic act, these movies can be prime examples of subtext made text.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's Up To 'Captain Marvel' And 'Birds Of Prey' To Save Comic Book Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The future is female." That's the quote that popped up in bold letters on the Entertainment Weekly cover which offered the first behind-the-scenes look at Brie Larson's Captain Marvel. It is, of course, both a current political slogan and initially a tag-line created in 1975 by the owners of a Greenwich Village women's bookstore and pertaining to lesbian separatism, but I digress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"213 Superhero Fatigue?" from The Weekly Planet by Planet Broadcasting on Apple Podcasts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also check out https://casper.com/theweeklyplanet and use the offer code THEWEEKLYPLANET for $50 off. Big week for Marvel with the release of Spider-man PS4 and the first look at Captain Marvel. Plus trailers for Daredevil Season 3 and Halloween, casting Henry Cavill in The Witcher, updates fo Die Hard 6, The Last Jedi tops bluray chats and more news almost certainly!

# data[].attributes.headline
(11) Understanding A Box Office Failure - What's Wrong With Hollywood - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
(11) Understanding A Box Office Failure - What's Wrong With Hollywood - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding A Box Office Failure - What's Wrong With Hollywood

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero movies - Statistics & Facts | Statista

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero movies - Statistics & Facts | Statista

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover all statistics and data on Superhero movies now on statista.com!

# data[].attributes.headline
The Economics Of Hollywood | The Market Mogul

# data[].attributes.subject
The Economics Of Hollywood | The Market Mogul

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Listen to this article

Listen on iTunes
Despite its red carpet glamour, unparalleled visual effects and seemingly large grossing box office, Hollywood is one of the least successful industries in the world. Yet many businesses, big and small, choose to operate in this unforgiving environment.

So why do wealthy New York financiers fund the creative LA movie directors when they could own a piece of the next Snapchat or Uber Unicorn startup? Both investors and producers choose to pursue their dream to be involved with the glitz and the glamour of Hollywood. They purchase the rights to a piece of intellectual property, pay an exorbitant salary for a celebrity actor and receive a continually decreasing proportion of the profits.

Any real attempt to uncover the economics of a movie takes considerable time, as studios keep details on the terms of distribution deals, financing, subsidies and compensation strictly sealed in Non-Disclosure Agreements. However, using all available industry data to piece together the lifetime of a film in money, The Economics of Hollywood can be scrutinised.

In 1929, on average, 95 million went to the cinema once a week in the US. This was four-fifths of the population. But today, theatre attendance is declining, with only 10% visiting on a weekly basis. As such, PwC director Matthew Lieberman has predicted that industry growth is under 0.6%. The Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) 2014 Theatrical Market Statistics, reported that the US and Canadian box office raked in $10.4bn, down from $10.9bn in 2013.

Once thought to be Hollywood's saving grace, in 2014, the 3D box office only produced $1.4bn in revenue, which, at 14% of the total box office figure, was two percentage points less than the previous year. The 1% climb in global box office films from 2013's total was only down to increased sales in the Asia-Pacific region.

Hollywood is surprisingly stable for the biggest market players - Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox, who have been on top since the 1950s. But this stability is even more puzzling if one considers that movie studios do not have many assets. Why then is Hollywood experiencing a declining influence and where are the shortfalls across its business model? To understand the answers to these questions an exploration into the timeline of a movie is required.

Movie budgets for the big studios often amount to $40m, while independent films are estimated at $25m on average. To make a profit after print and advertising costs, these films need to receive around $75m in ticket sales, but many fail to do so. For instance, Disney's movie Gone In 60 Seconds (released in 2000) was hailed as one of its greatest successes grossing nearly a quarter-billion dollars. Yet as it produced $11.6m from theatres and the movie cost $103.3m to make, it actually made a loss in theatres.

This is largely a consequence of the challenges a film project faces in its marketing and distribution data collection. Before introducing a new product to the market, businesses will conduct market research to establish the likelihood that the new model will succeed. Before releasing the iPhone 7, Apple relied on analyst predictions, just as new car companies base their predictions on the direction of oil prices.

This is impossible for Hollywood. No analytical model can predict consumers ever-changing tastes. Without being able to determine the revenue the movie will generate, it is impossible to master a feasible budget prediction. The process in itself can also add a further $100m to the total investment.

Print and advertising tend to include billboards, television commercials, and subway adverts. Thanks to Hollywood's ever-increasing global reach, print and advertising can often tremendously raise the original production budget. For example, the studio behind Transformers: Age of Extinction spent $100m in North America alone.

All of the aforementioned considerations fall under accounts payable. But what can the budget rely on as accounts receivable during the production process?

Many locations, such as Canada, Morocco and Georgia will give tax incentives to movie directors to shoot their films in a particular region. This is to provide stimulation to the local economy, encourage tourism and provide locals with an opportunity of employment on the movie set.

The process of making a movie can often take up to 36 months. Timing is crucial, as playwriting, screenwriting, filming, production and visual effects must be punctual to meet the date set for the film's opening weekend. It is decided months in advance, as Bank Holidays, Christmas, Summer weekends and Thanksgiving are all increasingly difficult to secure. A movie cannot fall short of the deadline because it needs to be able to manage its cash flow adequately, but it also cannot miss its opening weekend.

Previously, the commercial value rested on the opening weekend, as release patterns were dictated by the return on investment secured. However, the box office race is no longer able to accurately measure the popularity of a film, due to Hollywood's global reach. Perhaps this is why Hollywood has been accustomed to revisit its blockbusters, but we will come back to this later.

In more recent times, a typical film studio would hope to make 50% of the revenue generated from the ticket sales, with the other 50% going towards the movie theatre. A producer can establish contracts with the multiplexes to encourage them to show their films on more screens, but this can mean they will receive less of the original revenue.

Ticket sales are more successful during the summer than in winter, with half of the year's earnings made in July and August.

Much of profit that cinemas make, however, is solely on the sale of popcorn and soft drinks. As such, cinemas are far more concerned with how many people enter their compound than with the ticket sales of each film. Ticket prices must be low enough to entice the public, (i.e. approximately $10-15) and the studio only receives a certain percentage of each seat sold, so the film must perform well. This percentage is affected by the location, the number of screens, and the frequency that the film is shown. This may sound like a lot, but with falling cinema attendance, most make a loss out of paying the theatre to show the movie in the first place.

Foreign sales are a growing critical source of revenue, notably for independent films. Independent movies must have outstanding foreign sales agents who can sell their movie in the key overseas markets. Asia is one, which is generating an increasing amount of revenue growth.

But exporting movies to markets often requires big names in the industry. For instance, Jennifer Lopez and Tom Cruise are known to travel well in France and China.

Bollywood (Indian Hollywood) and Nollywood (Nigerian Hollywood) contrastingly do not rely on foreign sales. Their focus is far more inward looking, using local customs to appeal to the everyday nature of their audience. Just like Disney and Warner Bros, Indian studios do their own distribution, all-time Bollywood favourite "Rang De Basanti" (2006) earned $31m on a far more localised scale, having spent a mere $6m.

Product placement is one of the critical sources for replacing the movie budgeting expenses. Companies often sponsor films to showcase their products in the hope that moviegoers will see the item and go out to purchase it. A survey conducted in the US in 2009 revealed that 60% of consumers feel more positive about the brand.

BMW signed a three-film deal to have their Z3 featured in the James Bond film Golden Eye. Before the movie was released, 9000 cars were pre-ordered. Heineken paid $45m to feature their beer rather than Bond's typical vodka martini in Skyfall. Considering the movie made $1bn worldwide, the Heineken product placement contributed to 4.5% of the revenues.

During the peak decades of Hollywood's global influence, a movie would appear in theatres, with the majority of the revenue being made purely on the sales of seats. But now studios and filmmakers rely on increasingly diverse sources of income.

To merchandise, the film must have a built-in audience before it hits the screens. Movies that appeal to children, e.g. Star Wars and Toy Story, can bring in a significant proportion of their revenue from selling toys. The former brought in $12bn in revenue from toy licensing, compared to the $4bn it made from ticket sales. The latter established $2.4bn in revenues from retail sales.

Therefore, movies with a built-in audience have a significant advantage over those that do not. Looking back at the US box office revenues chart, this becomes more apparent. A few names appear more than once, such as The Twilight Saga or Avengers, and names that had garnered fame beforehand through other means, like Harry Potter in literature.

Several decades ago, studios and producers fought for the ability to manufacture VCR and then DVD rights. Now the consumers have moved towards streaming and online viewing, and the market has followed. This can work out in favour of filmmakers, particularly independent ones who do not have to pay substantial printing and advertising costs. For example, once a film has been sold to Netflix, it can stay on there forever, but they have to leave a cinema theatre within a few weeks or months.

Although movies with a critical audience can still generate huge returns from investing in DVD rights. The Hunger Games sold 3.8 million copies in its first week on the shelves.

Finally, airlines in-flight entertainment can add a source of income for a movie.

In 2012, the US produced 476 films, China managed 745, but Bollywood oversaw the creation of 1,602 movies. Hollywood sold 1.36 million tickets but Bollywood succeeded in selling 2.6 million. In 2009, even Nollywood passed Hollywood to become the second largest film industry, second only to Bollywood, and in 2013 it produced 1,844 movies.

Bollywood and Nollywood have recently been applying pressure. Despite the glamour of the major productions, populations are attracted to local content that more directly relates to them. Even innovative mediums are looking to create more local content. For example, Netflix is planning to produce shows in Polish.

But while there is a demand for localised content, it is still being dwarfed and assimilated by the giants of Hollywood whose superior Box Office revenues easily surpass the competition. Disney has increased its stake in Bollywood's largest studio, UTV, from 14.9% to 30%. Viacom, News Corporation and Sony Pictures have all snapped up Indian film producers in the recent years. Furthermore, Netflix recently paid $12m for movie rights for the Nigerian novel Beasts of No Nation.

Unfortunately, it seems that the only comeback measures on the horizon are the use of the big actors in the industry. In today's celebrity clad society, the only hope for Hollywood is using the same big names and storylines with a built-in audience to create them.

One only has to look towards Matt Damon's Bourne series salary to understand that a film's success is built more on the name recognition of its star than the quality of the movie production itself. Damon was paid $42,194 per line.

The world is moving at a much faster pace than it was during Hollywood's peak. Therefore the key demographic to target is surely the younger end of the population. Hollywood now predominantly targets under 21s who extend to over 70% of the key audience intake at multiplex theatres. Epstein reported that "the movies that bill are action films laden with special effects, explosions, crashes and mayhem" - think San Andreas.

But Fabrizio Perretti, a Management Professor at the University of Bocconi in Italy, argues that Hollywood is now actually beginning to destroy itself and its long-established reputation.

In Hollywood, famous names, repeated storylines with a built in audience and gimmicks that can attract the under 21s are the only sure fire way to make money.

Hollywood has secured some lucrative profits since its establishment. But these success stories have painted an unrealistic picture of the business. Only 5% of movies produced will be profitable, between 15% and 20% will break even, and 65-75% will make a loss.

The movie audience relative to population growth has been shrinking since 1948, and with society becoming increasingly fast-paced, with consumer products continuing to meet our immediate demands across all sectors, this looks unlikely to change.

Not to mention the intense growth of avenues such as Netflix, Amazon and Time Warner, who are already appearing the winners out of the cable vs. online streaming competition, highlighted by the recent growth of deals and acquisitions within the telecom industry (i.e. AT&T acquiring Time Warner).

With society's attention span reducing rapidly, it seems that shorter series are set to overtake movies. Hollywood must adapt to this market, as cinemas may soon be a memory from the past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Economics Of Hollywood - The Market Mogul

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Listen to this article Listen on iTunes Despite its red carpet glamour, unparalleled visual effects and seemingly large grossing box office, Hollywood is one of the least successful industries in the world. Yet many businesses, big and small, choose to operate in this unforgiving environment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero films in a post-9/11 climate part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero films in a post-9/11 climate part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the massive success of The Avengers and the inevitable upcoming success of The Dark Knight Rises along with the fact that Marvel are showing no signs of slowing down in their making of superhero films I thought it would be a good time to revisit this subject. I originally wrote this up for my university dissertation back in 2006 and thoroughly enjoyed doing so (mainly because I got to watch cool films). This is part one of a series, the second part is an infographic showing that superhero films aren't about to disappear anytime soon before in the third part I try to explain why that has continued beyond 2006 but I'll start with a summary of that essay (focussing on 2001 - 2005)...

An introduction

I am seeking to discover if there is a link between the superhero films that have been released between 2001 and 2005 and the post 9/11 "politics of fear" that are deemed to exist. My starting point for this is the realisation that since 1976, there were an average of five comic book/superhero-inspired films released every five years; whilst in the five year period between 2001 and 2005 there have been 16 films of this kind.

First, 'film' is to mean a feature-length motion picture created by the Hollywood film industry for the cinema. The definition of 'superhero' I am using is a 'good' character adapted from the pages of comics, which generally means "muscular men in brightly coloured tights...fighting for the forces of right and defeating strange villains one after another" (1). The heroes I am interested in are those created by Marvel and DC Comics, considered the most successful through the largest comic book sales.

It is also important to define what I mean by a 'post-9/11 climate' and what is so different about the time period since the attacks by terrorists on the World Trade Centre. The time since 9/11 has been characterised by our politicians intending to protect us from "dangers we can't see or understand" and a "secret organised evil that threatens the world" (2). By use of the 'politics of fear' we are placed in a state of war, where the governments and media of Western countries use rhetoric to stir up feelings of patriotism among the people.

The comic book industry recognises the importance of the war influence in calling the years between 1939 and 1948 'The Golden Age of Comics'. Perhaps the most famous of all the patriotic heroes is Captain America, a man with patriotism hard-wired into his creation: created by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby in 1941, Cap's duty was defined from issue #1, where he could be seen chinning Hitler on the cover.

The superhero and World War 2

The inception of the superhero genre owes much to the Second World War and the popularity of them can be traced through the war years: "In 1939 there were fifty comic titles, by 1941 there were 168 and over eighty percent of these had superhero adventures in them"(1). Comics were very popular amongst the troops during and immediately following the war years: "in 1949, 44% of the soldiers in army training camps read comics regularly"(3).

The 1943 Batman television serials also show how a nation were quick to get hold of the relatively new characters and present them in a different light as American war heroes. The plots of the episodes mainly revolved around defeating German scientists and putting 'those pesky Japs' where they belong. This represents a country keen to bring any characters that may be popular amongst the people into the war effort. Some superheroes such as Superman and Captain America lend themselves towards patriotic interpretations but Daredevil - a hero out to avenge the murder of his father? It seemed "everybody got to defeat and humiliate the Nazis and personally bop Adolf Hitler on the nose, such as 'Daredevil Battles Hitler' in 1941"(4).

But can these cheap propaganda tools still be relevant, aren't we too clever for that today? "There was a certain naïveté to the superhero stories published during World War II, and that changed abruptly in the 1950s"(5). Have we now advanced to a point whereby using superheroes as propaganda against an enemy is no longer appropriate?

>

Politics since 11th September 2001

The events of 9/11 do fall into a very select band of attack: the first time since the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941 that the United States has come 'under fire' on home soil. Pearl Harbour saw a shift in American policy and meant they entered the Second World War. The attacks of 9/11 are considered to be "a historic event" (6) and something that "dominates almost everything we watch, read or hear" (7) or even "probably the most important event that took place in our lives... completely reshaped the world in which we live" (8). However you assess its impact, it now meant pre-emptive strikes on perceived threats to America became acceptable.

President Bush himself chose to ignore any possible connection with the policies of the USA in his response to the attacks:

"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world... this will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil. But good will prevail."

This triumphant and stark world view where people either fall into the category of good or evil could be read like something straight out of the pages of a superhero story. When the leader of America is ignoring the realities of past US actions and complex world politics and instead painting the problem in mythical terms, surely the times are ripe for superheroes to step forth and fill this need.

As I have already shown, in World War 2 the superhero filled the role of a puppet of propaganda but in this "deeply disillusioned age" where we have "lost faith in ideologies" (2) can the superhero still be used in such a way? I think it is clear that superheroes can't be literally shown punching out Osama bin Laden, but must be used in more subtle ways, both explicitly (in Sam Raimi's Spiderman, 2002) and implicitly (in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins, 2005). It is certainly not too much to believe that in more recent times superheroes are any less informed by what is going on in the world:

"The representation of enemies and villains in comic books is highly dependent on the social and cultural relations of the United States at any one time" (1)

Spiderman and 9/11

The film Spiderman (2002) carries explicit examples of a post-9/11 film. It was filmed in New York and Spiderman is a hero concerned with protecting the people of New York, so it seems they thought it only natural that there would be a reaction to a catastrophic event such as 9/11. The first time that it became clear the film had to change wasn't in the film but a removal from the teaser trailer and promotional materials, which showed the World Trade Centre.

Spiderman is a character so in tune with his city that it is part of his character, as stated by the writers at Marvel: "Because Spiderman takes place in a real city, it is easier to identify with" (9). This is a selling point that Spiderman's creator Stan Lee and the whole of the Marvel team promote: Spiderman/Peter Parker is one of us, he has all the same problems as a normal guy and lives a normal life (most of the time) in a normal city. This seems to be what they believe makes Spiderman different, "we've always been very current, we've always been very topical... so to avoid 9/11 would have been callous" (9). Therefore in reacting to the attacks of 9/11 and removing references to the World Trade Centre, they actively created a post-9/11 film, influenced by these events.

The director also made reference to the everyday person, depicting a group helping out Spiderman by throwing objects at the villain and saying, "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" (9). This scene was added in by the director after shooting had finished: "this sequence was put in as a small tribute to the people of New York" (9).

Batman Begins: a portrayal of fear and terrorism

Without pushing the metaphors this is an appropriate film to try and investigate the 'terror' theme because of its concerns with explicit semantics, as Bruce Wayne recognises when he examines the role of Batman: "A man who is flesh and blood can be destroyed, whereas a symbol can transcend the idea of being one man" (10). The theme of the film is the harnessing of fear and is brought up repeatedly as the mentor character of Henri Ducard makes clear: "to conquer fear you must become fear, you must bask in the fear of other men" (10), this is the teaching he uses on Bruce Wayne, leading to the creation of Batman.

The villains follow through this theme of fear, with Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow chosen from the rogue's gallery of the comic books. Both characters are built on the foundations of terror, with the Scarecrow utilising similar ideas to Batman: "this figure whose very ludicrous appearance inspires fear - symbolises fear... the criminal all will learn to fear and call The Scarecrow!" (11). While the name Ra's Al Ghul means 'head of the demon' and in the comics he leads a group know as the 'Brotherhood of the Demon' (12), or to state it another way, "a fanatical force run by the bastard sons of Fu Manchu and Osama bin Laden" (13). Ra's Al Ghul's aim in the film is an apocalyptic one like the aims of terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda, which he alludes to when he says: "Gotham's time has come, like Constantinople or Rome before it... it is beyond saving and must be allowed to die" (10). This is like the extremist Muslim view that Western society has become a disease in need of a cure and is corrupted in a "culture of selfish individualism" (2). Having such a broad world view is different from the majority of the Batman villains, in particular the Joker in Batman who was out to cause chaos and get revenge on Batman himself. It seems Al Ghul was picked due to the prevailing political climate.

Batman goes about fighting his enemies in a war-like fashion in Batman Begins with a Batmobile that uses the semantics of a war vehicle as director Christopher Nolan points out on the DVD, "the Batmobile is based on a cross between a Lamborghini and a Humvee... with elements of Stealth craft" (10) while in the film this similarity is referred to by the police: "it's a black tank!" The rest of Bruce Wayne's gear is shown in the film as having been developed for the military including the Batsuit, which was designed as body armour (no longer spandex tights for this hero) further showing an association between the Batman and a military aggressor. A superhero surrounded by these weapons of war seems to be an obvious metaphor for a superpower at war.

The closing scenes of Batman Begins are more apocalyptic as the enemy is now led by Batman's former mentor Ducard, who turns out to be the real Ra's Al Ghul in a twist that shows the deception involved with fighting a terrorist-like organisation. He hijacks a Weapon of Mass Destruction, or a "Microwave Emitter, designed to evaporate the enemy's water supply" (10) and tries to use it on the city of Gotham in order to unleash The Scarecrow's poison into the air and "watch Gotham tear itself apart through fear" (10). This is an aim that our politicians would have us believe is not very different to any terrorist network looking to spread fear and bring down Western civilization.

The superhero and celebrity

But what if it isn't just about the politics of the time? It could be argued that the rise in the number of superhero films is based on a pop culture influence: the success of the celebrity.

There is certainly something similar about the way famous public figures have to present themselves that is almost superhero-like, with an alter-ego of their private face to their public one that almost gives them a split personality (14). This was highlighted by Johnny Depp when he attacked photographers in London in 1999 saying, "I don't want to be who you want me to be tonight" (14). In this quote, Depp appropriately points to the role of the press in the appearance of the celebrity for it is they who control how we the public see these famous figures: "The fan to celebrity relationship is mediated by the screen, audio and print media" (14). This relationship is something often found in superhero stories, with many characters linked to the media cropping up: Clark Kent (Superman) is a journalist, Peter Parker (Spiderman) is a newspaper photographer and Vicki Vale (Batman's love interest) is a photographer. These characters show an understanding that a superhero (like a celebrity) interacts with the public through the media.

In the film Fantastic Four after gaining their superpowers, the characters turn up in New York and instantly become famous, going into hiding from the media as they are recognised by photographers on the street (15), like paparazzi pursuing celebrities. In a very post-modern scene in the film, the character of 'The Thing' is shown a toy action figure of himself by Johnny Storm, who introduces it by saying, "Look what the marketing guys gave us!" (15). This shows the truth of being a superhero/celebrity in the real world: having an action figure and a marketing team, treating them as if they are a brand. In another extra-textual reference to the world of celebrity, when explaining the choice of name for 'The Thing' they say, "We would have gone with The Rock, but it was taken," (15) drawing parallels between him and the former wrestler turned actor Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The film seems to depict the actual defeating of the villain as a kind of sideshow to the main story of them being understood and gaining acceptance from the people, for the final scene has the characters from the Fantastic Four united and laughing in a bar with the people of New York (15). It is as if the moral of this story is not about defeating the villain and bringing justice to the city but instead it is more important to be popular with the public.

However the appreciation of the celebrity is not a new phenomenon and doesn't explain the recent upturn in the number of superhero films. Since the beginning of cinema, film stars have attracted an obsessive following due to the fact they seemed to come from a magical on-screen world where anything could happen. In 1912 the actress Florence Lawrence made a special appearance in St. Louis and "so many fans flocked to see her that she was nearly crushed to death" (16), proving obsessive fans have been around for at least 90 years.

Superhero stories as mythology

Some would say that the stories of superheroes are the same stories that we have been telling each other time and again throughout history and the political climate has very little effect on the structure of these tales. Storytelling has existed since man has been able to speak and mythologies act as moral stories that tell people right and wrong and help them understand their place in the world. However in Western cultures the study of mythology has been demoted in favour of the study of our respective society's histories: "I am not far from believing that, in our own societies, history has replaced mythology and fulfils the same function" (17). Is it therefore possible that in America the superheroes are filling the role of mythology?

Certainly the structure of the superhero story fits with the framework of the hero's journey as mapped out from hundreds of stories the world over by Joseph Campbell:

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious venture with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man" (18)

Parallels can clearly be drawn between a hero coming from 'the world of common day' like all superheroes who begin as normal people, before gaining their powers from 'supernatural wonder' and defeating the villain (or 'fabulous forces') in a 'decisive victory' and returning to the everyday bringing peace.

Our idea of the modern superhero is clearly not very different from the likes of Hercules, Perseus and Theseus about whom many adventure stories were written. This seems to say more about the way mankind likes to see our heroes in literature and the structure that the stories take: "it will always be the one, shape-shifting yet marvellously constant story that we find" (18). From Joseph Campbell's research and examples he has discovered that throughout all times and under all circumstances the same basic myth has flourished (18). The fact that the superhero story fits within this mythical structure is something that could be said of many stories and doesn't give me a convincing reason for these films proliferation during 2001 - 2005.

The Hollywood machine

This essay originally carried an additional chapter about the role of how Hollywood creates films to explain the superhero phenomenon. But despite highlighting many good reasons why superheros make sense as protagonists, due to the long development time on making films it doesn't feel as if this can explain a trend in a short space of five years. I now feel this will be better served in my follow up part as it better explains how the proliferation of films have continued.

Conclusion

As to whether the events of 9/11 have affected the way we see superheroes on the big screen, I believe there is certainly some evidence for that. Spiderman is clearly a post-9/11 film, recognising that with the removal of the World Trade Centre from the film. While Batman Begins appears to be a product of its time, using a number of symbols associated with fear, terrorism and the military. But this theory can not show these factors as being immediately obvious in every other superhero film to come out between 2001 and 2005.

If this aspect can not be the sole reason for a revival of a genre it is because a superhero film is a text that carries associated meanings like any media product: "any cultural artefact... can be seen as a text" (19). The creation of a text is due to a series of factors and this is certainly true of a Hollywood film, which goes through a complex process in being created and along the way many decisions are made about its outcome: "networks of systems of options... are selected amongst in the production of texts" (19). This means that even if the writer or director wants to tell one story it must pass through a whole network of different people and departments, which affect the outcome of this text. There could be the initial intention to depict a superhero as a metaphor for fighting terrorism and although this may not be immediately clear in the film it doesn't mean it isn't intended: "the richness of the ideological elements which go into producing... a text may be sparsely represented in the text" (19).

Any film produced after 9/11 and during the time where the 'politics of fear' persist in the world is a post-9/11 text and a product of its political climate. But it would be naïve to believe that in a capitalist society where the goal of a film is to make money, this provides a sufficient reason for its creation.

References

1. Bongco, Mila (2000), Reading Comics: Language, Culture and the Concept of the Superhero in Comic Books, Garland Publishing Inc

2. Curtis, Adam (2004) The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear, BBC

3. Parsons, Patrik (1991), Batman and His Audience: The Dialectic of Culture, The Many Lives of the Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and his Media, BFI Publishing

4. Goodenough, Ian (1997), Batman vs. The Dark Knight: Has the Development of the Graphic Novel Caught Up with its Audience, University College Falmouth

5. Vaughan, Don (2003), Four-Color Combat, http://www.moaa.org/magazine/March2003/f_fourcolor.asp

6. Lewis, Claire (2003), American Revolutionary: Noam Chomsky Talks to Francine Stock, BBC

7. Pilger, John (2003), Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror, ITV

8. Empire Online (2005), Exclusive: Why They're Making Flight: 9/11 Film's Producer Responds to Empire, http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/story.asp?NID=17701

9. Raimi, Sam (2002), Spiderman DVD, Columbia/Marvel

10. Nolan, Christopher (2005), Batman Begins DVD, Warner Brothers/DC Comics

11. Finger, Bill (1941), World's Finest Comics #3 - 'Riddle of the Human Scarecrow', DC Comics

12. O'Neill, Denny (1971), Batman # 232 - 'Daughter of the Demon', DC Comics

13. Newman, Kim (2005), Batman Begins Review, Empire Magazine Issue 194, Emap Consumer Media

14. Rojek, Chis (2001), Celebrity, Reaktion Books

15. Story, Tim (2005), Fantastic Four, 20th Century Fox/Marvel

16. Barbas, Samantha (2001), Movie Crazy: Fans, Stars and the Cult of Celebrity, Palgrave Macmillan

17. Lévi-Strauss, Claude (2001), Myth and Meaning, Routledge Classics

18. Campbell, Joseph (1949), The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Pantheon

19. Fairclough, Norman (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language, Longman Group

Published on 25 May 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Superhero films in a post-9/11 climate part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the massive success of The Avengers and the inevitable upcoming success of The Dark Knight Rises along with the fact that Marvel are showing no signs of slowing down in their making of superhero films I thought it would be a good time to revisit this subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Post-9/11 world: What caused the rise of superhero movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Superheroes have been household names since the birth of comic books in the 1930's. Entrenched in the Great Depression and on the cusp of another World War, America needed both a savior and a distraction. Now, thanks to the rise of superhero movies in the 21st century, names like Iron Man, Captain America, Batman,...

# data[].attributes.headline
All Time International Box Office for Super Hero Movies

# data[].attributes.subject
All Time International Box Office for Super Hero Movies

# data[].attributes.headline
The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

# data[].attributes.subject
The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
February 11, 2021

As has become customary, Warner Bros. has declined to report theater counts for its movies this weekend, but itâ€™s a fair bet that Judas and the Black Messiah will be playing in the most locations over Presidentâ€™s Day weekend. Weâ€™re estimating a 1,900-theater debut for the biographical drama starring Daniel Kaluuya, which would be a shade more than The Croods: A New Age, which is still playing in 1,890 in its 12th weekend in theaters. The uncertainty over theater counts for WB films means the top three films in theaters could end up in any order. Here are the counts we have, plus our estimatesâ€¦ More...

February 9, 2021

Drama starring Frances McDormand, written and directed by ChloÃ© Zhao, opens in theaters and premieres on Hulu on February 19. Full movie detailsâ€¦

Following the economic collapse of a company town in rural Nevada, Fern packs her van and sets off on the road exploring a life outside of conventional society as a modern-day nomad. More...

February 8, 2021

Super hero action series comes to Disney+ on March 19. More...

February 7, 2021

Todayâ€™s Super Bowl might be causing some caution among the studios as they compile their weekend projections, but whichever way you cut it, weâ€™re looking at another slow weekend in theaters. The Little Things will come out on top with around $2.1 million, according to Warner Bros.. Thatâ€™s down a steep 56% from its opening weekend, and 9% below our modelâ€™s prediction. In general, almost all films are falling a little shy of the modelâ€™s numbers, suggesting that weâ€™re still not seeing real growth in the market. More...

February 5, 2021

With no new wide releases, there can really be only one winner at the box office this weekend. Last weekâ€™s champ, The Little Things earned more than twice as much as second-place The Croods: A New Age last weekend, and will stay top even with a steep drop.

The performance of The Croods, which is a bellweather for the strength of the theatrical market as a whole, is probably of more interest this weekend. More...

February 4, 2021

Coming-of-age drama starring Taylor Takahashi, directed by Eddie Huang, opens in theaters on March 5 ... Full Movie Details.

The coming-of-age story of Alfred â€œBoogieâ€ Chin, a basketball phenom living in Queens, New York, who dreams of one day playing in the NBA. While his parents pressure him to focus on earning a scholarship to an elite college, Boogie must find a way to navigate a new girlfriend, high school, on-court rivals and the burden of expectation. More...

February 4, 2021

With no new wide releases opening this week, some familiar titles grace the top of this weekâ€™s theater count chart. The most recent film on this list is last weekâ€™s only wide release and box office chart topper, The Little Things, which is predicted to remain on top, hovering around its debut mark of 2,171 locations. Coming in just behind are The Marksman, remaining in 2,018 theaters for a third consecutive week, The Croods: A New Age in 1,935 theaters, and News of the World in 1,537 venues. Also look to see Wonder Woman 1984 somewhere in this mix, after being in 1,864 theaters last week. We do have two new films on this week's list howeverâ€¦ More...

February 2, 2021

Real-life drama starring Tahar Rahim, Jodie Foster, Shailene Woodley, and Benedict Cumberbatch opens in theaters on February 19 ... Full Movie Details.

Captured by the U.S. Government, Mohamedou Ould Slahi languishes in prison for years without charge or trial. Losing all hope, Slahi finds allies in defense attorney Nancy Hollander and her associate Teri Duncan. Together they face countless obstacles in a desperate pursuit for justice. Their controversial advocacy, along with evidence uncovered by formidable military prosecutor, Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch, eventually reveals a shocking and far reaching conspiracy. More...

February 1, 2021

Drama directed by and starring Robin Wright opens in theaters on February 12 ... Full Movie Details.

The story of one womanâ€™s search for meaning in the vast and harsh American wilderness. Edee, in the aftermath of an unfathomable event, finds herself unable to stay connected to the world she once knew and in the face of that uncertainty, retreats to the magnificent, but unforgiving, wilds of the Rockies. After a local hunter brings her back from the brink of death, she must find a way to live again. More...

January 31, 2021

Although it will fall a little short of our weekend prediction, The Little Things will post a respectable-under-the-circumstances $4.8 million this weekend, according to Warner Bros.â€™ Sunday morning projection. If there wasnâ€™t a pandemic going on, that would translate into something like a $21 million debutâ€"in line with previous outings for Denzel Washington in action films and thrillers, such as Unstoppable ($22.7 million opening) and The Taking of Pelham 123 ($23.4 million opening), although behind the more recent The Equalizer, which started out with $34 million. It gives The Little Things bragging rights to the best opening of 2021, which everyone in the industry will be praying is a title it wonâ€™t hold for very long. More...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
February 11, 2021 As has become customary, Warner Bros. has declined to report theater counts for its movies this weekend, but itâ€™s a fair bet that Judas and the Black Messiah will be playing in the most locations over Presidentâ€™s Day weekend.

# data[].attributes.headline
14 superhero movies whose successes and failures have shaped the genre since 2008, from the grit of 'The Dark Knight' to the dominance of the MCU | Business Insider

# data[].attributes.subject
14 superhero movies whose successes and failures have shaped the genre since 2008, from the grit of 'The Dark Knight' to the dominance of the MCU | Business Insider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Audiences are spoiled with superhero movies today.

Between this year and last, we've been treated to six movies within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not to mention everything else in between. Whether it be DC and Warner Bros.' answer to the MCU in the divisive DC Extended Universe, or Fox's "X-Men" franchise, superhero fans - for better or worse - have no shortage of movies to consume.

It was a different landscape 10 years ago.

In 2008, superhero movies were still popular, but they were at a dramatically different place tonally and culturally. "Cinematic universes" weren't the talk of Tinseltown. In fact, the MCU had only just begun with "Iron Man" and the less impressive "The Incredible Hulk" later that summer. And "The Dark Knight" was a blockbuster phenomenon.

Looking back at that year today, it's apparent that it was a turning point for the superhero genre. "The Dark Knight," widely regarded as the best film in the genre but also regularly recognised as more of a crime thriller that happens to star a comic-book character, inspired countless less-successful copycats. Characters like Spider-Man and Superman would get the "dark and gritty and grounded" treatment in an effort to replicate the success of "The Dark Knight."

But "The Dark Knight," in hindsight, seems like an outlier. It's hard to imagine the movie working by today's superhero movie standards, which is why the movies it inspired were destined for failure. That's thanks to the MCU, which was laying the groundwork for what the superhero genre - and much of the rest of Hollywood - would become at a time when studios thought "The Dark Knight" was the way of the future.

With that in mind, the genre has faced a sort of "whiplash" effect throughout the last 10 years, and below I'll go through the evolution of the genre over that course of time - from the failure of "The Amazing Spider-Man" movies to the ascension of the MCU, and why no other studio can seem to replicate it.

Below is the evolution of the superhero genre since 2008, the notable movies that helped shape it during the last 10 years, and what the future may hold:

2008: "Iron Man"

"The Dark Knight" would become the cultural sensation of 2008, but it was released in July. "Iron Man" preceded it by a couple months in May, and little did we know at the time that it would set the precedent for the superhero genre 10 years later. "Iron Man" was the first film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It got things off to an impressive start, but the franchise wouldn't find its footing again until "The Avengers" four years later.

"Iron Man" is a remarkable achievement for a number of reasons, even excluding the fact that it kickstarted the MCU. Before this Jon Favreau-directed movie, Iron Man wasn't a household name. But as soon as Robert Downey Jr. stepped into the gold and red armour, Iron Man was suddenly A-list. The movie grossed nearly $US600 million worldwide and has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, which was the highest rated MCU movie until "Black Panther" this year.

There's an argument to be made that if not for the promise of "Iron Man" that the MCU could have derailed, just as its competition, the DC Extended Universe, has. The movies that followed it in the franchise weren't as well-received, but "Iron Man" kept the ship afloat until "The Avengers" in 2012.

2008: "The Dark Knight"

Looking back, "The Dark Knight" is one of a kind. It was unique in 2008, but against the current status quo of superhero movies, nothing has matched it (the closest is "Logan," but more on that later).

In an age of cinematic universes, "The Dark Knight" succeeded in a time when superhero stories still had a definitive end. Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" trilogy had wrapped up a year prior with "Spider-Man 3," and "The Dark Knight" was the middle part of a planned trilogy from Christopher Nolan. Today we have franchises within franchises - there have been three Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America movies, but they are all within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They may be trilogies in the traditional sense, but they are also cogs in a larger machine. Whatever happens in "Captain America: Civil War" or "Thor: Ragnarok," even if they have their own distinct tone, carries over into the rest of the franchise.

That wasn't the case with "The Dark Knight." Audiences flocked to the theatre despite Batman being on his own (the late Heath Ledger's Oscar-winning turn as the Joker may have helped). There is no Superman, or Wonder Woman, or Flash. This was a Batman story, told the Christopher Nolan way, and it still made over $US1 billion worldwide.

The MCU has managed to let filmmakers imbue the movies with their own style recently, but "The Dark Knight" trilogy feels like the last time a superhero series wasn't heavily influenced by outside forces, whether studio involvement or the pressure to tie into a larger universe. It ended on its own terms.

And even though it was the second part of a trilogy, "The Dark Knight" has become a classic in its own right. It's known more for the backlash the Oscars received for not nominating it for best picture, and the expansion of the number of nominees the following year, and less for being a superhero movie. Whatever accolades movies like "Logan" or "Black Panther" may receive, it's hard to match the significance of "The Dark Knight."

2009: "Watchmen"

A year after "The Dark Knight," another "dark and gritty" superhero movie was released that can also be perceived as not a superhero movie, but a political thriller that happens to star costumed vigilantes.

While "Watchmen" was obviously in development before "The Dark Knight" struck success, Warner Bros. was probably hoping it would have another cultural phenomenon on its hands. But "Watchmen" had more going against it than for it. It featured no recognisable characters like Batman, was rated R, and was based on a highly acclaimed graphic novel. But the thinking was maybe if it didn't make a lot of money (it didn't), then it would at least be praised by critics (it wasn't).

Director Zack Snyder was a hot item at the time, having directed 2004's "Dawn of the Dead" and 2007's "300." And while "Watchmen" didn't become the groundbreaking piece of art that the graphic novel is regarded as, Warner Bros. would later go all-in on Snyder's abilities to carry its own cinematic universe - to mixed results (more on that later).

If "Watchmen" proved anything, it's that audiences didn't see "The Dark Knight" just because it was a "dark" superhero movie. It had cultural importance, and was just as much of an "event" as it was a movie. "Watchmen" the graphic novel had that importance among comic-book readers, but to casual moviegoers, who cared?

"Watchmen" also proved that some ideas are better for the small screen: As movies have leaned more and more on franchise tentpoles, television is in a "golden age" for the opposite reasons. As Ben Fritz writes in his book "The Big Picture: The Fight for the Future of Movies," "shifting economic and technological factors have fuelled an explosion of originality and risk taking that makes the 'idiot box' home to arguably the best content Hollywood has ever produced."

Even though it's based on pre-existing material, the risk and creativity involved in something like "Watchmen" makes it perfect for television. "Lost" and "The Leftovers" creator Damon Lindelof is currently developing a "Watchmen" pilot for HBO.

2012: "The Avengers"

"The Avengers" was both the beginning and the end for the superhero genre as we know it. Nothing like it had ever been done before: a superhero film that brought together multiple storylines introduced in other movies, and numerous characters that had the potential to carry their own franchises. If "The Dark Knight" inspired "gritty" superhero movies, then "The Avengers" inspired cinematic universes. (Studios have found it difficult to replicate both.)

Warner Bros. has tried, but its answer to "The Avengers," last year's "Justice League," flopped big time. Disney, which owns Marvel, has conquered the Hollywood landscape, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe has conquered the superhero movie landscape - so much so that DC and Warner Bros. have had to rethink their entire strategy. If they can't compete with the MCU, then they must focus on more standalone stories. It worked for "Wonder Woman," and the hope is that it can work with lesser-known properties like "Aquaman" and "Shazam!" But it's still a big hill to climb.

The MCU has found success in fun movies that work on their own but also as part of a larger universe, and "The Avengers" set the tone. Even non-superhero franchises have tried, and failed, to replicate the cinematic universe that "The Avengers" proved is possible. "Star Wars" found that the movie-a-year plan may not be for the best when "Solo: A Star Wars Story" disappointed earlier this year. And Universal has basically scrapped any plans for its monster-oriented "Dark Universe" after last year's "The Mummy" reboot bombed.

It's a testament to Marvel's strategy that it is able to churn out multiple movies a year that manage to be be commercial and critical success stories.

2012: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

Sony wasn't done with its Spider-Man franchise. Its "Amazing Spider-Man" reboot, which came just five years after "Spider-Man 3," took the series in a (sort of) new direction. But it wasn't new enough. "The Amazing Spider-Man" retold the character's origin story that had just been told on screen 10 years earlier in the original "Spider-Man" movie. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had decent chemistry in the lead roles, but the movie seemed too familiar - even if it tried to be more "grounded" than Sam Raimi's movies.

Call it "The Dark Knight" effect, and its first casualty. "The Amazing Spider-Man" tried to tell Spider-Man's origin story in a "darker" way - both in tone and aesthetic. It lost the brightness and fun of Sam Raimi's movies and replaced it with a moody, "punk" Peter Parker who tried to capture teenage angst, but it's hard to do that when your lead actor is almost 30 years old.

This reboot was being developed when the MCU was still in its early stages, before Marvel had it running like a well-oiled machine. So it makes sense that Sony would try to keep its biggest property relevant. By its sequel in 2014, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," Sony was even hoping to expand on its crown jewel with a cinematic universe of its own focused on Spider-Man's supporting cast. Among the planned movies was a villain-centric "Sinister Six," which "Amazing Spider-Man 2" attempted to set up.

It failed miserably, and Sony would go on to strike a deal with Marvel that would allow the MCU to use Spider-Man while Sony retained distribution rights, and continued to develop movies based on the character ("Venom," based on one of the wall-crawler's famous villains, is coming in October).

"The Amazing Spider-Man" movies tried to replicate the success of both "The Dark Knight" and the MCU, and they wouldn't be the last superhero movies to do so.

2013: "Man of Steel"

Zack Snyder got another crack at the superhero genre in 2013 with "Man of Steel," and while it's a noble effort at revamping Superman for a new generation, Warner Bros. still seemed to be stuck in the past.

"How do we make Superman more realistic?" was the question hanging over "Man of Steel's" head. In came Snyder, who had made the hyper-realistic "Watchmen," and Nolan, who was brought in as a producer. It was obvious that the studio was attempting to catch the lightning in a bottle that "The Dark Knight" struck, just with his brighter, more hopeful, superhero counterpart this time.

And that's where it went wrong.

The movie worked to a degree, but could never escape its own bleakness, which isn't a word that should be associated with a character like Superman (the movie's controversial ending, where Superman kills his enemy, caused debate and uproar). It was another casualty of "The Dark Knight" effect. The movie's star, Henry Cavill, would go on to star in two more movies as the character, as Warner Bros. used "Man of Steel" as a jumping-off point for its own cinematic universe.

2014: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier"

"The Winter Soldier" is notable in the evolution of the past 10 years of superhero movies because it marks a turning point for the MCU. The franchise has gotten better with age, and that began with this movie, when it finally found its groove and wouldn't slow down after.

Prior to "The Winter Soldier," the MCU could be hit-or-miss, with "Iron Man" and "The Avengers" being the essential entries and the others being take-them-or-leave-them, depending on your preference. But the franchise hit its stride with this movie, a bonafide espionage thriller. It marked the point that Marvel allowed its filmmakers to really take the reins (that same year came "Guardians of the Galaxy").

Most of the MCU's best movies have been released in its late-second phase and third phase. In hindsight, the MCU was a force to be reckoned with after "The Winter Soldier," and other studios wouldn't realise they couldn't compete until it was too late.

2015: "Fantastic Four"

Seven years after "The Dark Knight," and major superhero movies were still feeling its effects. Maybe 2015's "Fantastic Four" reboot was a product of just that: being a reboot, and trying to take the characters in a new direction. But this and the other movies mentioned owe their dark palettes and "edginess" to "The Dark Knight," whether directly or indirectly.

Some characters don't translate well under that guise, and Spider-Man, Superman, and the Fantastic Four are among them. But in an effort to make the characters younger, edgier, and more grounded (i.e. less fun), Fox hired "Chronicle" director Josh Trank to helm the reboot.

The results were catastrophic.

The movie received 9% on Rotten Tomatoes and made just $US56 million in the US and about $US168 million worldwide. It was, by all accounts, a failure, and seemed to derail any plans for a X-Men/Fantastic Four crossover, as revealed in the leaked Sony emails. Fox seemed to be gearing up for its own cinematic universe (even though its X-Men franchise had grown a cinematic timeline all its own), and a leaked 2014 email, as reported by The Daily Beast, revealed that Sony was planning its Spider-Man universe in response.

Those plans sure did change quickly.

2016: "Deadpool"

It's a miracle a movie like "Deadpool" succeeded, but it goes to show how audiences will respond to a movie that is marketed well and takes creative risks. Watching "Deadpool," it's apparent that the movie's star, Ryan Reynolds, is committed to the character, and audiences responded in droves. The movie, which has a hard R rating, scored nearly $US800 million worldwide, proving that a superhero movie could break through the noise even if it's not meant for all audiences.

While technically part of the "X-Men" universe, it's very loosely involved: it's very much in its own world. But even if it was shocking that "Deadpool" did so well, in hindsight, the character is perfect for cinema. He's hyper-violent, hilarious, and routinely breaks the fourth wall, making mainstream audiences who had never heard of the character invested. He's not your run-of-the-mill superhero, which could be why moviegoers were so attracted to him.

2016: "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"

If "Deadpool" proved that a superhero movie can succeed if you stick to the character's core traits, then "Batman v Superman" is the exact opposite. Violence and hysteria make sense in the world of "Deadpool," but imagine if it was devoid of humour and fun. That's "Batman v Superman," in which Warner Bros. took all the wrong lessons from both "The Dark Knight" and "The Avengers."

In Zack Snyder's world, Batman murders on a whim and Superman never smiles. Warner Bros. gave the world "The Dark Knight" and was still living in its world 8 years later (the failure of "Green Lantern" in 2011 probably didn't help). In fact, because of how lousy "Green Lantern" and divisive "Man of Steel" turned out to be, Batman was still the studio's best superhero bet, so much so that he got top billing in this spiritual successor to "Man of Steel."

"BvS" opened huge at the box office, pulling in $US166 million in its opening weekend. But it got terrible reviews, and when audiences realised how messy the plot was and how devoid of fun the movie was, its box office fell dramatically in its second weekend 69%. That's not unheard of for blockbusters, and it's not exactly a commercial failure, but it is representative of the DCEU as a whole: each movie since "BvS" has opened to less money than the one before it, and failed to stay steady in the US afterward.

The outlier is "Wonder Woman," whose opening weekend was less than both "BvS" and "Suicide Squad," but went on to make more money domestically than them - probably because it was actually a good movie.

2017: "Logan"

"Logan" was the first superhero movie since "The Dark Knight" to rise to similar standards in terms of acclaim. It was the first superhero movie to be nominated for a screenplay Oscar, and like "The Dark Knight," it seems to fit into another genre besides "superhero" (this time a Western).

What makes "Logan" different from "The Dark Knight" is that it was the culmination of a character's story arc 17 years in the making, and the last hurrah for actor Hugh Jackman, who had portrayed Wolverine in the "X-Men" films all that time. As mentioned, "The Dark Knight" trilogy is notable in that it's the last time a superhero series had a definitive end. That can be said for Jackman's Wolverine/Logan, but his story will always be associated with the "X-Men" films. "Logan" isn't so much the end of a trilogy (even though it is technically the third solo Wolverine movie) as it is the end of a character's story arc within a much larger universe.

But "Logan" still managed to break through the noise by pretty much ignoring other "X-Men" movies, like "Deadpool" did, and proved that a superhero movie could succeed with an R rating, and "darker" tone - if that tone makes sense for the character.

2017: "Wonder Woman"

"Wonder Woman" is the one movie in the DCEU so far that has figured out what works and what doesn't. For starters, it's fun. Secondly, aside from a brief mention of Bruce Wayne, the movie is entirely devoid of any relation to the larger universe, which is shaping Warner Bros.' strategy going forward.

As "Deadpool" showed, if you can't directly compete with the MCU, studios have to do something that hasn't been done before, that audiences will be invested in. "Wonder Woman" was the first major superhero movie to star a woman and be directed by a woman that was a critical and commercial success.

2017: "Justice League"

And then there's "Justice League," DC's answer to "The Avengers" that royally backfired.

The movie was tainted by behind-the-scenes chaos leading up to its release in November, which didn't help matters. After director Snyder stepped away after the death of his daughter, "Avengers" director Joss Whedon stepped in for extensive reshoots that drastically altered the final film.

But even with all the chaos and heartbreak, Warner Bros. couldn't have predicted just how much the movie would flop.

"Justice League" opened to a measly $US93 million, well below studio estimates and extremely disappointing for a movie that was supposed to be the culmination of the DCEU thus far. It went on to make $US229 million domestically - for comparison, Marvel's "Black Panther" and "Avengers: Infinity War" made more than that in their opening weekends.

The commercial and critical failure (it has a 40% Rotten Tomatoes critic score) of "Justice League" was further proof that the MCU had landed on a recipe that couldn't be equaled. If studios couldn't handle the heat, they either had to think of a new meal - or get out of the kitchen.

2018: "Black Panther"

Similar to "Wonder Woman," "Black Panther" was a significant superhero movie in that it gave audiences a diverse superhero. "Black Panther" is the first superhero movie to star a black character with a predominantly black cast, and audiences responded enthusiastically.

The movie scored over $US1 billion worldwide and the highest Rotten Tomatoes critic score of any Marvel movie. Not since "The Dark Knight" had a superhero movie inspired such culturally and politically important conversation. People even agreed with the film's villain, Killmonger, despite being opposed to his methods.

It was another win for the MCU, but it was also a win for the superhero genre overall that will hopefully inspire more diverse stories to be told.

Lessons learned from the last 10 years

Judging by the movies listed above (and those are just a handful of the dozens upon dozens of superhero movies released in the last decade), there's some lessons to be learned. Studios learned the wrong ones from the success of "The Dark Knight," and instead of telling diverse ("Wonder Woman," "Black Panther") or unique ("Deadpool," "Logan") stories, some movies fell into the trap of "grounding" characters that didn't need to be grounded (Superman, Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four). If a movie goes dark or mature, it should be right for that character. That's not to say Superman can't be in a "mature" movie, but it shouldn't be more bleak than fun, either.

Lesson 2: If a cinematic universe isn't the MCU, it probably won't work. The DCEU learned that the hard way. Marvel has tapped into something that has worked primarily for it. The "X-Men" franchise is somewhat of a cinematic universe and has worked (mostly) for the last almost two decades. But besides Wolverine and Deadpool, they all have "X-Men" in the title (you don't see every MCU movie with "Avengers" in the title).

And after years of messing up its timeline, even the "X-Men" franchise is starting to tell more standalone stories, like "Logan" and the upcoming "New Mutants," similar to DC and Warner Bros. But future circumstances could upend any plans Fox may have for the franchise.

The future: DC's standalone movies, the Disney/Fox deal, and more

Fox has more "X-Men" movies in development, but the future of the franchise is questionable for a couple reasons: both of its upcoming movies, "X-Men: Dark Phoenix" and "The New Mutants," were pushed back.

And then there's that Disney/Fox deal.

Disney bought much of Fox's assets last year for $US52 billion. While a counter-offer from Comcast could have potentially upended the deal this year, Disney seems to have held off Comcast by recently boosting its offer to buy Fox. So, if this deal is finalised, what does that mean for the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

It means that characters like the X-Men, Wolverine, Deadpool, and Fantastic Four would be at Disney/Marvel's disposal. What they would do with those characters is up in the air, but we have some ideas here, here, and here.

That leaves Sony to develop its own (sort of) Spider-Man movies. "Venom," starring Tom Hardy, comes out this year, as well as the animated "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse."

Meanwhile, the DCEU has all but come to halt, as Warner Bros. focuses on standalone stories. "Aquaman," "Shazam!," and "Wonder Woman 1984" will most likely distance themselves from the connectivity of the shared universe, and there are plenty of other movies in development, like a Joker origin movie starring Joaquin Phoenix, that have nothing to do with the DCEU.

"The Dark Knight" inspired superhero movies to be grounded or darker, but at a time when the MCU was plotting dominance over the genre. Even Fox-owned properties could be consumed by Disney in the near future. Now, for superhero movies to succeed (if they're not in the MCU) they must stand out from the rest of the pack, something that studios didn't seem to foresee when they tried to replicate the MCU or "The Dark Knight's" success.

NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 superhero movies whose successes and failures have shaped the genre since 2008, from the grit of 'The Dark Knight' to the dominance of the MCU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Audiences are spoiled with superhero movies today. Between this year and last, we've been treated to six movies within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, not to mention everything else in between. Whether it be DC and Warner Bros.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is the biggest movie of all time? Easy. It's Star Wars: The Force Awakens. America rules, and The Force Awakens grossed $936.7 million at the U.S. box office after its release in 2015, by far the most ever. Next on the list is the $760.5 million made by Avatar, released back in 2009, then Black Panther at $700.0 million (and counting). No contest. Hand the crown to Rey and Finn and bow before them.

Who is the greatest player in NBA history? Easy. It's Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He scored 38,387 points in his career, nearly 1,500 more than second-place Karl Malone, and no current player is anywhere close to catching him.

But anyone who pays attention knows the greatest player of all time is constantly up for debate. The parameters are endless: Who has the most rings? Who played elite defense? Who won the most MVPs? Who was durable? Who made their teammates better? Who was their competition? Were they playing against guys who dribbled with only one hand and shot underhand free throws? Did they play against only white people? In The Book of Basketball, Bill Simmons built the template for an ever-evolving pyramid of NBA greats, and he's one of many sportswriters who have spent their careers trying to place past and present athletes on the same court.

The same goes for the box office. The Force Awakens was a cinematic spectacle, released after fans of the original trilogy waited three decades for a decent Star Wars movie. But despite sitting atop the domestic box office dollars list on both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers, the two most complete online compilers of box office data, The Force Awakens is not the biggest movie of all time. Which movie is? The answer isn't so easy to come by.

Reading the standard "who won the weekend" reports now found in nearly every major American newspaper will leave you, at best, modestly informed about the true box office winners and losers. Since I first opened an issue of Entertainment Weekly in 1994, box office statistics have advanced along with sports statistics, moving well beyond the routine box score. Following the box office is similar to following sports in a hundred ways, and it took me more than 20 years to figure out that that's why people like me, with no skin in the Hollywood game, obsessively pore over the numbers.

Bruce Nash always followed the money. The former IBM software developer founded The Numbers in 1997 after moving to Silicon Valley during the dot-com boom. A sports stats nerd and movie fan, Nash thought he'd try to combine his hobbies into a business, so he began compiling and organizing box office numbers into coherent lists. He's been doing it ever since. Nash knows that the question of the biggest movie of all time is a complicated one.

Titanic opened in December 1997, about two months after Nash started The Numbers, so the film is dear to his heart. And it's in the running for the biggest box office hit of all time. Titanic is a quality movie creatively, he says, but it's difficult to separate that quality from the sensation it created, filling theaters for months after its release. It was the perfect storm for The Numbers. "Here comes Titanic and it's just breaking all of these records and there was so much interest around that," he says. "It made me feel that I was doing the right thing with the site."

But nostalgia aside, Nash-who also works with Guinness adjudicating obscure box office records-says that despite 20 years in the movie numbers business, identifying the biggest box office hit is something he's still trying to do.

There are three major issues: (1) 80-year-old box office smashes like Gone With the Wind and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs have been rereleased in nearly every decade since the 1930s, which makes adjusting for inflation a challenge; (2) international box office numbers have been growing rapidly, putting past movies at a great disadvantage compared to modern hits; and (3) domestic theaters don't release the actual number of tickets sold for each film, only the gross box office dollars earned.

Gone With the Wind is at the top of Box Office Mojo's Domestic Grosses-Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation list, but it's not on The Numbers' list. Nash says they're still working to create what he calls "the definitive list" of inflation-adjusted films, so for now they include only films released in 1977 or later.

Comparing Gone With the Wind to Titanic to Black Panther is like comparing Wilt, Jordan, and LeBron. They played in different eras against different levels of competition. When Wilt played, there was no 3-pointer. When Jordan played, there was no hand-check rule or zone defense. LeBron plays in a time when three of the greatest shooters in history are on the same team and have the benefit of advanced offensive and defensive schemes. These arguments are too often reduced to raw numbers, emotion, and personal bias.

Titanic's original run ended in about nine months, lengthy by today's standards. Thor: Ragnarok, a massive Marvel hit, was out of theaters in four and a half months. Gone With the Wind's original release (actually three releases back to back to back) lasted four years. And back then, box office data wasn't collected in the same way it is today. One estimate put the number of Gone With the Wind tickets sold, just during those early runs, at 60 million, equivalent to nearly half the population of the United States in 1939 - but with subsequent releases that number rises to about 200 million tickets. Mojo estimates Gone With the Wind's domestic take at $1.9 billion, nearly double The Force Awakens ' unadjusted (or adjusted) take.

Although Black Panther quickly became a cultural phenomenon and has now made more money than Titanic at the box office, its run will probably come to an end about five months after its release. It has sold in the neighborhood of 75 million tickets. The Wakandans are ranked third on the all-time domestic list (just ahead of Avengers: Infinity War, which probably won't close the gap), but only 30th on Mojo's all-time domestic adjusted for inflation list.

When Dirk Nowitzki emerged in the NBA as a superstar with an unprecedented jumper for a 7-footer, it heralded a new era. Every team wanted to find the next Dirk, and the systematic pool for recruits increased from the U.S. to Earth. Every draft's first round since has featured at least one player born outside the U.S., and today it's simply accepted that the NBA is a world league.

A similar thing has happened at the box office, but to a far greater extreme. While domestic sales remained essentially flat from 2011 to 2017 at about $10 billion to $11 billion, the international market has grown from $22.4 billion to $29.5 billion in that same time. The biggest domestic grosser last year wasn't Star Wars: The Last Jedi at $620 million in the U.S., but Wolf Warrior 2, which took in $854.2 million in China. Which is to say that if you're going to calculate the biggest hits today, you can't ignore international theaters. Without accounting for inflation, the international champ is undoubtedly Avatar, which took in more than $2.7 billion total riding its 3-D novelty, $500 million more than its nearest competitor.

Along with Gone With the Wind, Titanic, and Avatar, Nash also puts Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia in the running for the biggest box office hits of all time. Though he's skeptical of some early box office reporting, he and his team at The Numbersscour old newspapers to find box office data from the early and mid-20th century. The Numbers and Mojo are essentially box office versions of Baseball-Reference, which relies on data from the early baseball tomes, which in turn relied on old newspapers and stathead fanatics to populate their historical data. But not all Babe Ruths are created equal.

In 1994, my older brother subscribed to Entertainment Weekly. Only a high school freshman at the time, I'd get to see the issue after he was finished or, if I was lucky, sneak in a look before he noticed it had arrived in the mailbox. I'd read the articles, but what I was really interested in were the lists, specifically the weekend box office numbers.

I remember literally shouting for joy when The Crow opened with a whopping $11.8 million over the weekend, besting all in its path. Of course it was almost two weeks after the fact when I found out The Crow had won because EW was generally two weeks behind in its reporting. (Not bad in the era before high-speed internet.) When the numbers came in, I'd already seen The Crow, thought Brandon Lee was a badass, and wanted him to rule the box office from beyond the grave. I was overjoyed when it won the weekend.

"Here comes Titanic and it's just breaking all of these records and there was so much interest around that. It made me feel that I was doing the right thing with the site." -Bruce Nash, The Numbers founder

I remember literally shouting for joy when The Crow opened with a whopping $11.8 million over the weekend, besting all in its path. To take the crown that weekend, The Crow had bested the ho-hum openings of When a Man Loves a Woman and Crooklyn, the third weekend of With Honors, the ninth weekend of Four Weddings and a Funeral, plus nonopening weekends of 3 Ninjas Kick Back, No Escape, and Clean Slate, none of which any human being has ever seen. It wasn't exactly a midsummer blockbuster weekend. This was my first lesson in box office relativism.

Today, everywhere from BuzzFeed to Forbes, The New York Times to the Hattiesburg American publishes box office numbers. It's nearly as routine as checking the box scores. And EW didn't originate box office reporting, but rather only mainstreamed it.

Variety has been covering box office grosses for nearly a century. On January 7, 1925, the paper reported that the silent film Peter Pan had brought in $59,503 from two theaters in New York, dominating the Broadway cinemas, which combined had earned a total of $250,000 the previous week. By the 1940s, Variety was covering the box office in 25 cities, with numbers from each collected by a different local stringer. According to a 2003 article by the latefilm section editor Herb Golden, this is how it worked back in the day:

I learned the hard way about the accuracy of b.o. numbers from my three years as Philly stringer for Variety. I was one of the 24 muggs who had to provide the weekly grosses in his town. You called all the house managers on Monday to get the weekend figures and some were cooperative and some were not-and some you often couldn't reach. But the story had to be in NY on Tuesday morning, so there was obviously fudging, estimates from competing house managers, local sales managers of the film companies and any other source you could develop.

Golden claims to have "initiated the current plethora of national boxoffice numbers" by looking at the results from all 25 cities together and declaring which films were doing well and which not so well. He also created the first annual compilation of highest-grossing films, and indeed in the January 1950 issue you can see the list of 1949's biggest films, topped by Jolson Sings Again at $5.5 million. That reported figure was not the gross box office earnings, the number generally reported today, but the film "rentals," the cut portioned by the theater to the distributor, which has varied over time and today varies even within a film's run.

The weekly haphazard regional analysis continued into the 1970s, according to Open Wide: How Hollywood Box Office Became a National Obsession, by Dade Hayes and Jonathan Bing. They write that on June 25, 1975, a few days after Jaws opened, Variety ran 13 stories about its grosses in different U.S. cities. A Variety writer named Art Murphy was a pioneer in bringing the national data together each week, eventually turning his work into Art Murphy's Box Office Register, an annual compendium of box office data, which included grosses and per-screen averages, among other metrics. The Register ended in 1995, but by that time box office grosses were a weekly national news story in EW and elsewhere.

Nowadays, nearly all the box office data that you see comes via comScore, the massive media measurement company-which gobbled up Rentrak, which before that bought Nielsen EDI to become the boss of box office tracking. According to comScore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian, who has covered the box office for 25 years (and missed just two Sunday reports in that time, he tells me), the vast majority of theaters' data-at least 95 percent-is reported directly to comScore via point-of-sale systems. So when you buy a ticket at the counter or from a kiosk, the amount of your ticket purchase is sent directly to comScore. Some old-school theaters send their results to comScore by fax and a few mom-and-pop theaters prefer to call them in. Once in the system, the studios can log in to comScore's database and watch in real time as the money pours in.

On Sunday mornings, weekend results are estimated based on the real numbers that are already in; actual weekend totals are ready on Monday. Hollywood sites like Deadline fight to get the numbers earlier than the competition, but they get the final numbers from the studios, with all the data coming through comScore first. "We are literally the guardians of this data," says Dergarabedian. "You can go to all these sources like Mojo and all these other places, but the fact of the matter is we're the only one that collects it for the studio to even report that number."

If the weekend totals are the equivalent of a basketball box score, what are advanced box office analytics? Inflation-adjusted grosses are akin to adjusting a team or player's scoring to the pace of play. Points per game can be compared to an actor's gross per movie. In basketball, it's not just the greatest player that matters, but the greatest dribbler, the greatest 3-point shooter, the best block percentage, true shooting percentage, and rebounds per 36. With movies, you can narrow them down to the biggest action buddy comedy movie ( Men in Black, followed by Rush Hour 2), biggest R-rated film ( The Passion of the Christ, then Deadpool), and biggest Thursday opening ( Revenge of the Sith, then The Matrix Reloaded).

Patrick Ewing or John Stockton or Charles Barkley may be the greatest player who never won a championship, and Sing is the biggest box office earner that never led a weekend. How about the biggest Friday-to-Saturday drop percentage? Johnny Knoxville's The Ringer (no relation) at minus-72.31 percent. Want to get more obscure? Jerry Maguire holds the distinction of being the best of the worst of the best by topping a weekend with the lowest amount since 1997 ($5.5 million in its seventh weekend, January 24-26, 1997). The biggest domestic weekend for a movie based on a play is Madea Goes to Jail at $41 million.

Movies with large "multipliers" are seen as particularly impressive by box office nerds. Get Out, The Greatest Showman, Titanic, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding are well-known examples. Each of them opened relatively modestly, but then stayed strong week after week. Get Out made 5.3 times its opening weekend gross. The Greatest Showman opened at just $13.4 million, but has since earned a total of $174 million, for a 13 multiplier. Titanic opened at $28.6 million and then finished at $601 million for a near-21 multiplier. The biggest three-day weekend for My Big Fat Greek Wedding was its 20th at $11.1 million-it finished with a whopping $241.4 million.

Fast & Furious is a fascinating franchise, kind of like Gonzaga in that it started out as an unknown, busted out of the gates unexpectedly, and kept up the momentum until it became a powerhouse. The first filmmade $207.3 million at the worldwide box office, about the same as the modest hit Horrible Bosses, and is currently ranked 715 on the all-time chart. The second film made a bit more. Then the franchise had an off year with Tokyo Drift. But every movie after that, through the seventh, made more than the last. The last two installments are in the all-time top 15 worldwide, making more than a billion dollars each. The same way Gonzaga became UNC, the Furious franchise is basically Star Wars now.

"We are literally the guardians of this data. You can go to all these sources like Mojo and all these other places, but the fact of the matter is we're the only one that collects it for the studio to even report that number." -Paul Dergarabedian, comScore senior media analyst

Movies, like teams, have preseason expectations. A Star Wars film is supposed to make bank, and when it doesn't-like this year's disappointing Solo-it's considered a huge disappointment. But when a little movie with low or no expectations, like Get Out, breaks onto the national scene, it's a feel-good story. ( Solo has made a lot more at the worldwide box office than Get Out, but far less than any other Star Wars movie.) And just because a movie opens no. 1, or even tops a year, doesn't mean it will win the battle for historical supremacy. Spider-Man 3 was the biggest domestic earner of 2007, but the comedies Superbad, Knocked Up, Ratatouille, and Juno are far more admired today.

Sometimes the box office, like the NBA, is about opportunity. Steph Curry, a relatively short and slight NBA athlete, may not have been a superstar in the days before the 3-point line. Likewise, Avatar may not have been the biggest film ever (or even among them) had another film beat it to the punch on 3-D technology.

As with traditional sports coverage, box office prediction power has become a cottage industry unto itself. Shawn Robbins, chief analyst at BoxOffice Pro (and founder of The Box Office Theory, a forum dedicated to "statistics-driven box office commentary") says prediction has become more of a science in recent years. A decade ago, predicting movie grosses "was more of a guess," he says. But that has changed. "It's far more data intensive," says Robbins, "because there's so much more information out there."

Social media provides metrics based on the number of conversations about a movie happening on Twitter and Facebook and the amount that megastars with tens of millions of followers are promoting their films. Meanwhile, prerelease market research measures the public's awareness (total and unaided) that a film is coming out, "definite interest" in seeing the film, and whether that movie is a surveyed person's first choice of the films available. And all of it is broken down by demographics. Before It was released last fall, Deadline reported that "males overallare 24% unaided, 75[%] total awareness, 57% definite and 17% first choice. Females are 26% unaided, 76% total, 50% definite and 18% first choice. Teen males are 24% unaided, 75% total, 66% definite, and 24% first choice." With not a single typically bankable star in the cast, It became the biggest unadjusted horror hit of all time.

Robbins likens the new data to that available in baseball, whose rise as a statistics-driven sport was made famous by the Oakland Athletics' 2002 Moneyball season. "Box office has kind of gone through a similar phase," says Robbins. "Certainly not as highly publicized and not as data-rich as a major sport is, but relatively speaking - whereas we just had more comparisons and intuition 15 years ago."

Fandango provides a weekly "Fanticipation" report that is a useful indicator of what films will do at the box office. While it doesn't include actual presale numbers, the report provides context for how well a major release is selling before opening. A few hours before Black Panther hit theaters, Fandango announced that it had already outsold presale runs of Captain America: Civil War, Deadpool,and The Hunger Games, strongly hinting that it would open in all-time fashion. Black Panther received a 99 out of 100 Fanticipation score, which is "calculated via an algorithm of Fandango's advance ticket sales, website and mobile traffic, and social media engagement." Avengers: Infinity War received a 100 and opened with the biggest weekend of all time (unadjusted for inflation).

Aggregated review sites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, as well as post-screening audience surveys from comScore, can provide further clues to a movie's box office potential, especially of multiplier, which is often related directly to word of mouth. The Greatest Showman has a Rotten Tomatoes review score of only 56 percent, but its audience score is 87 percent. And then there is the anticipation we can see: YouTube shows the number of views of an upcoming film's trailer, an obvious but helpful indicator.

Box Office Mojo is owned by IMDb (which is owned by Amazon) and so it draws on IMDb pageviews to find comps. Just before Incredibles 2 opened, Mojo's Brad Brevet wrote that in the two weeks leading up to release, it was "vastly outperforming" fellow animated sequels Finding Dory, Minions, and Monsters University in pageviews. It went on to open far bigger than any of those smash hits.

"There is such a romanticism around movies. It's not like you're selling widgets." -Dergarabedian

Predictors also factor in major weather and sporting events, and they look to school calendars to see how many college students and children will be in class or free to go to the movies. To predict international openings, they'll look at the number of markets in which films are opening. (It's rare to see a simultaneous "day and date" opening in every country.) The Chinese market is still protected by local regulators, so it's not necessarily audience demand that dictates which American films open there at all, nor for how long they stay in Chinese theaters. The Marvel Cinematic Universe superteam, for example, does relatively better abroad than the Star Wars superteam.

Karie Bible, a box office analyst with Exhibitor Relations Co., which provides long-range forecasts and analysis to studio and theater-owner clients, says that for all the data available, the box office still turns expert predictions on their heads all the time. She points to Black Panther. "People thought it would do well, but no one thought it would be at almost $700 million domestic," says Bible. "Sometimes things just happen that we don't see coming in life and in the movies."

Few could have predicted the box office take of Solo, which has done about one-third the total business of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, its most comparable movie. And despite advances in box office analytics, there are still as many unpredictable factors in film as there are in NBA draft picks. Nobody guessed that Markelle Fultz would forget how to shoot or hurt his shoulder or whatever happened, or that Kevin Spacey would be replaced by Christopher Plummer after the trailer for All the Money in the World had already been released. It's a safe bet that if Disney had known how popular Black Panther was going to be, its characters would have had even larger roles in Infinity War.

Though film companies are starting to hire analytics gurus from the sports world ( notably Legendary), and using machine learning to predict a movie's success from the screenplay alone, long-term box office predictions are still an inexact science. That's because it's not just a numbers game. "There is such a romanticism around movies," Dergarabedian says. "It's not like you're selling widgets." The movies, like sports, he says, are for the head and heart. To know what really happened in both, sometimes you have to watch the game.

That's why someone with no connection to filmmaking can root for a movie, at its essence just another corporate product, to succeed. That's why you can want Black Panther to "defeat" Infinity War and The Last Jedi at the box office, even though they are all owned by the same shareholders. And that's why when The Crow beats 3 Ninjas Kick Back it feels like my favorite team has won the World Series.
Shaun Raviv is a freelance journalist based in Atlanta. This is his first story for The Ringer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moneyballing the Movies: How the Box Office Became a Sport

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is the biggest movie of all time? Easy. It's Star Wars: The Force Awakens. America rules, and The Force Awakens grossed $936.7 million at the U.S. box office after its release in 2015, by far the most ever.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Superhero Movies Like 'Avengers' And 'Deadpool' Are Ruling The Box Office.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Marvel Cinematic Universe movies have been on a serious hot streak, and it didn't happen by accident | Business Insider

# data[].attributes.subject
Marvel Cinematic Universe movies have been on a serious hot streak, and it didn't happen by accident | Business Insider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It all started at the very beginning, really. Marvel Studios hired the most unlikely actor to play a superhero who wasn't very popular with the masses: Iron Man.

Director Jon Favreau, originally seeking an unknown actor to play Tony Stark, cast Robert Downey Jr. in the role, with some major pushback. Throughout the 90s and early 2000s, Downey had been arrested several times on drug-related charges. He went to rehab more than once. Downey said that he was introduced to drugs at the age of eight, because his father was also an addict and provided drugs to him.

"The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye," Favreau said about his casting. "He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark."

Downey's casting proved to be brilliant when "Iron Man" received glowing reviews - especially for Downey's performance - when it came out in 2008.

But as the MCU started to grow into the 2010s and a lot of people showed up to see its movies, the films got more formulaic: superhero finds his powers (2019's "Captain Marvel" will be the first female led MCU movie), superhero falls in love with a woman he has to save a few times, and superhero pretty easily defeats a forgettable villain with an accent.

But years into the universe it created, Marvel Studios was reminded of the unconventional choice that got people into this ambitious franchise in the first place, and made bolder and bolder decisions, from directors to casting to source material.

Here's our guide to the MCU's recent winning streak, where we analyse what started it, and how it can continue in the future.

What led to the stride?

Rather than adapt comic book source material for mass audiences, the MCU started to embrace the comic books and movies.

Instead of taking a story from a comic book and making it a vanilla action movie like so many of the early MCU movies were, writers and directors started making movies for themselves, instead of trying to please millions of people. And Marvel Studios is, thankfully, letting them do this, without many limits.

Most people don't share the same favourite MCU movie now, and that's a good thing. There's a comedy, a political thriller, a period piece, and then there's "Doctor Strange." The movies have gone off on their own paths.

By seeing what works - and what doesn't - the movies have become something more than a studio blockbuster made to draw people in. The MCU will sell tickets no matter what, so there's a certain artistic freedom that most studio movies never have.

"Captain America: Winter Soldier" (2014)

The "Captain America" movies are altogether the strongest standalone trilogy in the MCU, and while each movie is a superhero movie, each individually represents a different genre. And it wasn't meant to be that way.

Originally, the Captain America sequel was going to be another period piece, but flashbacks were abandoned early on in the writing process.

The idea was to make the sequel a political thriller reminiscent of those from the 1970s, like "All the President's Men" and "Three Days of the Condor." In "Winter Soldier," Captain America must fight S.H.I.E.L.D., the agency he's supposed to be working for.

By putting a man who was made by the government for the government in a situation where he has to turn on who he's supposed to be fighting for was a fun twist on Captain America. And it helped make him one of the most complicated and interesting character arcs throughout the films.

"I love that we're doing a sequel to a film that's a completely different genre than the first film," producer Kevin Feige said in 2013. "I think that's fun. And the comics do it all the time."

It worked thanks to the skill of the Russo brothers (Joe and Anthony), who came from the TV directing world. Feige has said they were hired to direct "Winter Soldier" based on an action-packed episode of NBC's "Community" that they directed.

"Captain America: Winter Soldier" received great reviews, and its unlikely superhero spin on a political conspiracy thriller was something critics and audiences loved. The shift in genre did not seem to upset anyone, which helped Marvel learn that it could reinvent a character that already had two movies, such as Thor (more on that in a bit).

"Guardians of the Galaxy" (2014)

2014 was also a turning point for the MCU because of another movie: "Guardians of the Galaxy."

"Guardians of the Galaxy" came to theatres several months after "Winter Soldier," and contributed to the MCU's new direction into quirky space stuff like "Thor: Ragnarok" and an action-comedy like "Ant-Man."

Without the MCU to back it up, this would have never been made into a movie.

Even the Dan Abnett, the writer of the Guardians of the Galaxy relaunch the films are based on, couldn't believe his work got adapted into a movie of its scale, or at all. The Guardians of the Galaxy are not exactly new in the comics - they have been around since the late 60s. But the team seen in the films (Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax, Rocket, and Groot) made their debut in 2008.

The movie's star, Chris Pratt, was quite a surprising choice as well. He's a movie star now, but just a few years ago, Pratt was known for playing a goofball on the NBC comedy "Parks and Recreation." Pratt's casting, as well as Dave Bautista and the voice actors including Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel (huge stars who, in any other movie, would be cast as Star-Lord and Drax to get more tickets in the theatre), elevated the movie.

The Guardians of the Galaxy gained prominence after the movie came out, and it was really Marvel's first high-risk movie considering they were even less well-known than characters like Thor and Iron Man.

The Guardians are used in the same way in the 2017 sequel. They're funny, they have attitudes, and sometimes they hate each other. This franchise is both light-hearted and laugh-out-loud funny, has a soundtrack from the 70s and 80s, and stars former TV actor Chris Pratt as the unexpected lead. It really made everything that followed possible.

"Ant-Man" (2015)

"Ant-Man" isn't perfect, but it certainly had a little place in sparking the MCU winning streak.

It deviated from the more dramatic tone of the other movies by being mostly a comedy. Other films have jokes in them, but definitely couldn't be described as comedies. While it follows a basic, expected formula for a superhero origin story and has a one-note villain, it never takes itself too seriously. After all, Paul Rudd, whose most iconic scene in cinema is as a surf dude in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" saying, "You sound like you're from London!" is the lead.

It is, after all, a movie called Ant-Man, about a man who can turn into the size of an ant and communicate with ants because of... technology. It knows how ridiculous the concept of this superhero is, and just goes with it.

"Ant-Man" only suffers because it's holding itself back. By not heightening the absurdity in the way original director Edgar Wright ("Baby Driver," "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World") undoubtedly intended, it doesn't feel as true to the character and the material it's working with.

"Captain America: Civil War" (2016)

None of the heroes die in "Civil War," but the movie reinforces the real stakes in this world that eventually come into play in "Infinity War."

Everything the heroes do has consequences, even when they're saving the world. The conflict between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark makes sense due to years of build up, relying on the character development in "Age of Ultron" and their standalone movies.

Pitting the two most popular heroes in the franchise against each other doesn't feel like a frenzied device put together to get people to a theatre. Instead, it's an earned story that was built up to for several years, like something you'd see play out on a television show.

This was one of the first great examples of the MCU using previous movies to build to a larger story involving careful character development, and it really worked: "Civil War" is universally considered one of the very best of the 19 movies in the MCU.

"Doctor Strange" (2016)

"Doctor Strange" is a - for lack of a better word - strange character. And the movie, which is serious but never quite takes itself too seriously, is aware of that.

It has exciting visuals unlike anything the MCU had done before, compelling source material that experiments with time and universe, and Benedict Cumberbatch is perfectly cast. In fact, Marvel Studios wanted him in the role so badly that it delayed the movie so he would have time to film it.

"Doctor Strange" tests the waters with how experimental and weird these movies can get. Its structure is so unfamiliar compared to the earlier MCU movies, and that will certainly come into play in the next "Avengers" movie, proving once again that all the pieces matter in the MCU.

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" (2017)

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" does what "Ant-Man" did by making an action comedy, but better.

It skips the origin story, and dives right into the middle of things. It assumes everyone knows how Spider-Man got his powers since there have already been two Spider-Man franchises in this young century, and they were right. We don't need to see a spider bite a teenager again, we get it. We know.

The MCU version of Spider-Man is truly the Spider-Man from the comic books. Tom Holland's Peter Parker is actually a teenager and not a 30-year-old man playing a teenager (sorry Tobey).

Parker is, like most teenagers, kind of annoying. He spits out cheesy one-liners during fights, makes movie references that often prove to be helpful, and he's faced with choosing between saving his friendly neighbourhood or getting his homework done. He doesn't preach about great power and great responsibility, which is quite refreshing for a Spider-Man movie these days!

Plus, Michael Keaton's Vulture is one of the best villains in the MCU, which struggled with that aspect for years, even in its better films like "Winter Soldier" and "Civil War."

"Thor: Ragnarok" (2017)

"Thor: Ragnarok" is an exciting, dramatic, well-crafted, and critically acclaimed film with action that makes sense both visually and inside the story it's telling. Heavily inspired by 80s action comedies like "Big Trouble in Little China," it shows Thor and his home of Asgard in a way we never saw before: not boring. The movie, a complete tonal shift from the previous Thor movies, is also one of the funniest comedies of the past decade.

And that's all thanks to the film's director, New Zealander Taika Waititi, who's set a new standard. Before "Ragnarok" came out, Waititi was known for co-directing 2014's "What We Do in the Shadows," a horror comedy that received critical acclaim and cult status.

"Ragnarok," like "Guardians of the Galaxy," takes advantage of the absurdity of space and its own characters rather than trying to make sense of it all. With Waititi's direction, the movie is inclusive and brings some much needed emotional connection to characters including Thor, Loki, Korg, the primary villain Hela, and even the Hulk. It derives its plot from the Thor comics, Norse mythology, and Planet Hulk, a story line that involved the Hulk being on a planet where he is celebrated, rather than feared and ridiculed.

"I think the overall sense that I'm trying to give to the audience and what I want the audience to leave the cinema carrying with them is a sense of joy really," Waititi said in early 2017. "Sometimes I would stop and think, 'I'm doing a movie that's got Thor and Doctor Strange and The Incredible Hulk and Loki and every character is so strange and different.' '[Captain America] Civil War' ... it's just humans, humans with human problems. Ours is creatures and beings and all these sorts of really different characters."

"Black Panther" (2018)

"Black Panther" not only gave the world one black superhero: it gave the world a handful of them, both male and female, each reminding so many people of themselves. It's also an excellent movie that will make you laugh, cry, and cheer. Marvel Studios knew it had a responsibility with its adaptation of "Black Panther," and it went so well because of who they hired, and it marked a huge moment in cinematic history.

"Black Panther," more than anything, is a movie about blackness that just happens to exist in the MCU. It elevated what superhero movies can be just like "Ragnarok," but in a completely different way: it proves that superhero movies can be fun but also have deep cultural meaning.

It highlights black actors who play fully realised characters, celebrates the beauty of Africa and its cultures, and gave black people a blockbuster movie that represented them. And it took long enough.

Directed by Ryan Coogler ("Creed"), from start to finish it's an intense action movie, spy thriller, origin story, family drama, and has more of a political statement than any other movie in the MCU before it. Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger, whose motivations make sense (but not his murderous tactics) intensifies the movie to make it something more high-stakes and emotionally involved.

"Avengers: Infinity War" (2018)

If you think you don't care about any of these characters, that changes in "Infinity War." "Infinity War" makes you feel things you never thought you would watching a studio movie. It completely shattered everyone's expectations by borrowing its ending from the comic book the story is based on. Comic book fans didn't see it coming, because they didn't think the movies would take such a big risk, while movie fans didn't even know it was possible.

While "Infinity War" isn't perfect, it is masterful storytelling considering how many characters and planets it had to work with. It fairly seamlessly weaves dozens of heroes together while introducing new characters and twists. It's clever, traumatic, funny, and thrilling, and it's so action-packed that it's nearly three-hour running time passes by faster than your lunch break.

And in addition to being a great action movie, it has changed things for the MCU's future, and a lot of this wouldn't have been possible without the movies that came before it. "Winter Soldier" and "Civil War" helped build up to a world with major consequences for its heroes; "Black Panther," "Guardians," "Doctor Strange," and "Ragnarok" established fantastical worlds that made their way into "Infinity War."

Where the MCU is going from here:

"Ant-Man and the Wasp" (July 2018):

From what we've seen in the trailer, "Ant-Man and the Wasp" will go even further in its comedic tone than the first movie.

"Captain Marvel" (March 2019)

The MCU is basically a television show, and starting in 2019 it's taking advantage of that in a way it hasn't in the past. "Captain Marvel" will take place in the 90s, as a prequel not only starring Captain Marvel, but some long-gone characters including Nick Fury, Phil Coulson, and Ronan the Accuser. By bringing back old characters in a new setting, this could pave the way for more films in the future starring characters who are dead in the current timeline. It also allows actors who might be done with the franchise to make small appearances every now and then. And it allows actors like Lee Pace who plays Ronan the Accuser to have a better chance to show off their characters in a better and new way.

Standalone Black Widow movie:

The one thing that the DCEU has on Marvel is a movie starring a female hero. 2017's "Wonder Woman" was a wonderful movie, and Marvel is following suit, but hopefully not too closely. A script for Black Widow is currently being written, and producer Kevin Feige has stated that Marvel Studios is putting a lot of time and effort into making it right: the character has, after all, been appearing in these movies for almost a decade, so she deserves a proper movie. More than 65 directors have been interviewed to take on the project, and it plans on hiring a female director.

NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marvel Cinematic Universe movies have been on a serious hot streak, and it didn't happen by accident

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It all started at the very beginning, really. Marvel Studios hired the most unlikely actor to play a superhero who wasn't very popular with the masses: Iron Man. Director Jon Favreau, originally seeking an unknown actor to play Tony Stark, cast Robert Downey Jr. in the role, with some major pushback.

# data[].attributes.headline
Deadpool 2 review: this might be the most entertaining superhero movie of 2018 - Vox

# data[].attributes.subject
Deadpool 2 review: this might be the most entertaining superhero movie of 2018 - Vox

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A guide to the season's hottest films

In the world of comic book movies, a common refrain is that a film is "for true fans." It's often deployed as a backhanded compliment, a way of stating that the movie isn't necessarily good but its mere existence is enough for a built-in audience who are content just to see their favorite characters on the silver screen; think the middling Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice or the aggressively underwhelming X-Men: Apocalypse.

But Deadpool 2, a movie definitely made for fans, made me rethink that.

Directed by former stuntman and John Wick co-director David Leitch, Deadpool 2 is sharp fun, a delirious exhibition for the bawdy, acerbic humor of Ryan Reynolds - who co-wrote this sequel in addition to starring in it - fused with blistering, inventive action sequences. There's plenty to like here, especially for comic book readers whose knowledge of the merc with a mouth and his creators may unlock another level of humor. Fans of Domino ( Zazie Beetz), a mutant with the ability to be "lucky" and a fixture in the X-Force comic books, will also be pleased with such an effortless and smile-inducing introduction to the character.

But crucially, Deadpool 2's fan service doesn't get in the way of it being an entertaining movie. Reynolds and co-writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (returning from 2016's Deadpool) understand that the film's irreverence is rooted in a fealty to the superhero genre. The film's high-density array of insults, references, and jokes works because its target audience - comic book fans especially - has a love for the drama, visuals, and fantasy of superheroes. And by providing the latter in generous amounts, Deadpool 2 has the potential to make fans of us all.

Deadpool 2's greatest strength is its restraint (no, really)

In the early1990s, Marvel's Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza borrowed copiously from a DC villain named Deathstroke/Slade Wilson to create Deadpool/Wade Wilson. But unlike his predecessor, Deadpool displayed a '90s-appropriate sense of sass, irreverence, and rage against the machine.

In other words, Deadpool was an antihero with superpowers (healing, reflexes, agility, et al.). And as 2016's Deadpool made clear, the greatest of those powers may be his complete self-awareness: The majority of jokes in Deadpool were focused on flaying the titular hero and the superhero industrial complex, whether that meant poking fun at Reynolds's career and Fox's run of bad superhero movies or inserting raunchy one-liners and superfluous gore into the movie's big action sequences in order to earn its rare-for-the-genre R rating.

It's a good shtick. Deadpool's irreverence, especially at its own expense, made it unique among its superhero movie peers. But there were moments in the first movie where the film's relentless I bet you've never seen this before attitude wasn't backed up by the movie itself, which still played right into all the standard superhero movie beats.

So it's gratifying - and, honestly, a little shocking - to see the sequel's relative restraint toward its hero. Not having to constantly prove Deadpool's edginess allows Deadpool 2 to develop a stronger story, which proves to be its greatest asset.

It might be that viewers have simply gotten used to the character, or it might be Reese, Wernick, and Reynolds editing themselves, but there's more ease around the character of Deadpool now, less of an impulse to go for the obvious joke all the time. (Or at least when the joke presents itself, like recurring jabs at Batman v Superman and one "Black" Tom Cassidy, there's more intelligence behind the reference.)

Instead, Deadpool 2 wraps its story around the bones of a romance, grounding the movie's irreverence in real emotional stakes. Deadpool and the love of his life, Vanessa ( Morena Baccarin), want to start a family, but Deadpool's career as a mercenary gets in the way. At the risk of giving away too much, I'll just say that Deadpool needs to complete one last mission to get that chance - saving a boy from a gruff time-jumping, metal-armed mutant named Cable (a fixture in Marvel's comic books, played here by Josh Brolin), who has his own motivations.

Romances in superhero movies are often dull, flimsy things, but Deadpool 2' s love story provides some much-needed ballast for the film's nonstop irreverence. It asks viewers to think about the human aspect of being super and the vulnerability that comes with it. And in delivering this romance, the film manages to feel fresh and give Deadpool some deeper meaning, by suggesting that there actually are consequences in a movie that appears not to have any.

It also provides some much-needed breathing room between the film's electric action sequences.

Deadpool 2's action sequences translate the limitless potential of comic book pages to the screen

Leitch, who directed 2017's Atomic Blonde, has a proven eye for high-impact visuals. That bears out in Deadpool 2 's action sequences, which are never too cluttered or confusing, with individual stunts given the space to breathe and exist on their own. The action sequences serve a purpose beyond stoking adrenaline, frequently doubling as important character moments.

That's especially apparent in the film's introduction of Domino. In the comics, Domino has the power to alter the probability around her, essentially making her supernaturally lucky. But depending on who's writing and drawing her, the comics' depiction of this amorphous power has been inconsistent: Her luck comes off as more or less just making things happen - bullets hit, or lightning strikes, or she's saved by the slightest of nudges. But she comes alive onscreen, as Leitch methodically unfurls her powers with a steady hand, zooming in on each little flick of movement and then peeling back for a jaw-dropping reveal.

Domino isn't the only new mutant who just about steals the show. Julian Dennison's Russell is the pyrokinetic child at the center of this whole drama, and Dennison (a breakout presence in Taika Waititi's 2016 film Hunt For the Wilderpeople) imbues him with fragility, broken up by flashes of rapacious anger. Leitch's visuals match the performance beat for beat, imbuing Russell's explosive sequences with an unpredictable fervor suited to a mutant in the throes of adolescence.

Leitch's action sequences don't rely on mindless punching or grating dubstep music cues - unless he's making a point about mindless punching and grating dubstep music cues. Rather, they're individually tailored to the needs of specific scenes and specific characters, and are far more impactful for it. Each superpowered character, whether it's Deadpool and his healing abilities or Cable and his time-jumping technology, gets special attention to just what makes him or her so super.

Translating the limitless potential of comic book pages - comparatively free of the restrictions, budgetary and otherwise, that can hamper action filmmaking - into something awe-inspiring onscreen is a lot easier said than done. But Leitch makes it look crisp and effortless, and that's a large part of what makes his and his writers' vision in Deadpool 2 better than the original.

Deadpool's massive success was in large part due to its irreverence for its own genre, its willingness to take shots, some raunchier than others, at superhero flicks in general. However, it didn't really offer an alternative to what it was insulting; nor was it distinctly better than its targets at the things it made fun of them for. Deadpool 2 is more ambitiou s. It doesn't just dare to make fun of the genre - it does so while showing off what actually makes a good superhero film. The result is a superhero movie so tightly made and brilliantly entertaining that even Deadpool himself would have trouble finding fault with it.

Deadpool 2 opens in theaters on Friday, May 18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deadpool 2 might be the most entertaining superhero movie of the year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A guide to the season's hottest films In the world of comic book movies, a common refrain is that a film is "for true fans."

# data[].attributes.headline
Logan Lucky: How Interactions Between Genres Led to an Oscar Nomination for James Mangold's Superhero Film - MovieMaker Magazine

# data[].attributes.subject
Logan Lucky: How Interactions Between Genres Led to an Oscar Nomination for James Mangold's Superhero Film - MovieMaker Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this video essay, Evan Puschak of Nerdwriter seeks to examine the many different ways by which genre conventions can be examined, as well as how Logan fits in to these categories.

The first example of genre deconstruction that he examines is burlesque, a ridiculous parody of genre convention. Examples of burlesque include the comedies of Mel Brooks as well as more serious films, such as True Grit, which uses examples of comedy to make us realize the ridiculousness of idealized genre tropes-even something as simple as a cowboy leaping up on to a horse with ease. The next type of film that Puschak examines is that of the nostalgic film, which looks upon genre with reverence-though it should always be trying to do something fresh and new. Both L.A. Confidential and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang are examples that Puschak uses to highlight how nostalgic cinema should balance its reverence with the ability to take established storytelling points and use them in a new and unique manner.

From this point, the video delves even deeper to examine demythologization. With Chinatown and No Country for Old Men as the primary point of emphasis, Puschak examines the type of film where genre informs a certain type of story with certain audience expectation that the film instead does not deliver upon. These two films disregard their protagonists' quest for understanding, instead seeking to show that the 'righteous hero' does not have all the answers and cannot always succeed in the way that he hopes to. The last point of transformation is the type of film that seeks not only to demythologize but also to reaffirm the myth, to show just why it is that we need this 'myth' to exist. Previous super hero movies have done this, such as The Dark Knight, in which the primary message is that true heroism is a lie that we tell ourselves until it becomes a universal truth.

With Logan, however, it's not so clear which of these categories it aligns itself with-there are elements of all. The success of Logan, and the reason that it scored a generally genre-averse Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, is that it draws across genres to provide a fresh perspective in which we can examine the superhero film. Mangold's film is primarily inspired by the western genre-highlighted by the usage of a scene from Shane that he directly shows as well as numerous other parallels to the plot and structure of Shane. Mangold even directly references an encounter with a kind family in Shane; only, in his film, the family is brutally slaughtered by a clone of Logan. This is both a deconstruction of what Shane is doing as a western and a reaffirmation of the ultimate point of that film-that violence "complicates heroics" and that there is "no living with the killing."

In this way, Logan allows itself to reckon with violence in a way that no other superhero movie really has-by working to construct its own story by deconstructing a larger one. Mangold examines the bruised psyche of someone whose only source of life is in his ability to take someone else's. Every superhero film revels in this type of violence, albeit each one does so in its own neutered way, only able to show as much as a PG-13 rating will allow. The violence in Logan deconstructs the method by which genre tends to avoid the complicating factors behind 'fantasy.' The dogma that each superhero lives by crumbles when confronted with the truth of the world. This is an idea very much at home in the western, an idea that Sam Peckinpah has sunk his teeth in to many times-that the code the 'west' lives by is fallible and flimsy. It is even an idea that Christopher Nolan examined in The Dark Knight, where the Joker attempts to make the Caped Crusader break his one rule. With Logan, however, the difference is that the pain behind the violence is palpable, making the film more Peckinpah than Nolan. The central focus of the film is a life wasted; a life spent meaninglessly going through the same motions that populate every superhero film. Logan himself has reached the end point, the point at which every piece of superhero heroics rings hollow without the weight of meaning behind it.

Puschak ends his video by looking at the final sequences of Logan, where the film seemingly gives in to the trappings of its primary genre. The climactic rampage of superhero heroics that Jackman's Logan indulges himself in is the moment at which the film "reaffirms the myth even after exposing it." It is a moment that may be disappointing to some viewers but it is the point at which writers Mangold, Scott Frank and Michael Green attempt to engage in conversation with both themselves and the audience that they are writing for. They seems to know that a superhero movie cannot, by its very nature, "demythologize" the superhero myth. Logan, instead, opens itself up to a dialogue, a conversation about the ideas that we hold close and seeks to find a way to reckon with them without casting them aside.

Logan joins many of its fellow Oscar nominees in its interrogation of genre and its constant willingness to subvert what we expect. The Shape of Water is another notable example of this, taking the classic trope of the hapless lovelorn monster, such as King Kong or The Creature from the Black Lagoon and flipping this on its head. Del Toro's film is more concerned with a more in-depth relationship, one in which both parties are willing-a romance. Get Out pushes back against, among many social issues, one of the most egregious horror clichés-that the black character dies first. In Jordan Peele's acclaimed horror film, the African-American experience in all of media is filtered through a singular horror film, one in which we follow an African-American character through the ringer and out the other side, defying our expectations every step of the way. Even films like Lady Bird and Phantom Thread deconstruct the recognizable clichés of their respective protagonists-the teenage girl coming of age and the tortured artist.

Logan is representative of a 2017 where we are no longer satisfied with the stories that we love. We need more. More stories, different perspectives on the stories we love, more representation and more meaning. The heroics at the end of Logan, the affirmation of the idea of heroism, would be meaningless without the full-bodied deconstruction of genre that came before it. MM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Logan Lucky: How Interactions Between Genres Led to an Oscar Nomination for James Mangold's Superhero Film - MovieMaker Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this video essay, Evan Puschak of Nerdwriter seeks to examine the many different ways by which genre conventions can be examined, as well as how Logan fits in to these categories. The first example of genre deconstruction that he examines is burlesque, a ridiculous parody of genre convention.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Historic Success Of "Black Panther" Should Change Hollywood Forever

# data[].attributes.subject
The Historic Success Of "Black Panther" Should Change Hollywood Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tearing through the box office - and Hollywood preconceptions - with a pair of vibranium claws, Black Panther opened this weekend with $201.8 million domestically over its first three days, including Sunday's actual returns. (That's up significantly from Sunday morning's three-day projection of $192 million.) With an additional $169 million in international grosses since Tuesday, the movie has already made an astonishing $370.8 million worldwide, at least. (And that total should climb significantly on Monday due to the Presidents Day holiday; as of Monday morning, Disney is projecting a $235 million four-day domestic total.)

Marvel Studios' first black superhero film - and the first mainstream black superhero movie at all since 2008's Hancock - earned rapturous reviews, and early projections suggested the film would be a significant hit. Instead, Black Panther ended up as no less than a watershed moment in Hollywood history:

The previous record was held by Deadpool's $132.4 million debut in 2016. Black Panther has also easily surpassed in three days Deadpool's $152.2 million domestic record for the four-day Presidents Day weekend. It's worth reiterating that Black Panther made this much money in February, taking in more in a single weekend than several of the month's all-time top grossers earned in their entire theatrical runs.

The previous record was held by Captain America: Civil War's $179.1 million domestic debut in 2017.

The previous record was held by Straight Outta Compton's $66.3 million worldwide debut in 2015.

The previous record was held by F. Gary Gray's $98.8 million debut for 2017's The Fate of the Furious. (Gray still holds the global record of $541.9 million, due to the Fast and Furious franchise's colossal popularity abroad.)

Black Panther's rare A+ CinemaScore is a strong indicator that word-of-mouth should lead the film to continue breaking records for the duration of its theatrical run. Reports of totally sold-out theaters have been common, and demand was so high over the weekend that many multiplex theaters simply choose to play Black Panther on practically every available screen.

The outpouring of rabid enthusiasm makes plain that Black Panther's triumph at the box office means more than just outstripping financial milestones. Much as 2012's The Hunger Games made abundantly clear that a female-fronted action movie could be a global sensation - and paved the way for Wonder Woman's historic box office run last summer - Black Panther has demolished the persistent and pernicious idea that movies starring black actors, made by black filmmakers, and telling black stories are niche projects incapable of making blockbuster money.

It will take many months, if not years, to discern how (or whether) Black Panther's success has affected real change within Hollywood. But what is immediately clear is that the reverberations of the movie's impact should be felt well beyond the scope of a single superhero movie. Here's how.

Black Panther should explode the careers of the people who made it.

For the weeks leading up to Black Panther's debut in theaters, its stars - including Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong'o, and Danai Gurira - were everywhere promoting the film, in interviews, on social media, and at glamorous red carpet premieres on at least four continents. It's the kind of massive global exposure that black actors who aren't Will Smith, Morgan Freeman, Eddie Murphy, or Samuel L. Jackson rarely if ever receive.

Many actors have joined the Marvel Cinematic Universe with tattered careers (Robert Downey Jr.), struggling film careers (Chris Pratt, Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston), or perfectly fine film careers nonetheless limited by the prejudices of who was allowed to headline a major action movie (Scarlett Johansson), and then witnessed their professional fortunes blossom when nourished by Marvel Studios' global popularity. They've gone on to headline everything from gigantic action franchises to challenging, awards-y dramas, and the same should be true for Black Panther's actors. Consider that while Nyong'o has had standout motion capture and voiceover roles in Star Wars: The Force Awakens and The Jungle Book, Black Panther is only the second live-action movie she's made since winning an Academy Award four years ago for 12 Years a Slave.

Black Panther has also proven to be a fabulous showcase for costume designer Ruth E. Carter, production designer Hannah Beachler, and cinematographer Rachel Morrison, all of whom should now be so high in demand that they'll have to turn down work - probably so they can make whatever Black Panther's director, Ryan Coogler, wants to do next. Marvel has a trickier track record launching filmmakers outside its walls; even major successes like Guardians of the Galaxy's James Gunn have elected to keep making Marvel movies rather than branch beyond the studio. But the arc of Coogler's career - the acclaimed Sundance darling Fruitvale Station, the acclaimed Rocky spinoff Creed, and now the acclaimed Black Panther - have burnished his bona fides both as an artist and as someone who can successfully navigate the tricky demands of high-budget filmmaking. He should be able to make whatever he wants at any studio he wants, and his agents should be making absolutely sure his payment is commensurate with his abilities and box office performance.

Black Panther should dismantle the myth that movies with black stars never play well outside of the US.

It would be foolish to pretend that racism and prejudice don't affect how well movies about minorities play in any part of the world. And it is true that some of the biggest movies with black stars in recent years - Get Out, Hidden Figures, Straight Outta Compton, and Ride Along - had significantly lower grosses internationally than in the US and Canada, whereas typically the opposite is true.

Black Panther, however, opened in 48 foreign territories over the past week, with the full weight of Disney's global promotional machine in support. With three major markets - Russia, Japan, and China - still to come, the movie has already earned more internationally in six days than any of those aforementioned films earned in their entire foreign theatrical runs. Granted, none of those films enjoyed anything close to the global procession Black Panther has received. At its widest worldwide release, Get Out played in 40 territories, and it slowly built up to that number after it had been in domestic theaters for almost three months. Hidden Figures and Straight Outta Compton had even smaller international rollouts, maxing out at just 19 territories. Ride Along never played in more than 10.

A sprawling network of distributors made these decisions, supposedly attuned to the specific cultural nuances of their respective territories. A movie about black women working at NASA, or a rap group born from South-Central Los Angeles, were thought to be too niche for much of the rest of the world, and trying to market them for a more thorough global release would just be a waste of money.

But the Fast and Furious franchise, which almost compulsively references its roots in Los Angeles and boasts a widely diverse cast, has consistently churned out the biggest hit movies in the world. Disney has recently enjoyed enormous global success with culturally specific animated features Coco and Moana. And then there's the fact that movies with black casts have played incredibly well internationally for decades, including comedies (1996's The Nutty Professor, 2006's Big Momma's House 2), crime thrillers (2006's Inside Man, 2007's American Gangster), action comedies (1987's Beverly Hills Cop II), romantic comedies (2005's Hitch), period action comedy thrillers (2012's Django Unchained), and prestige dramas (2013's Best Picture winner 12 Years a Slave, which more that doubled its domestic gross internationally).

If these films and others like them couldn't convince foreign distribution executives that it's worth investing in a major global release for films with black actors - films they know will be hits in the US - it's unclear whether Black Panther will either. But it's also more unmistakable than ever that those executives also risk letting giant piles of money rot away in the pit of antiquated prejudices.

Black Panther should boost studio support for upcoming movies starring people of color.

Legendary Pictures, Sanja Bucko / Warner Bros. Pictures, Sony Pictures Animation, Photo Credit: Atsushi Nishijima / Atsushi Nishijima

Clockwise from top left: Pacific Rim Uprising, Crazy Rich Asians, A Wrinkle in Time, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and Breaking In.

Fortunately, Black Panther is far from the only major feature film that will showcase people of color in 2018. A sampling: Disney will release the fantasy epic A Wrinkle in Time with Oprah Winfrey, Mindy Kaling, Storm Reid, and Michael Peña on March 9. Universal will release the monster epic Pacific Rim Uprising with John Boyega on March 23, and the home invasion thriller Breaking In with Gabrielle Union on May 11. Warner Bros. has the romantic dramedy Crazy Rich Asians with Constance Wu and Michelle Yeoh on Aug. 17. Twentieth Century Fox has the YA sci-fi adventure film The Darkest Minds with Amandla Stenberg on Aug. 3, and the crime thriller Widows with Viola Davis and Michelle Rodriguez on Nov. 16. And Sony Pictures has the vigilante thriller The Equalizer 2 with Denzel Washington on July 20, and the animated feature Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse with Shameik Moore ( Dope) voicing Miles Morales on Dec. 14.

All of these studios should spend this week reevaluating the scope and ambition of their promotional and international distribution plans for these films, and perhaps add a zero to the marketing budgets. There is an immense population ravenous for the stories these movies are telling; treating them as niche projects would be a disservice to the films and their potential audience.

Black Panther should lead to more major franchise movies - and more movies in general - starring and made by people of color.

Marvel Studios, Jonathan Olley / Lucasfilm Ltd., Warner Bros. Pictures

Black Panther, Solo: A Star Wars Story, and Justice League.

After Black Panther, Marvel Studios will release Avengers: Infinity War on May 4, Ant-Man and the Wasp on July 6, Captain Marvel on March 8, 2019, the untitled fourth Avengers film on May 3, 2019, and (with Sony Pictures) the untitled Spider-Man: Homecoming sequel on July 5, 2019. Two of those movies feature female heroes in the title, and each of them boasts wonderfully diverse casts. But none of them have people of color at their center.

That may change soon. Marvel Studios' chief Kevin Feige has remained tight-lipped about the company's plans beyond 2019. We know a third Guardians of the Galaxy is in the works, and Marvel's commissioned a script for a Black Widow movie with Johansson, but beyond that, there's just been mere speculation, including the tantalizing possibility of an all-female team-up film, and the plainly obvious inevitability of many sequels to Black Panther.

But what about a spinoff movie about Black Panther's phalanx of formidable female warriors, the Dora Milaje? Or a movie about Tessa Thompson's character Valkyrie from Thor: Ragnarok? Or movies based on Ms. Marvel (aka Kamala Khan, the company's first Muslim hero in an ongoing series), or Miss America (aka America Chavez, Marvel's first Latinx LGBT character)? If Marvel Studios can make a movie featuring a talking raccoon and monosyllabic tree-person into a worldwide blockbuster, certainly there could be room for these characters, too.

Beyond Marvel, Lucasfilm could give a serious look at a standalone Lando Calrissian movie with Donald Glover after Solo: A Star Wars Story opens May 25, and once Disney's merger with Twentieth Century Fox is complete, why not a solo movie about Storm? Warner Bros. has been awfully quiet about its solo movie for Cyborg (Ray Fisher) since announcing it in 2014.

Then there are all the possible movies featuring people of color that we never hear about, ones not based on established intellectual property, ones that live only in the notebooks and laptops and daydreams of filmmakers who never bothered to pitch them to the overwhelmingly white, straight, male studio executive ranks because they thought they'd just fall on deaf ears - or be shown the door. But now that the secret of Wakanda has been revealed to the world, each of those filmmakers should feel inspired to write and pitch and pitch again, the stories they thought could never get made. The iron is hot, hotter than it's ever been. Now is the time to strike.

Adam B. Vary is a senior film reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Los Angeles.

Contact Adam B. Vary at adam.vary@buzzfeed.com.

Got a confidential tip? Submit it here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Historic Success Of "Black Panther" Should Change Hollywood Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tearing through the box office - and Hollywood preconceptions - with a pair of vibranium claws, Black Panther opened this weekend with $201.8 million domestically over its first three days, including Sunday's actual returns. (That's up significantly from Sunday morning's three-day projection of $192 million.)

# data[].attributes.headline
‘Black Panther’ Is Marvel’s First Genuine Masterpiece - The Ringer

# data[].attributes.subject
‘Black Panther’ Is Marvel’s First Genuine Masterpiece - The Ringer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's talk about hunger. As wonderful as Black Panther is-and it's as good as we'd hoped, maybe even better-nothing in it is a match for the carefree, infectious joy displayed last week by a group of middle school students from Atlanta's Ron Clark Academy. Maybe you've seen them. They went viral after videos of their celebratory dancing on school cafeteria tables hit Instagram, then Twitter, then the news. The students had just found out that they-like middle and high school students across the country, boosted by fundraising campaigns and the wise support of their principals, teachers, parents, and local community leaders-were taking a school trip to see Black Panther for free. Fundraisers to send students like these to see the movie have become a nationwide trend: the #BlackPantherChallenge. Over $300,000 has been raised to date.

That's not the sole reason Black Panther seems poised to trounce box office records this weekend, to say nothing of its other benchmarks, like exceeding the Fandango presales of every other Marvel movie to date, or being one of Twitter's most talked-about movies of 2017-despite not coming out until 2018. But it helps. If we're going to have a conversation about what makes Black Panther feel so essential, we may as well start there. We can do the whole song and dance of spelling out the basic reasons for the movie's importance: what it means for Hollywood that a project of this size, with this budget, and with a nearly all-black cast, can finally seem like a worthwhile risk for a major studio and the timely impact of a movie about a mythical African kingdom, a so-called "shithole country," to be released at this moment in our political history. The movie is a symbolic solution to issues that, when Black Panther was just a rumor, a dream getting tossed to and fro in a Marvel Studios boardroom, we didn't think could grow so much more dire.

All of that matters. All of it is true and worth reckoning with. Does any of it justify the goofiness of Michael B. Jordan, one of the movie's stars, cosplaying as a member of the actual Black Panther Party on the cover of British GQ? Complicated. Maybe a radical political organization like the Panthers would have preferred to have been left out of your corporate franchise narrative, pun or no pun. And would any of the movie's representational power still matter if Black Panther weren't any good? Again: complicated. The social politics of it all are eerie and dense; those politics, twined with history, aesthetics, the New York Times push alerts I keep ignoring, the open-all-hours despondent chaos of my Twitter feed, and on and on, is even more fraught. It's possible to love Black Panther but be conflicted, but still love it, but still be conflicted, all the while sharing in the unmitigated joy of its existence. "The film arrives as a corporate product," writes Carvell Wallace, beautifully, for The New York Times, "but we are using it for our own purposes." I like thinking of Black Panther in those terms: not just as a movie you watch, nor as a challenge to the woke box-checking of the political minefield we call the internet, but as something we can use.

On the other hand, it has to work as a movie, too. It has to be a banger. The clapbacks have to be good. The fights have to be great. I'm trying to imagine being Ryan Coogler, the movie's 31-year-old superstar director, at the start of this project, tasked with a job as monumental as this, burdened by a keen sense of the inherent inability to please everyone, and still having to make the movie. The central triumph of Black Panther, though it's merely one of many, is that the story Coogler and his cowriter, Joe Robert Cole, have devised is even better and richer than could have been imagined-not only because it owes so much to racial questions of the kind the Marvel Universe hasn't encountered before, but also because we're 17 movies deep into said universe and well versed in its foibles and missed opportunities.

Black Panther is a feat in its own right. It is very much the Black Panther tale dreamed up by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in the 1960s, a retelling of the origin story in which Wakanda becomes the sole possessor of vibranium, an indestructible alien element from a fallen meteorite, and over time becomes the most technologically advanced society in the world, in part by cutting itself off from said world, hiding under the cloak of unassuming third-world poverty.

The story of the movie, taking its cue from the comics over the years, involves precisely this question of isolation, and whether Wakanda is better off alone. The trouble starts when T'Chaka, the king of Wakanda, and the current Black Panther, is killed in an attack on the U.N. in Vienna, a plot point familiar from 2016's Captain America: Civil War. When he dies, his son, T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), rises to power. The robot-armed villain Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis), meanwhile, is trying to break into Wakanda and steal its resources with a small team of bad guys, among them Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), by his side. Who Killmonger is to Wakanda I'll leave it to the movie to reveal. Suffice it to say this gnarly, muscled Annapolis grad from America has been trained in bringing down royal dynasties, and he's got his eye on T'Challa's throne-and the smarts, as well as the thirst for vengeance, needed to get there.

It's a complicated plot centered on the question of what Wakanda is and-most urgently-what it means, not only to the Wakandans themselves nor even to Africans broadly, but to blacks everywhere. Imagine knowing there was a black utopia, a place at the root of all blackness, self-sufficient and untouched by slavery or colonialism. It's a fantasy: a reversal of history. "Wakanda itself is a dream state," says director Ava DuVernay to The New York Times, "a place that's been in the hearts and minds and spirits of black people since we were brought here in chains." The question that envelops Black Panther, in other words, is a question baked, poignantly and also fraughtly, into its script. What Wakanda-a booming black metropolis that mixes technological Afro-futurity with the spiritual and ancestral past-means to the black people within the movie is analogous to what it means to us outside of it.

Incidentally, I've noticed in comment sections and the occasional dumb tweet that this idea can be misread to suggest that the premise of Black Panther is one in which black greatness can exist only in fantasy. I see it differently. The power of Wakanda, to me, is in the idea that within destitution and historical violence can lurk great power. Wakanda puts up a literal front that effaces its true beauty; what appears impoverished is, in fact, the seat of technological advancement. This is different from the usual Third World discourse, and it's certainly different from the history of colonization, in which the primacy of Africa as a hub of civilization, rather than as merely a victim of it, is often erased.

"I'm from a place that I'd never been to and that nobody who I loved had been to because they couldn't afford to go," says Coogler, who grew up hearing about Africa but went for the first time only late in the process of making his previous film, Creed. "So I would hear stories from them about this place that they didn't even know anything about, and those stories were a counterbalance to the awful things that we did hear about them." Coogler spent about three weeks traveling Africa as he did research for the film. "I truly felt that seeing it for myself was necessary for my growth as a human being."

The story of black American spiritual renewal and voyages to Africa isn't a new one; entire movements and styles, from Black Zionism in the 19th century to the kente cloth durags I grew up seeing in Irvington, New Jersey, were born of this idea. It's not even new to movies, really- Coming to America being a prominent, humorous riff on black Americans' imaginative curiosity about Africa and Africans, and Hype Williams's Belly, which features a character played by Nas expresses a desire to leave behind a life of violence to go to Africa and find his roots. But that's not the same as seeing it in a Marvel movie. And Coogler, smartly, revels in the astonishing, symbolic beauty of it. Coogler's Wakanda is rife with powerful women, including the army of speared warrior women known as the Dora Milaje, who serve the king in name but, based on their fierceness alone, would seem to serve no master. Has Grace Jones hailed from Wakanda this whole time and none of us knew? The gangbusters quartet of Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, Angela Bassett, and Letitia Wright play T'Challa's love interest, war general, mother, and sister, respectively, but each woman stands on her own, separate from her ties to T'Challa. Each woman is as modern as the gleaming, sky-high buildings or the hyperadvanced rail system devised by Shuri, T'Challa's sister, who is in charge of the country's vibranium-based technologies.

For all that's new, there's old again: The act of becoming king is still rooted in old rituals, down to a fight on the rocky cliffs of a waterfall in which the incumbent Black Panther, stripped of his legendary powers and reduced to being a mere man, must defend the seat from a challenger. T'Challa wins that battle, but he risks losing the war. What makes Black Panther feel different from other Marvel movies is that the world it imagines, the fights it insists must be fought, are grounded in real questions with immediate analogues that harken back to an entire discourse of black activism and thought. Other superhero movies could take a page from Black Panther's book. How much better would most superhero movies be if, rather than fall back on the plain anonymity of World War I and II villains, they rooted themselves in a live, urgent sense of culture? What if Christopher Nolan's Batman films had anchored themselves in a genuine sense of economic disparity, rather than continually paying lip service to that idea through a vaguely conceived millionaire and his abuses of power? What if the Avengers' Ultron had more of a palpable fear of public surveillance? Seeing Bruce Wayne or even 007 get a tour of their new toys, meanwhile, is always fun, as tropes go, but imagine that those toys, and the monied, technologically advanced societies they imply, had become possible only through an element that had the power to reverse the course of colonial history. Wouldn't those tools seem more powerful, the stakes in their design that much higher?

That's what it feels like to watch Black Panther. Coogler's unique skill, visible from his first feature, Fruitvale Station (2013), about the 2009 shooting of Oscar Grant III in Oakland, is his ability to instill a movie with a sense of history and, even more remarkably, a sense of place. Fruitvale is very much an Oakland story. The director's tremendous follow-up, Creed (2015), a sequel to the Rocky franchise (again starring Michael B. Jordan), is a Philly story.

Black Panther is, obviously, a Wakanda story, meaning that its images ripple with Wakanda's specific rhythms and textures; characters' in-jokes and senses of humor seem to open up untold bits of history among them; rituals feel genuinely ritualistic, lived in and specific to the people and the place. It's convincing in the way that the struggles between young Creed and old man Rocky became the foundation of one of the most moving and unlikely screen relationships in recent memory. Their shared history, evoked in the pictures on the walls, the scratches in the furniture, and the gestures and looks that divvy up the emotional beats of the story, is what creates that bond. Coogler takes history-geographic, interpersonal, textbook-seriously. But that's merely a personality trait. What makes his films a cut above is his ability to give that history an afterlife in images, to weld those images into a story, to fashion that story into something larger than life-larger, even, than movies.

Black Panther may be Coogler's first superhero movie, but in truth, the heroes at the center of his films, including Oscar Grant, have always felt bigger than their real-life counterparts, if only because of Coogler's willingness to lean into treating them like the heroes of a movie. It's not that simple, but maybe it is. Even Fruitvale, which lacks the muscled opera of Creed and the big-budget wizardry of Black Panther, is a movie whose contrived sense of last rites seems to contradict the realistic look of its images. But the movie isn't totally interested in outright realism. It's a precisely structured, unsubtle, larger-than-life tragedy, the kind of tribute you give to a man whose fate stood for more than one man's fate. That comes off in large part because of Jordan, who is again the standout actor in Panther, and who has found, in Coogler, the perfect collaborator. In Panther, Jordan's pain is the movie's pain, his rage the movie's rage. He's the villain, but not really. The movie takes the grand risk of seeing him with sympathy, not merely because he's human, but because he, too, is a black man in search of a home, and a history-like so many of us. He has strayed, but the movie goes out of its way to give his feelings legitimacy. The ideas that sustain him-about what Wakanda owes to the world-are the opposite of villainy.

I admittedly have less at stake in whether Black Panther is a good superhero movie. I just wanted it to be a good movie. And I wanted us to be a good audience: thoughtful, fair, fervent, excited. I think we're all winning, on all fronts. The most radical thing a Black Panther movie could have done is ask what Wakanda means-and what it owes-to the race. And that's what Coogler's passionate, funny, dexterous movie asks, over and over again, both to its characters and to its audience. It's a mighty question, and it feels like it's coming alive in almost every one of Coogler's images: in their sense of the elements, in their dramatic and physical grandeur, in their beauty. Black Panther crouching in trees to pounce on a team of sex traffickers is an image with force; so are the images of T'Challa fighting for the throne in water so viscous and alive it seems fit to swallow him back up into the earth. Wakanda is sequestered for a reason. Its ability to resist being colonized, like its neighbors, isn't arbitrary or accidental. How do you make a multimillion-dollar Marvel movie out of that moral complexity? There's no need to wonder any longer. Coogler has made that movie. And it's Marvel's first genuine masterpiece.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Black Panther' Is Marvel's First Genuine Masterpiece

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's talk about hunger. As wonderful as Black Panther is-and it's as good as we'd hoped, maybe even better-nothing in it is a match for the carefree, infectious joy displayed last week by a group of middle school students from Atlanta's Ron Clark Academy. Maybe you've seen them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Kevin Feige Isn't Worried About Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Kevin Feige Isn't Worried About Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Superhero movies have essentially become a genre unto themselves in recent years and Marvel Studios is a large reason for that. Marvel now makes up to three films in a year, and when you add in the other superhero movies that get made, we end up with quite a lot of them. However, Marvel Studios chief Kevin Feige isn't worried about people being burned out by superhero movies. Just because they're all superhero stories, doesn't mean they all have to be the same. As long as the films tell different sorts of stories with different sorts of characters, superhero movies should be fine. In his words...

That's the reason we make the movies we make and the way we make them. For years, predating the history of Marvel Studios itself, people asked me about superhero fatigue and if it was a fad or a phase. I say, if they're all different, if they're all special, nobody will get tired of these things before we at Marvel Studios will, since we live and breathe these things 24 hours a day. You make films like Thor: Ragnarok, like Homecoming, like Guardians of the Galaxy, certainly like Panther, and the upcoming Infinity War to keep it interesting and change it up. And we will continue to do that.

One of the reasons that comic book superheroes have remained so popular over the years is likely in part because of the wild diversity between them. Different sorts of characters lend themselves to different sorts of comics, and each comic book finds an audience, even if the overall comic book audience isn't interested in every book. The same thing is happening when those characters are brought to the big screen. You might be a fan of a certain character, but you could also just end up liking Ant-Man because you're a fan of heist movies or Captain America: The Winter Soldier because you like films with political intrigue.

But of course, there's the added benefit, for Marvel, that if you do get attached to a particular character or story, you might come back and watch the other films to see how it plays out. Like when you used to (or still do) buy a comic book you never read because a character you liked was making a guest appearance.

Not every movie is designed to appeal to every audience, and the fact is that remains true even among Marvel movies and superhero movies in general. Even for those of us that do see them all, the way they change things up keeps us from getting bored. It also, as Kevin Feige tells Vulture, keeps the people at Marvel from getting bored.

RELATED: 9 Big Things We Want to See in the MCU in 2018

With Marvel's next film, Black Panther it appears we'll be getting something different yet again from Marvel. Early reviews are very strong and many point out the uniqueness of the film beyond anything else. We'll all get to see it February 12.

Subscribe To Topics You're Interested In

Subscribe To Topics You're Interested In

Blended From Around The Web

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Kevin Feige Isn't Worried About Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Superhero movies have essentially become a genre unto themselves in recent years and Marvel Studios is a large reason for that. Marvel now makes up to three films in a year, and when you add in the other superhero movies that get made, we went up with quite a lot of them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first movie I remember seeing in a theater had a black hero. Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams, didn't have any superpowers, but he ran his own city. That movie, the 1980 Star Wars sequel The Empire Strikes Back, introduced Calrissian as a complicated human being who still did the right thing. That's one reason I grew up knowing I could be the same.

If you are reading this and you are white, seeing people who look like you in mass media probably isn't something you think about often. Every day, the culture reflects not only you but nearly infinite versions of you-executives, poets, garbage collectors, soldiers, nurses and so on. The world shows you that your possibilities are boundless. Now, after a brief respite, you again have a President.

Those of us who are not white have considerably more trouble not only finding representation of ourselves in mass media and other arenas of public life, but also finding representation that indicates that our humanity is multifaceted. Relating to characters onscreen is necessary not merely for us to feel seen and understood, but also for others who need to see and understand us. When it doesn't happen, we are all the poorer for it.

This is one of the many reasons Black Panther is significant. What seems like just another entry in an endless parade of superhero movies is actually something much bigger. It hasn't even hit theaters yet and its cultural footprint is already enormous. It's a movie about what it means to be black in both America and Africa-and, more broadly, in the world. Rather than dodge complicated themes about race and identity, the film grapples head-on with the issues affecting modern-day black life. It is also incredibly entertaining, filled with timely comedy, sharply choreographed action and gorgeously lit people of all colors. "You have superhero films that are gritty dramas or action comedies," director Ryan Coogler tells TIME. But this movie, he says, tackles another important genre: "Superhero films that deal with issues of being of African descent."

Black Panther is the 18th movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a franchise that has made $13.5 billion at the global box office over the past 10 years. (Marvel is owned by Disney.) It may be the first megabudget movie-not just about superheroes, but about anyone-to have an African-American director and a predominantly black cast. Hollywood has never produced a blockbuster this splendidly black.

The movie, out Feb. 16, comes as the entertainment industry is wrestling with its toxic treatment of women and persons of color. This rapidly expanding reckoning-one that reflects the importance of representation in our culture-is long overdue. Black Panther is poised to prove to Hollywood that African-American narratives have the power to generate profits from all audiences. And, more important, that making movies about black lives is part of showing that they matter.

The invitation to the Black Panther premiere read "Royal attire requested." Yet no one showed up to the Dolby Theatre on Hollywood Boulevard on Jan. 29 looking like an extra from a British costume drama. On display instead were crowns of a different sort-ascending head wraps made of various African fabrics. Oscar winner Lupita Nyong'o wore her natural hair tightly wrapped above a resplendent bejeweled purple gown. Men, including star Chadwick Boseman and Coogler, wore Afrocentric patterns and clothing, dashikis and boubous. Co-star Daniel Kaluuya, an Oscar nominee for his star turn in Get Out, arrived wearing a kanzu, the formal tunic of his Ugandan ancestry.

After the Obama era, perhaps none of this should feel groundbreaking. But it does. In the midst of a regressive cultural and political moment fueled in part by the white-nativist movement, the very existence of Black Panther feels like resistance. Its themes challenge institutional bias, its characters take unsubtle digs at oppressors, and its narrative includes prismatic perspectives on black life and tradition. The fact that Black Panther is excellent only helps.

Back when the film was announced, in 2014, nobody knew that it would be released into the fraught climate of President Trump's America-where a thriving black future seems more difficult to see. Trump's reaction to the Charlottesville chaos last summer equated those protesting racism with violent neo-Nazis defending a statue honoring a Confederate general. Immigrants from Mexico, Central America and predominantly Muslim countries are some of the President's most frequent scapegoats. So what does it mean to see this film, a vision of unmitigated black excellence, in a moment when the Commander in Chief reportedly, in a recent meeting, dismissed the 54 nations of Africa as "sh-thole countries"?

As is typical of the climate we're in, Black Panther is already running into its share of trolls-including a Facebook group that sought, unsuccessfully, to flood the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes with negative ratings of the film. That Black Panther signifies a threat to some is unsurprising. A fictional African King with the technological war power to destroy you-or, worse, the wealth to buy your land-may not please someone who just wants to consume the latest Marvel chapter without deeper political consideration. Black Panther is emblematic of the most productive responses to bigotry: rather than going for hearts and minds of racists, it celebrates what those who choose to prohibit equal representation and rights are ignoring, willfully or not. They are missing out on the full possibility of the world and the very America they seek to make "great." They cannot stop this representation of it. When considering the folks who preemptively hate Black Panther and seek to stop it from influencing American culture, I echo the response that the movie's hero T'Challa is known to give when warned of those who seek to invade his home country: Let them try.

The history of black power and the movement that bore its name can be traced back to the summer of 1966. The activist Stokely Carmichael was searching for something more than mere liberty. To him, integration in a white-dominated America meant assimilation by default. About one year after the assassination of Malcolm X and the Watts riots in Los Angeles, Carmichael took over the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee from John Lewis. Carmichael decided to move the organization away from a philosophy of pacifism and escalate the group's militancy to emphasize armed self-defense, black business ownership and community control.

In June of that year, James Meredith, an activist who four years earlier had become the first black person admitted to Ole Miss, started the March Against Fear, a long walk of protest from Memphis to Mississippi, alone. On the second day of the march, he was wounded by a gunman. Carmichael and tens of thousands of others continued in Meredith's absence. Carmichael, who was arrested halfway through the march, was incensed upon his release. "The only way we gonna stop them white men from whuppin' us is to take over," he declared before a passionate crowd on June 16. "We been saying freedom for six years and we ain't got nothin'. What we gonna start sayin' now is Black Power!"

Black Panther was born in the civil rights era, and he reflected the politics of that time. The month after Carmichael's Black Power declaration, the character debuted in Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four No. 52. Supernatural strength and agility were his main features, but a genius intellect was his best attribute. "Black Panther" wasn't an alter ego; it was the formal title for T'Challa, King of Wakanda, a fictional African nation that, thanks to its exclusive hold on the sound-absorbent metal vibranium, had become the most technologically advanced nation in the world.

It was a vision of black grandeur and, indeed, power in a trying time, when more than 41% of African Americans were at or below the poverty line and comprised nearly a third of the nation's poor. Much like the iconic Lieutenant Uhura character, played by Nichelle Nichols, that debuted in Star Trek in September 1966, Black Panther was an expression of Afrofuturism-an ethos that fuses African mythologies, technology and science fiction and serves to rebuke conventional depictions of (or, worse, efforts to bring about) a future bereft of black people. His white creators, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, did not consciously conjure a fantasy-world response to Carmichael's call, but the image still held power. T'Challa was not only strong and educated; he was also royalty. He didn't have to take over. He was already in charge.

"You might say that this African nation is fantasy," says Boseman, who portrays T'Challa in the movie. "But to have the opportunity to pull from real ideas, real places and real African concepts, and put it inside of this idea of Wakanda-that's a great opportunity to develop a sense of what that identity is, especially when you're disconnected from it."

The character emerged at a time when the civil rights movement rightfully began to increase its demands of an America that had promised so much and delivered so little to its black population. Fifty-two years after the introduction of T'Challa, those demands have yet to be fully answered. According to the Federal Reserve, the typical African-American family had a median net worth of $17,600 in 2016. In contrast, white households had a median net worth of $171,000. The revolutionary thing about Black Panther is that it envisions a world not devoid of racism but one in which black people have the wealth, technology and military might to level the playing field-a scenario applicable not only to the predominantly white landscape of Hollywood but, more important, to the world at large.

The Black Panther Party, the revolutionary organization founded in Oakland, Calif., a few months after T'Challa's debut, was depicted in the media as a threatening and radical group with goals that differed dramatically from the more pacifist vision of civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Lewis. Marvel even briefly changed the character's name to Black Leopard because of the inevitable association with the Panthers, but soon reverted. For some viewers, "Black Panther" may have undeservedly sinister connotations, but the 2018 film reclaims the symbol to be celebrated by all as an avatar for change.

The urgency for change is partly what Carmichael was trying to express in the summer of '66, and the powers that be needed to listen. It's still true in 2018.

Moviegoers first encountered Boseman's T'Challa in Marvel's 2016 ensemble hit Captain America: Civil War, and he instantly cut a striking figure in his sleek vibranium suit. As Black Panther opens, with T'Challa grieving the death of his father and coming to grips with his sudden ascension to the Wakandan throne, it's clear that our hero's royal upbringing has kept him sheltered from the realities of how systemic racism has touched just about every black life across the globe.

The comic, especially in its most recent incarnations as rendered by the writers Ta-Nehisi Coates and Roxane Gay, has worked to expunge Eurocentric misconceptions of Africa-and the film's imagery and thematic material follow suit. "People often ask, 'What is Black Panther? What is his power?' And they have a misconception that he only has power through his suit," says Boseman. "The character is existing with power inside power."

Coogler says that Black Panther, like his previous films-including the police-brutality drama Fruitvale Station and his innovative Rocky sequel Creed -explores issues of identity. "That's something I've always struggled with as a person," says the director. "Like the first time that I found out I was black." He's talking less about an epidermal self-awareness than about learning how white society views his black skin. "Not just identity, but names. 'Who are you?' is a question that comes up a lot in this film. T'Challa knows exactly who he is. The antagonist in this film has many names."

That villain comes in the form of Erik "Killmonger" Stevens, a former black-ops soldier with Wakandan ties who seeks to both outwit and beat down T'Challa for the crown. As played by a scene-stealing Michael B. Jordan, Killmonger's motivations illuminate thorny questions about how black people worldwide should best use their power.

In the movie, Killmonger is, like Coogler, a native of Oakland. By exploring the disparate experiences of Africans and African Americans, Coogler shines a bright light on the psychic scars of slavery's legacy and how black Americans endure the real-life consequences of it in the present day. Killmonger's perspective is rendered in full; his rage over how he and other black people across the world have been disenfranchised and disempowered is justifiable.

Coogler, who co-wrote the screenplay with Joe Robert Cole, also includes another important antagonist from the comics: the dastardly and bigoted Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis). "What I love about this experience is that it could have been the idea of black exploitation: he's gonna fight Klaue, he's gonna go after the white man and that's it-that's the enemy," Boseman says. He recognizes that some fans will take issue with a black male villain fighting black protagonists. Killmonger fights not only T'Challa, but also warrior women like the spy Nakia (Nyong'o), Okoye (Danai Gurira) and the rest of the Dora Milaje, T'Challa's all-female royal guards. Killmonger and Shuri (Letitia Wright), T'Challa's quippy tech-genius sister, also face off.

T'Challa and Killmonger are mirror images, separated only by the accident of where they were born. "What they don't realize," Boseman says, "is that the greatest conflict you will ever face will be the conflict with yourself."

Both T'Challa and Killmonger had to be compelling in order for the movie to succeed. "Obviously, the superhero is who puts you in the seat," Coogler says.

"That's who you want to see come out on top. But I'll be damned if the villains ain't cool too. They have to be able to stand up to the hero, and have you saying, 'Man, I don't know if the hero's going to make it out of this.'"

"If you don't have that," Boseman says, "you don't have a movie."

This is not just a movie about a black superhero; it's very much a black movie. It carries a weight that neither Thor nor Captain America could lift: serving a black audience that has long gone underrepresented. For so long, films that depict a reality where whiteness isn't the default have been ghettoized, marketed largely to audiences of color as niche entertainment, instead of as part of the mainstream. Think of Tyler Perry's Madea movies, Malcolm D. Lee's surprise 1999 hit The Best Man or the Barbershop franchise that launched in 2002. But over the past year, the success of films including Get Out and Girls Trip have done even bigger business at the box office, led to commercial acclaim and minted new stars like Kaluuya and Tiffany Haddish. Those two hits have only bolstered an argument that has persisted since well before Spike Lee made his debut: black films with black themes and black stars can and should be marketed like any other. No one talks about Woody Allen and Wes Anderson movies as "white movies" to be marketed only to that audience.

Black Panther marks the biggest move yet in this wave: it's both a black film and the newest entrant in the most bankable movie franchise in history. For a wary and risk-averse film business, led largely by white film executives who have been historically predisposed to greenlight projects featuring characters who look like them, Black Panther will offer proof that a depiction of a reality of something other than whiteness can make a ton of money.

The film's positive reception-as of Feb. 6, the day initial reviews surfaced, it had a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes-bodes well for its commercial prospects. Variety predicted that it could threaten the Presidents' Day weekend record of $152 million, set in 2016 by Deadpool.

Some of the film's early success can be credited to Nate Moore, an African-American executive producer in Marvel's film division who has been vocal about the importance of including black characters in the Marvel universe. But beyond Wakanda, the questions of power and responsibility, it seems, are not only applicable to the characters in Black Panther. Once this film blows the doors off, as expected, Hollywood must do more to reckon with that issue than merely greenlight more black stories. It also needs more Nate Moores.

"I know people [in the entertainment industry] are going to see this and aspire to it," Boseman says. "But this is also having people inside spaces-gatekeeper positions, people who can open doors and take that idea. How can this be done? How can we be represented in a way that is aspirational?"

Because Black Panther marks such an unprecedented moment that excitement for the film feels almost kinetic. Black Panther parties are being organized, pre- and post-film soirées for fans new and old. A video of young Atlanta students dancing in their classroom once they learned they were going to see the film together went viral in early February. Oscar winner Octavia Spencer announced on her Instagram account that she'll be in Mississippi when Black Panther opens and that she plans to buy out a theater "in an underserved community there to ensure that all our brown children can see themselves as a superhero."

Many civil rights pioneers and other trailblazing forebears have received lavish cinematic treatments, in films including Malcolm X, Selma and Hidden Figures. Jackie Robinson even portrayed himself onscreen. Fictional celluloid champions have included Virgil Tibbs, John Shaft and Foxy Brown. Lando, too. But Black Panther matters more, because he is our best chance for people of every color to see a black hero. That is its own kind of power.
Jamil Smith is a journalist born and raised in Cleveland, Ohio. He lives in Los Angeles.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Revolutionary Power of Black Panther

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first movie I remember seeing in a theater had a black hero. Lando Calrissian, played by Billy Dee Williams, didn't have any superpowers, but he ran his own city. That movie, the 1980 Star Wars sequel The Empire Strikes Back, introduced Calrissian as a complicated human being who still did the right thing.

# data[].attributes.headline
The TV Superhero Glut Might Not Be Totally Invincible - Bloomberg

# data[].attributes.subject
The TV Superhero Glut Might Not Be Totally Invincible - Bloomberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Marvel's Inhumans," a superhero series that began airing on ABC in September, seemed to have it all. The story of a royal family of superhumans comes from classic 1960s comics. The cast includes Iwan Rheon, the Welsh actor who played the ultimate bad guy, Ramsay Bolton, on HBO's "Game of Thrones." The show got a promotional boost from a unique partnership with the theater chain Imax Corp.

The audience didn't materialize. An average of 1.5 million nightly viewers in the coveted 18-to-49 demographic placed it 87th among broadcast shows. Critics ripped the program for its unimaginative plot and weak characters. "Perhaps, if nothing else, the disaster that is the pilot of ABC's 'Marvel's Inhumans' will dissuade network executives from the out-of-control trend of superhero shows," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette critic Rob Owen wrote in his review. Not so fast.

The long-running rivalry between Marvel and DC Comics, which began on comic-store shelves and has been most prominent in movie theaters, has now reached the saturation point on television and streaming services. There are more than two dozen superhero shows on the air or in development. The surge is raising the risk of superhero fatigue.

DC's experience with "Supergirl" illustrates the potential limitations of the genre. The show first aired in 2015 on CBS, where it earned 2.4 million average viewers in the key under-50 group. On the CW, where "Supergirl" flew the following year, those numbers aren't bad. Warner Bros., which owns the show, saved money by clustering the production with other programs it shoots in Vancouver, rather than its original location in Los Angeles. Still, this season the show is down to 1.19 million average viewers.

There have already been three cancellations among TV's superabundance of costumed heroes: "Constantine," a DC show about an exorcist, died after 13 episodes on NBC in 2015; "Human Target," a DC show on Fox about a bodyguard who assumes the identities of his clients, was dropped in 2011; and ABC canceled "Agent Carter," a Captain America spin-off from Marvel, after two short seasons. ABC, which also broadcasts the Marvel-based "Agents of SHIELD," hasn't said if it will pick "Inhumans" up for a second season.

Channing Dungey, who heads entertainment programming at ABC, said she remains undeterred by the "Inhumans" experience and will continue to delve into the superhero genre. "The question really is more: What kind of superhero show?" she said. "What's the tone and how are we doing it? I would never say we're through with superheroes."

While Walt Disney Co.-owned Marvel has seen its superhero films outdraw those from Time Warner Inc. 's DC Comics at the box office, the balance of power appears more even on the small screen. "Marvel obviously gets it really right when it comes to the films-the tone, the characters-they're giving audiences exactly what they want," said Reed Tucker, author of "Slugfest," a book about the comic-book rivals. "In TV, DC does a much better job."

DC's experience with TV superheroes dates back to "Adventures of Superman" and "Batman" in the 1950s and 1960s. It kicked off the modern era with "Arrow" on the CW channel in 2012. That show, about an archer whose quiver is packed with trick projectiles, is now in its sixth season and anchors the "Arrowverse" of spinoffs on the network, including "The Flash"' and "Legends of Tomorrow."

Indeed, no channel has staked as much on the genre as the CW, a joint venture between Time Warner and CBS Corp. Its newest production, "Black Lightning," premiered last week featuring an African-American superhero who shoots electricity. If you count "iZombie," about a crime-fighting zombie with superpowers, the CW now has six superhero shows in production and devotes two full nights of primetime-Mondays and Tuesdays-to the programs.

Mark Pedowitz, the CW's president, said superhero shows have brought the network, whose audience was once 70 percent skewed toward women, a now equal share of male viewers. The strategy hasn't insulated the network from an industrywide slump in ratings, with 18-to-49-year-old viewership down 7.5 percent in the current season. CW's audience is flat with last season when online and recorded viewing is taken into account, Pedowitz said, and the shows' owners also make money when past seasons are shown by Netflix Inc.

Superhero shows in general attract a young, male audience that's hard for advertisers to reach outside of sports, according to Chris Geraci, who helped direct some $5 billion in ads for clients of the Omnicom media agency OMD. Because superhero programs are based on established characters and can be cross-promoted with related shows, they are somewhat safer bets than the typical new show. "You sort of have a built-in audience," Geraci said.

While superhero shows have struggled on the big broadcast networks, they seem to have found a better home on streaming services, where the language and plot lines can get edgier. In 2013, Marvel announced with great fanfare that it was producing four shows and a miniseries to run on Netflix. It was a strategy modeled after Marvel's super-successful "cinematic universe," with interlocking plots and sharing of characters. The collaboration produced some of the most critically acclaimed superhero shows in "Daredevil" and "Jessica Jones."

The Marvel-Netflix relationship is in flux now that Disney is looking to produce new content for its own online video service launching in 2019. "We obviously want the Marvel Television series currently on Netflix to have a long and lauded run," Dan Buckley, president of Marvel Entertainment, said in an email. New projects, he added, would seek out "networks and platforms that are the best fit for that content, including the Disney-branded streaming service."

There's likely to be even more superhero shows ahead. Disney Chief Executive Robert Iger has said that gaining more control over superhero franchises such as the X-Men, Fantastic Four and Deadpool was part of the thinking behind his $52.4 billion acquisition of the entertainment assets of 21st Century Fox.

Still, even such stalwarts as the CW are learning there are limits to what TV superheroes can sustain. There was much less competition six years ago, when "Arrow" made its debut, Pedowitz said, and now he won't have more than four superhero shows on his air at any one time.

But he also doesn't see an end to the superhero race. "The audience will tell you when the fatigue has set in," Pedowitz said. "If you have a quality show or a fun show, the audience will stay with it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The TV Superhero Glut Might Not Be Totally Invincible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Marvel's Inhumans," a superhero series that began airing on ABC in September, seemed to have it all. The story of a royal family of superhumans comes from classic 1960s comics. The cast includes Iwan Rheon, the Welsh actor who played the ultimate bad guy, Ramsay Bolton, on HBO's "Game of Thrones."

# data[].attributes.headline
The Superweirdo Behind ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
The Superweirdo Behind ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
But in one very obvious way, Waititi doesn't fit the mold. All those other directors are white; Waititi is Maori, from the Te Whanau-a-Apanui tribe, and so the bet Marvel was making by hiring Waititi was not only on an indie director but also on the first indigenous person ever to be handed the reins of a superhero megamovie. One reason they felt comfortable giving him those reins was that "Boy" and "Wilderpeople," despite their minuscule American box office, were offbeat crowd-pleasers - indeed, in New Zealand they were blockbusters, the most popular Kiwi films ever made, in part because of the complex way Waititi treated his Maori heritage on-screen.

Marvel asked Waititi to meet in summer 2015. "I didn't really think this was my cup of tea," he said. "It's always nice to be wanted, though." Given the brief to pitch directing a "Thor" buddy comedy that he would help write, Waititi suggested " 'Withnail & I' in space," "just these two people who happen to be superheroes making their way across the universe." (In this formula, the Hulk is the volatile Withnail figure, and Thor must "take care of this time bomb and keep him out of trouble" as they travel from planet to planet.) In their final meeting, Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel Studios, asked Waititi why he thought he could handle such a gargantuan project. "Because I've been doing it in my head my whole life," Waititi replied. Feige loved that answer, because he feels that's how he got his job, too.

Directing a movie like "Thor" requires a daunting set of skills, many of which have little to do with framing a shot: the temperament to manage a set with as many as 1,000 people on it rather than 100; the know-how to oversee complex effects; the canniness to please your bosses; the confidence not to be intimidated by the money, the stars, the vastness of the task. You're more the captain of a complex, hierarchical aircraft carrier than the solo skipper of a dinghy. At one point, Waititi cheerfully calculated that he was spending the cumulative budget of his previous four films every few weeks on the set of "Thor."

In the "Thor" universe, "Ragnarok" refers to the apocalyptic cycle of death and rebirth, freely adapted from Norse mythology, and Waititi cheekily nodded to the concept as he finished his coffee and prepared to head to set. "I can either play it safe and do the framing and everything like the way I feel these movies should be made," he said. "Or - knowing that I can always go back to my small films that I do with my friends - I could approach this in this Ragnarok way, full out, heading for the fire, sprinting full speed toward Armageddon."

That approach sounded a little scary. Waititi giggled. "It's terrifying if, like, if you let them see the terror," he said. "But I hide it really well."

Waititi grew up splitting time between Wellington, New Zealand's capital, and the East Cape of the North Island, the setting of "Boy." His father was a Maori painter, his mother a pakeha (white) schoolteacher. After an uninspired run at studying drama in college (one professor said that his only real memory of Waititi was that he didn't expect him to succeed), he spent a decade performing sketch comedy, often with his Victoria University mates Clement and McKenzie.

In 2005, his short film "Two Cars, One Night" was nominated for an Academy Award. An 11-minute vignette about Maori kids stuck waiting for their parents in the parking lot outside an East Cape bar, the short is less antic than Waititi's features would be but is a low-key prototype for the kinds of stories he wanted to tell, which he has described as "either comedies with depressing bits or dramas with funny bits." At the Oscars, as Jeremy Irons introduced the nominees for best live-action short film, Waititi pretended to be asleep in his seat as the camera tracked to him. (He thought his fellow nominees had agreed to the gag, cooked up over drinks one night, but the rest weren't serious.) "I had no intention of being a filmmaker," Waititi said, but the short "got a lot of attention, and I didn't have anything else on."

He also had a national film commission that was eager to finance his directorial work. Waititi's first feature, "Eagle vs. Shark," was an aggressively quirky romance between two misfits, played by Clement and Loren Horsley. He followed it with an expansion of "Two Cars, One Night": "Boy," about a Michael Jackson-mad Maori kid called Boy growing up in the East Cape in the 1980s and his ne'er-do-well father, played by Waititi himself. With its wicked humor and unsentimental treatment of Maori life, it was an immediate sensation in New Zealand, becoming the highest-grossing locally produced film of all time. "Boy" featured Waititi-drawn animation and a "Thriller"-meets-Maori-war-dance number, but just as often, Waititi's directorial flourishes served to deepen and sadden the film. One recurring flashback is a bloody tableau of Boy's mother lying dead while his weeping aunties cradle his infant brother.

"Essentially it's a comedy about child neglect," Waititi said. "I wanted to do something that showed that even living in the poorest area of New Zealand is funny." Waititi noted that pakehas were the ones most likely to complain about his depiction of Maori life. "They're usually disappointed that there aren't, like, more ghosts in the story." He laughed. " 'Shouldn't he be talking to his dead mother right now?' No, because that never happens to anyone. Never happened to me. I've never been in contact with any of these ghosts or ridden any of these whales."

After a mockumentary about vampire roommates, "What We Do in the Shadows" - directed with Clement - Waititi made "Hunt for the Wilderpeople." A spirited comedy about a foster kid lost in the bush with his grumpy guardian, "Wilderpeople" grapples with grief and puts its heroes in real emotional and physical danger, transforming into a classic family-adventure story that just happens to center on a juvenile delinquent who names his dog Tupac. As with "Boy," audiences embraced a story with predominantly Maori characters as archetypically Kiwi. "He welcomed everyone into Maori culture," says the Maori actor Rachel House, who played a maniacal child-protection officer in "Wilderpeople" and is also in "Ragnarok." The film surpassed the domestic box-office record set by "Boy" in a month and a half.

In hiring Waititi for "Thor," Marvel found a director with an anarchic visual aesthetic whose storytelling interests were nonetheless deeply, satisfyingly conventional. "In a lot of my films," Waititi said, "the biggest theme is family, making families out of those around you." That theme drives Marvel Studios' "Guardians of the Galaxy" series, an unexpected hit whose energy the third "Thor" movie seems designed to replicate.

Thanks to Waititi's dogged geniality, the 84 days of principal photography for "Thor: Ragnarok" were, according to basically everyone, pretty fun. He opened the shoot with a ceremony featuring ritual dances and greetings from the local Aboriginal tribe, the Bundjalung people, as well as a Maori celebrant. "A set should be like a family, except that you all actually like each other," Waititi said. "We just play music all day, we dance, we talk." At times it seemed Waititi - dancing, blasting disco - was putting on a one-man show with unflagging enthusiasm. Waititi's favorite gag, according to his star, Chris Hemsworth, was to "forget" his set mike was on and then to perform complaints about his leading actor, midtake, for everyone to hear: "Ah, we should've got the other Chris. Chris Pine, Chris Pratt, anything but Hemsworth." Then there'd be a muffled scrabbling, and Waititi would say, "Oh, crap - sorry, guys, sorry."

Cornel Ozies, an Australian Aboriginal filmmaker who was one of eight native people Waititi invited to shadow him on the "Ragnarok" shoot, characterizes Waititi's on-set style as specifically indigenous: "If you talk about his Maori heritage, it's big families. When you have big families, you're going to have a lot of clashes," adding, "you pick up the skill set of being a mediator." For Waititi, the choice to maintain this disposition, which he calls "Happy Taika," underlies his entire directorial philosophy. "I've been on a lot of film sets," he said, "and I've always promised myself I wouldn't create a set where people dread coming to work." He made a face like a kid tasting something sour. "Shooting a movie should be fun! It's not a real job. It can be hard, but at the end of the day we're dressing up and playing pretend."

Waititi found that a production this size lessened the responsibility he had to take on, making the job of a director a simpler one. On his earlier films, Waititi often felt he had to do everything. "When it's low-budget," he said, "every job you take is one you don't have to pay someone else to do." Here there were hundreds of crew members around, which encouraged Waititi to delegate. On those other films too, he knew that any decision he made about lighting, sets, even performances was "basically baked in forever." On "Thor," where digital artists waited to paint over every frame, that pressure was lessened. "In some ways," Waititi observed, "this makes you feel a little lazier. You're like" - he waved his hand dismissively - " 'Ah, I'm sure it'll be fine later.' "

On a set where every action shot was previsualized and every stunt was choreographed, it wasn't always easy to direct instinctively, as Waititi was used to doing. "Sometimes," he acknowledged, "it's just too late to say, 'Oh, man, wouldn't it be cool if like a thousand robots came in and Thor fell off a cliff?' " But he still found ways to play. One day, while doing the motion-capture for Korg, Waititi rushed into a battle sequence wielding a big prop hammer, then flipped the hammer around and started pretending to shoot it like a gun. "O.K., CGI," he declared, "I want you to turn that hammer into a gun hammer." In the finished movie, that dumb idea is a delightful reality.

Pretending at this scale is a lot easier for an indie director, of course, when he's working inside a system expressly designed to have megamovie training wheels. Waititi was surrounded, the Marvel executive producer Brad Winderbaum noted, with experienced, talented technicians. Once the shoot was over, he had a year of postproduction to hone the story and several weeks of scheduled reshoots to fix anything that went wrong the first time around. "He's never going to feel out at sea, wondering how he's going to achieve this," Winderbaum said, and then with a shrug offered a fittingly superhuman claim of omnipotence: "We know how to achieve everything."

If Waititi, with his sense of frenetic rhythm, were to depict the long process of navigating security on Disney's Hollywood lot and finding him in the "Thor: Ragnarok" postproduction suite, it would all zip past in a four-second montage of opening doors. The broad stone gate on Alameda Avenue, mouse ears embedded at the top of its arch, as the barricade swings into the air. The gentle fwoomp of the entrance to the Frank G. Wells building releasing the building's air-conditioned atmosphere. A publicist's waving her key card at the security console at a glass door in Marvel Studios headquarters, surveilled by a life-size Iron Man. The laminated sign Scotch-taped to an otherwise-anonymous wooden door as it opens: CREATURE REPORT.

"That's our code name," Waititi said in his office with a happy grin. He's tall and slim, his hair that December day buzzed and gray at the temples, piled pell-mell in a dark Lyle Lovett pouf at the top of his head. It was now 330 days until release. "Hopefully by June, July, the film will actually look somewhat like it should look," Waititi said. "At the moment it's basically a blue screen with people in front of it. Its just blue, blue, blue, blue everywhere." He gestured at an editing bay in the corner, its monitor featuring Goldblum posing before a blue tarp.

"I'm not a massive fan of the postproduction phase," he said. "I really like being on set and making stuff up." Nevertheless, here he was, for almost a full year. "I used to really laugh at everyone who was stuck in traffic, driving to the studios in Burbank," he said. "And now I'm one of those people."

Waititi walked across the hall into a dark, soundproof editing suite, where the editor Joel Negron, a veteran of Michael Bay blow-'em-ups, waited at the Avid terminal. Frozen on a wide-screen TV was the face of Hemsworth's Thor, his once-flowing blond hair cut spikily short. "Is that a spoiler?" Waititi asked the publicist, pointing to the screen.

"Not by the time the story comes out," she replied.

"Ah, you can write that down, then," Waititi said cheerily. "We Ragnaroked Thor's hair."

The haircut is a potent symbol of the brand-new Thor that Hemsworth craved. Up to now, Thor has been the most boring of the Marvel movie superheroes. "I just ended up being the straight guy," Hemsworth told me. "Sort of the guy from another world who the joke was on him half the time. I wanted a little more wit and charm." In the first two films, Waititi said, Thor is "basically a rich kid from outer space who comes down to Earth and gets to kiss a cute girl." He laughed. "This is the most human that Thor's ever been. Luckily this film's coming out on Earth, and the audience will be predominantly human, so I think they'll relate to him much more than they have in previous films."

Asked by the publicist to explain the context of the scene, Waititi thought for a moment. "Hulk has been Hulk since the end of 'Avengers 2,' " he said. "Eventually, we're going to have to see Bruce Banner" - his human counterpart, played by Mark Ruffalo - "in this movie." The scene was loose and funny. "I was Hulk for two years?" Banner asked in dismay. The two heroes were inside a spaceship, an enormous set that was built for "The Avengers" and shipped to Australia at, presumably, astronomical cost. When the scene ended, Negron said, "Three minutes flat."

"Cool," Waititi said. "Cut it in half, then it'll be amazing." Over the next two hours, Waititi and Negron chipped away, deleting lines they didn't find funny enough. They watched all 16 takes of Banner's response, in which Ruffalo's improvisations ranged from a deadpan "Oh, no" to screaming shock. Waititi by now was sunk deep into the couch. He came upon a tweet from Peyton Reed, director of "Ant-Man." Looking at his picture, Waititi said, "All these Marvel directors look the same!" He laughed. "Scott Derrickson and James Gunn and Peyton all look like the same person." He asked to watch the very beginning of the sequence again: "Do we have the other angle, from behind Banner?" Negron opened a folder full of neatly labeled shots, in each of which Ruffalo, enthusiastically pretending to transform from a monster into a human, fell out of frame. Waititi mentioned that he was hoping the camera might pan down with Banner as he shrank; he hadn't shot it that way back in Australia, but in about two minutes Negron built a rough move inside the editing software, making it so.

"That's fine for now," Waititi said. "The VFX team will perfect it later." One thing Waititi was delighted to discover while shooting a blockbuster is that it isn't that hard to create a shot he didn't actually get. "We scan every surface and every part of every set," he explained, including the entire interior of the bespoke spaceship. "So this all exists inside the computer, and we can move the camera and create moves."

Around the world, 18 effects houses had started creating the hundreds of shots that would fill in all those blue screens. "I don't think there'll be any bits of my particular style, which is, like, purposefully crap," Waititi said. "I don't think that's what Marvel wants. They want purposefully amazing." He stood and stretched, restless. "How long is it now?" he asked.

"About two," Negron said.

"Pretty good, guys!" Waititi said. "Cut a minute out of the movie!"

"Couple more to go and we're there," Negron said.

Waititi opened the editing-room door with a satisfied flourish. "You've got to kill your babies, as they say."

"Darlings?" Negron asked.

"I wouldn't say I love them that much," Waititi replied. "They're just babies."

In the summer - right before Waititi, dressed in a crisp pineapple-print shirt-and-shorts combo, delivered a bravura performance at San Diego Comic-Con - the directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were let go from the "Star Wars" Han Solo film. Sources told The Hollywood Reporter that the directors' improvisational style didn't play well with the screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan or Lucasfilm executives, who in a news release cited "different creative visions" for the split. A fan suggested on Twitter that Waititi should direct a "Star Wars" movie. "Lolz, I like to complete my films," Waititi replied. "I'd be fired within a week."

"That particular franchise seems really hard," he elaborated in September. "There's not much room for someone like me." Through its narrow canon, the tone of "Star Wars" has always been determinedly self-serious, whereas the Marvel movies, like the decades of comics they sprang from, veer wildly from high drama to low comedy. And improvisation has been a tool in every Marvel movie since Robert Downey Jr. riffed his way through "Iron Man." "Taika's a really funny actor," says Tessa Thompson, who plays Valkyrie in "Ragnarok." "So we had a lot of guidance for the improv. It wasn't a bunch of, like, ships without rudders slamming into each other." Indeed, Waititi figures, if it wasn't for his comedy chops, why would Marvel have hired him in the first place? "They want new voices and different ways of telling stories," he says. "All the work to do with actors, all the rescripting stuff in the moment - that's what I want to do, really. I'm always going to leave the CG stuff up to someone else."

It was 50 days before release. Waititi, hair trimmed short and streaked with gray throughout, absolutely looked a year older. The movie would be delivered in its complete form around the beginning of October. "One day I'll show up and my key card will stop working, I imagine," he said wistfully. "That's good. I've pretty much come very close to finishing what I can offer, you know?"

He admitted that the final product doesn't betray much of his D.I.Y. aesthetic. But his stamp is on the film in other ways: in the way he has framed a superhero movie as a misfit family adventure with gun hammers. In the way he Ragnaroked Valkyrie - white and blond in the comics, but played here by Thompson, an actor of black and Latino descent. In the way the native filmmakers who shadowed Waititi learned that it's possible for an indigenous artist to dance his way through a $180 million movie.

And in the way he ricocheted around the big Marvel ship, putting on a two-year show, using all the tools they bought for him to make something he likes - "a Taika version of one of these movies," he said with satisfaction. It's worth noting that Marvel's next directors and superheroes also look less like Marvel directors, less like the stereotype of Marvel heroes: Ryan Coogler's "Black Panther" arrives in February, and Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden (the writer-director duo behind the 2006 Ryan-Gosling-on-cocaine drama "Half Nelson") are in preproduction for a movie featuring the superheroine Captain Marvel for 2019. Waititi dressed up and played pretend, and with the help of Marvel's omnipotence, he can now direct any movie he likes, big or small. As the Marvel ship plows on, churning up piles of money, its superheroes might soon come to resemble the predominantly human audience that watches them on Earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
But in one very obvious way, Waititi doesn't fit the mold. All those other directors are white; Waititi is Maori, from the Te Whanau-a-Apanui tribe, and so the bet Marvel was making by hiring Waititi was not only on an indie director but also on the first indigenous person ever to be handed the reins of a superhero megamovie.

# data[].attributes.headline
Next X-Men film New Mutants is The Breakfast Club meets The Shining

# data[].attributes.subject
Next X-Men film New Mutants is The Breakfast Club meets The Shining

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
20th Century Fox's X-Men/Marvel universe is shaping up to be one of the most interesting superhero franchises thanks to playing with genre and audience expectations on movies like Logan and Deadpool.

Well, they show no sign of slowing down, and will be drawing on horror movies for the next outing, New Mutants, which has some interesting influences.

"If we're going to make a superhero movie, we have to ask ourselves: 'What's our version? What's a Fox Marvel film?'" Fox CEO Stacey Snider told .

"When you look at films like Deadpool or Logan or the upcoming New Mutants, you'll see they have their own personality. Great effort has been put into making sure they're differentiated. New Mutants is about these teenagers who are just coming into their powers.

"It's like watching mutants go through adolescence and they have no impulse control, so they're dangerous. The only solution is to put them in a Breakfast Club detention/ Cuckoo's Nest institutional setting. It protects the people on the outside, but it's strange and combustible inside. The genre is like a haunted house movie with a bunch of hormonal teenagers.

"We haven't seen it as a superhero movie whose genre is more like The Shining than 'we're teenagers let's save the world'."

New Mutants was launched as a comic in the '80s as a younger class of students at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.

Josh Boone is directing the movie, which stars Maisie Williams ( Game of Thrones), Anya Taylor-Joy ( Split), Charlie Heaton ( Stranger Things), Henry Zaga, Blu Hunt and Alice Braga.

New Mutants will be released on April 13, 2018.
Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Next X-Men film is The Breakfast Club meets The Shining

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
20th Century Fox's X-Men/Marvel universe is shaping up to be one of the most interesting superhero franchises thanks to playing with genre and audience expectations on movies like Logan and Deadpool. Well, they show no sign of slowing down, and will be drawing on horror movies for the next outing, New Mutants , which has some interesting influences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Superhero Movie Fans Need To See Birdman

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Superhero Movie Fans Need To See Birdman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even in a year with some pretty notable superhero films, Birdman is a pretty significant movie about superheroes. This darkly surreal satire about an aging actor struggling with his superhero past is full of magical-realist touches and tugs at our national obsession with big heroic narratives. And here's why superhero fans really ought to see Birdman.

On the face of it, Birdman offers a pretty harsh critique of superhero films, and mass culture generally. But it also pokes a lot of fun at snobbery and the notion of "prestige" entertainment as an alternative to pop culture. Michael Keaton plays a washed-up movie star who's haunted by the superhero he used to play, as he tries to reinvent himself as a serious stage actor. And the ghost of his former superhero persona becomes not just a nagging reminder of how people see him, but also a focal point for his wounded ego.

Incredibly vague spoilers below:

A brief synopsis: Actor Riggan Thomson is trying to put his Hollywood past behind him and write, direct and star in an adaptation of literary author Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. It's a serious artistic project, but also a massive ego trip, aimed at making people take Riggan seriously at last. He gets a stroke of luck when his untalented costar is injured and he gets a high-powered replacement, Mike (Edward Norton). But his manager/producer Jake (Zach Galifianakis) keeps reminding him that they need to make money somehow, and meanwhile everything keeps going mortifyingly, horrifyingly wrong.

Here's a pretty brutal scene between Riggan and his daughter Sam, played by Emma Stone:

Birdman is one of those brutally misanthropic movies that's full of horrible human beings, who cling to their delusions in the midst of tragic self-loathing. Like Todd Solondz at his most nauseating. And the spectre of Birdman, an especially absurd superhero character, hovers over the whole thing, in a way that suggests that superhero stories are among the most ridiculous delusions of all.

In a film full of tragic, conflicted, messed-up relationships, the most ambivalent and horrible is the relationship between Riggan and the superhero he used to play. Riggan hates Birdman, loathes being asked about why he turned down Birdman 4 and can't bear the presence of the Birdman poster the crew hung in his dressing room. But his imaginary version of Birdman is also a weird projection of his ego, that both taunts and encourages him - and then offers him the prospect of escape into fantasy.

And as you can see in the trailer above, the movie is full of occasional weird flights of fancy, like Thomson imagining he can levitate, and there are a couple of weird sequences where Hollywood special effects seem to be breaking into the real world. The more out of control Riggan's play becomes, the louder the voice of the all-powerful character in his head becomes.

A ton of characters keep offering the indictment of superheroes as mindless wish-fulfillment, as poison. And even as everyone denounces the false allure of escapism, the movie does a better job of making you feel trapped in reality than anything I've seen in ages. Director Alejandro Iñárritu's famous long takes aren't just a technical marvel - they're also skin-crawlingly uncomfortable, because Iñárritu forces you to stay with a scene long after you're dying to escape it. Not that this movie is slow-paced - it never lets up - but it forces you to look at the chain of self-destructive acts created by these theater actors who can't break out of the moment any more than they can stop being their fucked selves.

There's also a playfulness to the movie's insistence on inescapable reality - like some scenes where the soundtrack turns out to be diagetic when you least expect it, because the camera pans around to reveal a musician or musicians who were previously just out of frame:

But even as the movie sets up a crude dichotomy between Entertainment and Art - between the fantasy of Birdman and the "honesty" of real theater - it also sets about screwing that dichotomy up. The notion of a pure artistic endeavor, or truthfulness in performance, or the idea that a literary stage play is in some sense "better" than a superhero film, slowly gets exposed as another kind of fantasy, another elaborate and colorful illusion. It's just another form of fame, another trap.

In the end, Birdman doesn't offer a critique of superhero movies, so much as offer them up as just one among many forms of egomania and self-deception. Riggan's shifting relationship with the hero he used to play is just one among many toxic relationships. And as his stage play debates the meaning of love with a series of bleak Raymond Carver scenarios, the movie pushes home the idea that none of these people want love - they just want to be admired or acknowledged by someone else.

In the end, this metafictional dive into the psyche of an American superhero, is less a satire on superheroes and more a look at what is broken inside us that makes us embrace so many different absurd fantasies about being appreciated by others. And that, in turn, gets at the heart of the disturbed superhero mentality in a way that fans of Tim Burton's Batman, ironically enough, might appreciate most of all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Superhero Movie Fans Need To See Birdman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even in a year with some pretty notable superhero films, Birdman is a pretty significant movie about superheroes. This darkly surreal satire about an aging actor struggling with his superhero past is full of magical-realist touches and tugs at our national obsession with big heroic narratives.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.grunge.com/58574/things-movie-industry-will-regret-20-years/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Biggest Regrets The Movie Industry Will Have In 20 Years FULL ARTICLE: http://bit.ly/2xP5JPm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LOS ANGELES - Hollywood had a horrible summer.

Between the first weekend in May and Labor Day, a sequel-stuffed period that typically accounts for 40 percent of annual ticket sales, box office revenue in North America totaled $3.8 billion, a 15 percent decline from the same span last year. To find a slower summer, you would have to go back 20 years. Business has been so bad that America's three biggest theater chains have lost roughly $4 billion in market value since May.

Ready for the truly alarming part? Hollywood is blaming a website: Rotten Tomatoes.

"I think it's the destruction of our business," Brett Ratner, the director, producer and film financier, said at a film festival this year.

Some studio executives privately concede that a few recent movies - just a few - were simply bad. Flawed marketing may have played a role in a couple of other instances, they acknowledged, along with competition from Netflix and Amazon.

But most studio fingers point toward Rotten Tomatoes, which boils down hundreds of reviews to give films "fresh" or "rotten" scores on its Tomatometer. The site has surged in popularity, attracting 13.6 million unique visitors in May, a 32 percent increase above last year's total for the month, according to the analytics firm comScore.

Studio executives' complaints about Rotten Tomatoes include the way its Tomatometer hacks off critical nuance, the site's seemingly loose definition of who qualifies as a critic and the spread of Tomatometer scores across the web. Last year, scores started appearing on Fandango, the online movie ticket-selling site, leading to grousing that a rotten score next to the purchase button was the same as posting this message: You are an idiot if you pay to see this movie.

Mr. Ratner's sentiment was echoed almost daily in studio dining rooms all summer, although not for attribution, for fear of giving Rotten Tomatoes more credibility. Over lunch last month, the chief executive of a major movie company looked me in the eye and declared flatly that his mission was to destroy the review-aggregation site.

Kersplat: Paramount's "Baywatch" bombed after arriving to a Tomatometer score of 19, the percentage of reviews the movie received that the site considered positive (36 out of 191). Doug Creutz, a media analyst at Cowen and Company, wrote of the film in a research note, "Our high expectations appear to have been crushed by a 19 Rotten Tomatoes score."

Kersplat: "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword" got a Tomatometer score of 28 - anything under 60 is marked rotten - and audiences stayed away. After costing Warner Bros. at least $175 million to make, the movie took in $39 million at the domestic box office. In total.

How did a clunky website that has been around for 19 years amass such power?

The 36 people who work for Rotten Tomatoes hardly seem like industry killers. The site's staff occupies a relatively ordinary Beverly Hills office complex - albeit one with conference rooms named "La La Land" and "Oz" - and includes people like Jeff Voris, an easygoing former Disney executive with graying hair who oversees operations, and Timothy Ryan, a former newspaper reporter who is a Rotten Tomatoes senior editor and lists "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide" as favorite reading.

The employee with the pink mohawk is Grae Drake, senior movie editor. She does a lot of video interviews and lately has been helping to fill a void created when Matt Atchity left as editor in chief in July for a bigger job at TYT Network, an online video company.

Jeff Giles, a 12-year Rotten Tomatoes veteran and the author of books like "Llanview in the Afternoon: An Oral History of 'One Life to Live'," writes what the site calls Critics Consensus, a one-sentence summary of the response to each film. (Disney's latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie was summarized as proving "that neither a change in directors nor an undead Javier Bardem is enough to drain this sinking franchise's murky bilge.")

"Everyone here sweats the details every day," said Paul Yanover, the president of Fandango, which owns Rotten Tomatoes. "Because we are serious movie fans ourselves, our priority - our entire focus - is being as useful to fans as we absolutely can be."

Hold on a minute. Fandango?

Yes. In an absurdist plot twist, Rotten Tomatoes is owned by film companies. Fandango, a unit of NBCUniversal, which also owns Universal Pictures, has a 75 percent stake, with the balance held by Warner Bros. Fandango bought control from Warner last year for an undisclosed price. (All parties insist that Rotten Tomatoes operates independently.)

Mr. Yanover said it was silly for studios to make Rotten Tomatoes a box office scapegoat.

"There is no question that there is some correlation to box office performance - critics matter - but I don't think Rotten Tomatoes can definitively make or break a movie in either direction," he said. "Anyone who says otherwise is cherry-picking examples to create a hypothesis."

He cited "Wonder Woman," which was the No. 1 movie of the summer, with $410 million in ticket sales. It was undoubtedly helped by a strong Tomatometer score of 92. "Dunkirk," "Spider-Man: Homecoming" and "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" all received high scores and drew huge crowds. Other films did not do well on the Tomatometer ("The Hitman's Bodyguard," "The Emoji Movie") but still managed to find audiences.

Some filmmakers complain bitterly that Rotten Tomatoes casts too wide a critical net. The site says it works with some 3,000 critics worldwide, including bloggers and YouTube-based pundits. But should reviewers from Screen Junkies and Punch Drunk Critics really be treated as the equals of those from The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker?

Mr. Yanover rejected those complaints, pointing to the site's posted requirements. ("Online critics must have published no less than 100 reviews across two calendar years at a single, Tomatometer-approved publication," for instance.) He also noted that critics at traditional outlets tended to be white men and that Rotten Tomatoes wanted to include female and minority voices.

'Incredibly Layered' Process

For the studios, the question of how individual reviews get classified as fresh or rotten is also a point of contention. Only about half of critics self-submit reviews and classifications to the site. Rotten Tomatoes staffers comb the web and pull the other half themselves. They then assign positive or negative grades.

"We have a well-defined process," said Mr. Voris, the vice president of Rotten Tomatoes. "Our curators audit each other's work. If there is any question about how a review should be classified, we have three curators separate and do independent reads. If there still isn't agreement, we call the journalist."

Staff members also fact-check what critics have self-submitted. In one recent instance, a review of "Alien: Covenant" that was submitted as fresh seemed rotten. The site reversed the categorization after contacting the critic for clarification.

Mr. Voris brushed aside the studios' protests - shared by many critics - that the Tomatometer ratings damage films because they reduce nuanced reviews to blunt scores.

"I actually think it's the opposite of simplified," Mr. Voris said. "It's incredibly layered." Yes, the Tomatometer scores are the site's best-known feature, he said. But Rotten Tomatoes also carries snippets of dozens of individual reviews. Beyond that, there are also links to full reviews. The site also generates its own news articles and feature stories (" 75 Best Heist Movies of All Time ") that try to put new films into context.

Still, it is the Tomatometer scores that have become ubiquitous across the web. Rotten Tomatoes makes money through partnerships with companies like Apple, which lists the scores next to iTunes movie rentals and purchases. And to the dismay of movie marketers, Google has started to prominently display the scores even when users do not specifically search for them: Enter the name of a film into the search bar and the Tomatometer results pop up on the top right side of the results page, directly under the film's poster.

"Rotten Tomatoes isn't new, but its omnipresence is," said Tim Palen, Lionsgate's president of theatrical marketing. "The scores are even part of the local TV news on Friday going into the weekend."

The battle between movie companies and critics is a perennial one. There was an outcry when some publications started using a series of stars to summarize reviews. (By some accounts, that system started in 1928, when The Daily News gave one star to the silent film " The Port of Missing Girls.") Cries of harmful reductionism resurfaced in the 1980s, when the critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert brought their thumbs up or down edicts to syndicated television.

Rotten Tomatoes was founded in 1998 by students at the University of California, Berkeley who wanted reviews for kung fu movies in one place. The name harkens back to medieval Europe, where people would lob spoiled food, often eggs, at petty criminals in the stocks. The practice spread to some theaters in the 19th century. In 1883, The New York Times reported that "a large tomato thrown from the gallery" hit a Long Island actor "square between the eyes."

In past years, studio publicists would occasionally lobby Rotten Tomatoes to include positive reviews from far-flung publications as a way of improving scores, especially for films with a 59 - on the line between receiving a red, plump fruit label (fresh) or the dreaded splotch of green goo (rotten). But Hollywood more or less lived with it.

Four things changed.

There was Fandango's integration of Tomatometer scores with its ticketing platforms, which service about 28,000 movie screens in North America. Now, when Fandango customers buy tickets to a movie in the days leading up to its release, they are confronted by the film's Tomatometer score. After the movie is released, a different Rotten Tomatoes rating - one based on audience response, which is invariably positive - begins to pop up on Fandango next to the Tomatometer score.

Then there is Rotten Tomatoes' growth into a very popular hub. In 2009, the site, which sells advertising, attracted about 1.8 million unique visitors per month. It now attracts as many as 14 million unique visitors a month. The broader Fandango portfolio of sites reaches 60 million unique visitors a month.

Consumer behavior is also changing. People increasingly rely on review aggregation sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor to make all kinds of spending decisions. The trend is especially visible among young people, who make up Hollywood's most important audience. According to National Research Group, a movie industry consulting firm, 34 percent of American teenagers now check Rotten Tomatoes before buying a ticket, up from 23 percent in 2014.

Hollywood Fights Back

Most importantly, studios are panicking because moviegoing is no longer a habit for most Americans. Because of climbing prices and competition from other forms of entertainment, a trip to the multiplex has become a special event. In particular, more movie fans are ignoring low- and mid-budget films when they are in theaters: Ehh, let's wait until they show up on Netflix.

Studios are trying to battle Rotten Tomatoes on multiple fronts.

Marketers have discovered that early positive reviews can produce a bandwagon effect later, as some critics, especially those at less prestigious outlets, seek to go with the flow instead of against it. Studios have also started screening films early for pockets of critics. In some cases, studios create spreadsheets of which critics to invite to early screenings - often at festivals - based on questions such as who liked what in the past and who gives positive reviews more often than not.

It is notable that "Leatherface," a horror movie scheduled for release in late October, already has a very positive Tomatometer score of 86 based on seven reviews. (Rotten Tomatoes requires a minimum of five reviews before calculating a score.) The seven reviews came after an August screening at a London festival called FrightFest that was attended by reviewers from sites like Dread Central and HeyUGuys, which bills itself as an outlet for "love letters to cinema."

Another way to undercut Rotten Tomatoes involves restricting reviews until the last possible minute. Sony set a review embargo of opening day for "The Emoji Movie," which left the Tomatometer blank until after many advance tickets had been sold and families had made weekend plans. "The Emoji Movie," which ultimately received a Tomatometer score of 8, squeezed out decent opening-weekend ticket sales of $24.5 million.

If Rotten Tomatoes is a monster, the studios helped create it. As much as they fear and loathe low scores, they love high ones. Sony recently ended its trailer for "Baby Driver," a heist thriller, by flashing the Rotten Tomatoes logo and "100 percent," the film's Tomatometer score at the time. (It later slipped to 94.) Annapurna did the same thing for "Detroit" in television ads. (Not that it helped; that drama flopped.)

And Rotten Tomatoes is getting stronger. The site is working to build its Tomatometer scores for TV shows into a more formidable force. Also in development are a half-dozen video series, including one built around a cheeky event created by Ms. Drake, the senior movie editor, called Your Opinion Sucks.

At that event, which started at the Comic-Con International fan convention in San Diego a few years ago, movie fans debate critics. The hourlong sessions can get heated.

"Let's just say that it's not an accident that I chose a costume that needs a whip," Ms. Drake said as she prepared to co-host one of three sessions at Comic-Con in July. (She was dressed as Catwoman.)

On stage were online critics from The New York Observer, Screen Junkies and Schmoes Know. One member of the audience came to the microphone and offered an opinion: "The Fate of the Furious," which got a "fresh" Tomatometer score of 66 in April, deserved an even higher score.

Snarky wisecracks from the critics and hosts started to fly. The stars have as much chemistry as "a mop and a bucket," one said. Ms. Drake's co-host, the comedian Scott Aukerman, said that "The Fate of the Furious," the eighth movie in the action series, should have been called "No one wants to act with Vin Diesel anymore" because the actor had a separate storyline for much of the film.

It was time for the audience to vote. Most of the 200 or so people assembled raised green paddles, and so the movie was pronounced rotten.

With an intestinal gurgle sound effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LOS ANGELES - Hollywood had a horrible summer. Between the first weekend in May and Labor Day, a sequel-stuffed period that typically accounts for 40 percent of annual ticket sales, box office revenue in North America totaled $3.8 billion, a 15 percent decline from the same span last year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Captain Underpants Is a Perfect Superhero Movie

# data[].attributes.subject
Captain Underpants Is a Perfect Superhero Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While Wonder Woman has justifiably received praise and critical acclaim for its stellar performance at the Box Office and narrative achievement for a DCEU film, it's not the only superhero movie that's been released this summer. In fact, it's not even the best: that honor goes to the one and only . 20 years after the publication of the first novel in the Captain Underpants series and nearly six years after DreamWorks announced its intention to adapt the books, the waistband warrior exploded onto the big screen. And it was glorious. Not merely a supremely enjoyable film, but one of the greatest superhero movies of all time.

For those who may not be familiar with the good Captain, he can only be described as a publishing phenomenon. Since the first book was published in 1997, the series has grown to 12 novels and three spinoffs, with combined sales of over 70 million copies worldwide. Written and drawn by Dav Pilkey, the books follow the adventures of two best friends named George Beard and Harold Hutchins. Irrepressible pranksters and founders of their own comic book company, they accidentally transform their evil principal, Mr Krupp, into their greatest creation: the scantily-clad vision of justice known as Captain Underpants.

As the above synopsis suggests, the books are very much tongue-in-cheek, each adventure hurtling along in a tidal wave of zany ideas, improbable plot twists and manic energy. Anything can - and does - happen in this series, with Pilkey taking every opportunity to have fun with conventions of the superhero genre. Where DreamWorks went right is that they didn't choose to do a loose adaptation of the books or pick and choose what elements might be more palatable to a wider audience, as so many superhero adaptations do. Instead, the movie is remarkably faithful to the books and all the better for it.

This approach affects the tone of the movie, retaining the spirit and flavor of the books. While many animated films, including those of Pixar, are lauded for their ability to be enjoyed by adults and children on different levels, Captain Underpants has no time for such pretentiousness. It knows that some things - such as a well-delivered joke about bodily functions - are universal, and makes no apologies for finding humor in these circumstances. This evolves into a central theme in the film: the importance of allowing ourselves to be childlike and find humor in the most difficult situations.
RELATED: First Look at Captain Underpants Animated Film
As the first film in the series, the movie is tasked with delivering lots of background material and origins for the characters, which it does in a variety of clever ways. Captain Underpants' origin is delivered in the form of comic strip panels, with George and Harold discussing what features should be included (the main bone of contention being Harold's belief that the infant Underpants was raised by kindly farmer dolphins). Similarly, Professor Poopypants flashes back to his darkest day, while the spartan nature of Mr Krupp's house renders any formal flashback unnecessary, trusting the viewer to make their own inference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Captain Underpants Was Better Than Every Other Superhero Film This Summer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While Wonder Woman has justifiably received praise and critical acclaim for its stellar performance at the Box Office and narrative achievement for a DCEU film, it's not the only superhero movie that's been released this summer. In fact, it's not even the best: that honor goes to the one and only .

# data[].attributes.headline
Not so super: why Hollywood's cinematic universes are on the way out | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Not so super: why Hollywood's cinematic universes are on the way out | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's never easy to change the habits of a lifetime. We spend much of our existence watching the more outwardly successful members of our society and trying to shift our outlook subtly in order to be just a bit more like them. To exercise more; to eat less. To spend more time reading works of fine literature and watching cult movies; to spend less time on Facebook and reading the gossip pages or football transfer news. Yet we often find ourselves reverting to type, because these are the tiny vices that get us through the day.

Something similar seems to be happening in Hollywood right now when it comes to comic-book movies. Rival studios such as Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox have noted the hugely successful Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) model and would quite like their own piece of the pie. But try as they might, they cannot help but revert to older film-making models that have served them well in the past - and require rather less joined-up thinking.

The big geek news of the past week is that Warner, the studio behind the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) - launched in 2014 with the presumed aim of competing with Marvel's MCU - has decided it might also be quite nice to begin making superhero movies that have absolutely nothing to do with the aforementioned series of interlinked films. Hence, we are hearing talk of a Joker origins movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio (and produced by Martin Scorsese), which will be entirely separate from the DCEU movies featuring Jared Leto (who must be absolutely chuffed to bits at the news) as the clown prince of Gotham.

In its latest piece on the studio's plans, the Hollywood Reporter also quietly mentions that the upcoming Matt Reeves-directed outing The Batman may no longer star Ben Affleck as the caped crusader, and may also operate outside the DCEU with a different actor as the dark knight.

Let's reflect on that bombshell for a second. You've just spent hundreds of millions of dollars setting up a shared universe for your much-heralded superheroes to inhabit, and your next move is to start making movies about the same characters that have nothing to do with the main saga. What explanation could there possibly be for such apparently muddled thinking? Will audiences not be enormously confused at the sight of Affleck playing Batman in the main DCEU, while another actor entirely pulls on the cape and cowl for solo outings?

Warner clearly feels far more comfortable making a standalone comic-book movie with an A-lister in the lead than it does with the considerably more troublesome Marvel format of a series of interlinked episodes featuring lesser-known stars. The studio has presumably noted the success of its recent film Wonder Woman, which was loosely linked to the main DC universe but took place in a different era entirely, and therefore did not have to worry itself overly about continuity with other films. The result was a much better picture than either of its previous DCEU episodes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, whose directors both found themselves bogged down in a quagmire of clumsy episodic world-building.

Where Marvel somehow turns the need to remind us its properties are always part of a bigger picture into a story-cultivating element - the presence of Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man in Spider-Man: Homecoming always felt like an essential part of that movie's coming-of-age theme, rather than an excuse to shoe-horn in the MCU's biggest hitter - Warner struggles to achieve similar levels of synergy. It's not the only rival studio with this problem. Fox's little corner of the Marvel universe, containing the X-Men films, Deadpool and the Fantastic Four, has never been linked to the MCU. But the studio has also been strangely wary of building bridges between the properties it does own exclusive rights to: hence, we saw Professor X's mansion in Deadpool, but there was no sign of the bald psychic himself in either his James McAvoy or Patrick Stewart mode. Moreover, those X-Men who did appear, Deadpool and Colossus, manifested in very different forms to those seen in the main saga.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Standalone success ... Dafne Keen and Hugh Jackman in 20th Century Fox's Logan. Photograph: Allstar/20th Century Fox

Fox seems likely to begin building more synergy into its films with the advent of next year's Deadpool 2, which will introduce the X-Force team from the comics. But the studio couldn't resist giving Hugh Jackman his swan song as Wolverine in the almost completely standalone effort Logan, a movie that might just - at a major stretch - have taken place in the same universe as the main X-Men movies, but let's face it, probably did not. Faced with the choice of a Wolverine movie linked to its ongoing efforts in the 1980s, or one based on director James Mangold's desire for a sombre, dystopian comic-book take on Unforgiven, the studio simply couldn't resist the latter.

Few would argue that this particular creative decision paid dividends. And the idea of an 80s-set, DiCaprio-led, Scorsese-produced origins tale for the Joker sounds just as tantalising. Likewise, a Batman freed from the alpha male, bully-boy nastiness tacked on to the caped crusader - purely because Warner needed us to believe in the idea of him trying to take down Superman in order to watch those box-office greenbacks rolling in - sounds like a breath of fresh air. Yet it's also the easy option, rather than the one that might pay the richest long-term dividends for Hollywood in terms of radical self-improvement.

Moreover, I can't help thinking that the more studios succumb to the desire to revert to form, to take the easy option of the short-term dopamine rush of old-school, single-movie film-making, the less likely they are to make a success of the multiple-episode format that has proven so lucrative to Marvel. At a time when Hollywood is struggling to persuade us to switch off our TVs and head out to catch a movie, we surely need film-makers who really care about the big-screen visions they are presenting us with. If there is no genuine desire to build a working cinematic universe for any of these rival superhero properties, then the question begs itself: why bother?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not so super: why Hollywood's cinematic universes are on the way out

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's never easy to change the habits of a lifetime. We spend much of our existence watching the more outwardly successful members of our society and trying to shift our outlook subtly in order to be just a bit more like them. To exercise more; to eat less.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why DC Losing Its Mind Is Good for Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.subject
Why DC Losing Its Mind Is Good for Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
DC's decision to make self-contained movies is exactly what superhero cinema needs.

Warner Bros. has been shocking the world this week. The first surprise came courtesy of the news that a movie will also take place outside the main DCEU storyline, only to later clarify that his movie standalone Joker movie was in the works without Jared Leto anywhere in sight. It will take place outside of their extended universe and Martin Scorsese is on board to produce. Next up, Matt Reeves told The Wrap that his upcoming The Hollywood Reporter broke the news that he'll be co-starring alongside Margot Robbie in a Joker/Harley Quinn movie after claim was misleading. Questions as to whether Leto would be reprise his role in future DCEU movies were also put to bed when Suicide Squad 2 . Finally, we learned that the Gotham City Sirens has been scrapped. That about covers everything... for now.

The most interesting development to arise from this chaos, though, is the studio's decision to produce standalone movies in addition to their extended universe. They want the best of both worlds, similar to what the franchise is doing with its main episodes and anthology spin-offs, and that's fine. We're getting some self-contained superhero movies again, and that's a breath of fresh air in a market currently oversaturated with interconnected stories.

My own relationship with the current climate of superhero franchises echoes that of typical apathetic viewers. There's no denying that the formula has been successful and produced some outstanding blockbusters, but the insistence on having them so closely linked has reduced my excitement somewhat. A new Marvel movie is announced... whatever. Another studio announces its plans to create a shared universe... it is what it is. I mean, this has been going on for a decade and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. There's nothing wrong it per se, but it'd be nice to have other options. Am I alone?

Marvel started this trend, but the formula has been incredibly successful for them thus far. Their track record for producing quality has been consistent, and they've set the gold standard for integrating multiple heroes into a coherent narrative. And despite the opinion held by some detractors that their movies are all the same, you just need to look at Guardians of the Galaxy , Spider-Man: Homecoming , and Thor: Ragnarok to see that the studio understands the importance of diversifying their releases. At the end of the day though they're still cogs in a machine building towards the next big assembled event (even the Guardians will be teaming with the Avengers in future), and that creates a longing for the days when we could just sit down and watch something distinctly individual with a beginning, middle, and end.

Since Disney/Marvel established this trend and showed how prosperous it can be, other studios have followed suit. In addition to Warner Bros. and DC, Universal are retooling their classic monsters to become superhero-lite so they can get a piece of the action. With Netflix's Millarworld on the horizon and possibly even a shared Hellboy cinematic universe over at Millennium, we might be seeing more down the line as well. It's unclear what Sony is planning with the upcoming spinoffs, and Silver and Black , but we do know that they'll be separate from the MCU.

As much of a sure thing as it's been for some though, other studios' attempts to replicate the Marvel model have been met with mixed results. Warner Bros. has made over $3B at the worldwide box office, but critical response to their movies hasn't been the most encouraging for the most part. Meanwhile, Universal's did make $405M, but its $79M domestic tally is a disappointment and the future of the universe is uncertain.

Elsewhere, Paramount's last movie Transformers underperformed leaving the future of that shared universe hinging on the performance of the movie. Legendary's MonsterVerse, meanwhile, is faring much better. However, with Warner Bros. and Universal's stuttery starts, as well as the diminished interest in Paramount's tentpole franchise, are shared universes starting to show signs of fatigue?

The problem with the interlinked approach isn't just the risk of audiences eventually losing interest. There is also the chance of one movie getting it wrong and ruining everything. Warner Bros. should be wary of that given the shaky start to the DCEU. But their decision to create this new branch allows them to provide a true alternative to what other studios are doing, which could end up working out well for them in the long run.

Of course, by creating more superhero movies, there is also the risk of overexposing the genre as a whole. Presently, they're still the biggest box office draws out there, but history has shown time and time again that cinema is cyclical. Eventually a new fad will replace superhero movies for awhile. Still, at least Warner Bros. are striking while the iron is hot, and hopefully it'll inspire others to shift their attention away from what's working for Marvel and give us something fresh.

If nothing else, DC losing its mind should make for some interesting cinematic output and attract superhero fans only interested in seeing their favorite characters in singular outings. There is decade's worth of stories to mine from the DC library, and Warner Bros. can take full advantage of that. Additionally, their new focus on standalone stories could afford directors the opportunity to make the movies they want to make, without worrying about what the next person will need to continue.

However, if DC really wanted to provide the ultimate alternative to what Marvel is doing then they'd move away from the extended universe concept completely and just focus on solo fare. But they want to have their cake and eat it too; hopefully it won't end up being their undoing. If we at least get another Swamp Thing movie out of it, I'll be happy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why DC Losing Its Mind Is Good for Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Warner Bros. has been shocking the world this week. The first surprise came courtesy of the news that a movie will also take place outside the main DCEU storyline, only to later clarify that his movie standalone Joker movie was in the works without Jared Leto anywhere in sight.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Fantastic Four the most mismanaged superhero franchise ever? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Fantastic Four the most mismanaged superhero franchise ever? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is tempting to wonder if there has ever been a superhero team more mishandled on the big screen than the Fantastic Four. On the face of it, Marvel's awesome foursome are less frumpy and passé than Captain America, more recognisable to the general public than ... say ... Deadpool, and have a collective backstory that's almost as absurdly cosmic as the Guardians of the Galaxy. Yet somehow all of the above are thriving in multiplexes, while Reed Richards and co are an enduring Hollywood disappointment.

If blame is to be laid anywhere, it should probably be placed at the door of 20th Century Fox, the studio that bought the big screen rights to Fantastic Four way back in the 1990s, and has held onto them ever since despite all available evidence suggesting that it hasn't got a clue what to do with the superhero team. In fact, the history of the franchise points to one knee-jerk decision after another, a pattern that shows no sign of letting up if rumours that the latest reboot are to be believed.

Bleeding Cool has reported that the new version of Fantastic Four will be a kid-centric movie similar in tone to Pixar's The Incredibles, and focused on Franklin and Valeria, the children of Reed Richards (Mister Fantastic) and Susan Storm. The other two members of the Four, Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing), will be featured but not in central roles. The blog's latest suggestion is that the new project might be based on Mark Millar's unpublished Kindergarten Heroes comic, about a gang of toddler superheroes, which Fox optioned in 2013.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with identifying a market for comic book stories aimed at the very young. We live in an era in which parents taking their kids to see a movie about Captain America and Iron Man are likely to have to shield their little ones' peepers during the excruciating scene where a helpless, tied-up baddie is slowly, horrifically drowned, or the denouement in which our heroes cheerfully beat each other to bloody wrecks. Meanwhile, The Lego Batman Movie, The Incredibles and Big Hero 6 have proven that there is a place for meta-tastic animated superhero flicks that appeal to all ages.

The problem here is not the idea of Kindergarten Heroes coming to the big screen, it's that Fox reportedly want to bundle up its rights to Fantastic Four as part of the package. Apart from being contemptuous of Marvel's longest running superhero team, the idea of focusing a movie on their offspring - even if a tale centred on the preposterously powerful Franklin Richards is tantalising - ignores the fact that the studio has yet to get the original quartet right on the big screen.

The duo of noughties movies - Fantastic Four and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - which starred Ioan Gruffudd as Reed Richards and Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, are best remembered for their TV-movie quality and the dull interplay between its four main heroes. Perhaps Fox decided those films' failure to pick up critical traction resulted from the safety-first approach adopted by director Tim Story, because it then appointed up-and-coming film-maker Josh Trank ( Chronicle) to oversee a dark and gritty reboot. Unfortunately, the result, 2015's Fantastic Four (also known as Fant4stic) is now remembered as one of the most infamous box office turkeys of the decade, with Trank even disowning the film prior to its opening.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Fantastic Four 2015, with Kate Mara and Michael B Jordan Photograph: Ben Rothstein/AP

In the wake of this repeated maladministration, there is only one obvious way forward for the Fantastic Four to establish their rightful place among the highest plinths of the big screen comic book pantheon, and that is for the quartet to be absorbed into the Marvel Cinematic Universe - a route that has just seen Spider-Man return to prominence after the relative mediocrity of the wallcrawler's last few Sony movies.

The parallels are obvious: audiences would no more pay to see another film in which the Fantastic Four gain mysterious powers after a trip into space than they would have parted with their hard-earned cash for yet another Spidey origin story featuring the death of Uncle Ben and Peter Parker beating up Flash Thompson. Bringing the webslinger into the MCU avoided the need to bore us with a slightly shifted version of the same old origins story, and it's not hard to imagine a similar trick working for Richards and team.

Instead, Fox seem determined to go an entirely different route, one that would conveniently allow the studio to keep full control of the property it bought the rights to all those years ago. Yet the concept goes against all received thinking in this arena, which is that spin-offs work best when the original property being bounced off is so popular that there is genuine demand for more stories set in the same universe. The Fantastic Four certainly doesn't fall into this category. In Hollywood terms, it's as if someone decided to make a spin-off to Mother's Day centred on the character played by Julia Roberts.

By skipping a generation, Fox would essentially be giving up on ever making the definitive Fantastic Four movie that fans have been waiting for since Roger Corman's execrable low-budget 90s effort. Evidence suggests this will really not be a Fantastic Four film, but rather a movie tagged to the Fantastic Four brand for commercial reasons. And that, surely, will represent the studio finally admitting that it simply does not know what to do with these storied comic book titans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
fantastic four: rise of the silver surfer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Fantastic Four the most mismanaged superhero franchise ever?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is tempting to wonder if there has ever been a superhero team more mishandled on the big screen than the Fantastic Four. On the face of it, Marvel's awesome foursome are less frumpy and passé than Captain America, more recognisable to the general public than ... say ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Spider-Man Needs to Be White and Straight, Say Leaked Sony Emails – Variety

# data[].attributes.subject
Spider-Man Needs to Be White and Straight, Say Leaked Sony Emails – Variety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Peter Parker and his alter ego Spider-Man must be heterosexual and Parker must be Caucasian, according to a legal licensing agreement between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Entertainment.

The information was disclosed in a massive document release by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, which released this week 276,394 private files, emails and financial data onto its servers.

Sony Pictures and Marvel reps declined to comment on the licensing agreement, first reported by the Gawker website.

The contract went into effect in September 2011. It lists "mandatory" character traits for both Peter Parker and Spider-Man - and the agreement includes the caveat that Spider-Man is "not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual)."

The Peter Parker/Spider-Man character was created in 1962 by writer-editor Stan Lee and writer-artist Steve Ditko. He first appeared in "Amazing Fantasy #15" as an orphan being raised by his Aunt May and Uncle Ben. Parker was portrayed as a teenager dealing with adolescence and being a costumed crime-fighter, complete with super strength and agility, the ability to cling to most surfaces, and to react quickly to danger with his "spider-sense."

The agreement spells out that mandatory Spider-Man traits must always strictly conform to the following list: male; does not torture; does not kill in defense of self or others; does not use foul language beyond PG-13; does not smoke tobacco; does not sell/distribute illegal drugs; does not abuse alcohol; does not have sex before the age of 16; does not have sex with anyone below the age of 16; and is not a homosexual (unless Marvel has portrayed that alter ego as a homosexual).

The Peter Parker character traits include: his full name is Peter Benjamin Parker; he is Caucasian and heterosexual; his parents become absent from his life during his childhood; from the time his parents become absent he is raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben in New York City; he gains his powers while attending either middle school or college; he gains his powers from being bitten by a spider; he designs his first red and blue costume; the black costume is a symbiote and not designed by him; he is raised in a middle class household in Queens, New York; he attends or attended high school in Queens, New York; and he attends or attended college in New York City.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spider-Man Needs to Be White and Straight, Say Leaked Sony Emails

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Peter Parker and his alter ego Spider-Man must be heterosexual and Parker must be Caucasian, according to a legal licensing agreement between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Marvel Entertainment. The information was disclosed in a massive document release by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, which released this week 276,394 private files, emails and financial data onto its servers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been a confusing few days for people trying to keep track of what's going on in Warner Bros.' movie universe, called the DC Extended Universe (DCEU). So we've compiled a list of all the movies currently planned and their statuses.

Justice League (And Sequels)

Set to be released November 17 of this year, Justice League is in the middle of being finished by Joss Whedon-with reshoots and new scenes written by him- after Zack Snyder stepped back due to a family tragedy. Rumor has it that one of the changes being made by Whedon is the removal of Jesse Eisenberg's less-than-adored version of Lex Luthor.

A sequel to this movie was originally announced for June 4, 2019, but has been pushed back. Also still in the cards is a Man of Steel sequel, which Amy Adams has said is at least in the scripting stage.

Aquaman

The standalone Aquaman movie, with a release date of December 21, 2018, has been he most stable of the slate. James Wan, despite reports that he was considering leaving, has stuck it out as the director. It's currently filming.

Shazam! and Black Adam

This movie was originally set to come out April 5, 2019, and the plan appears to be to start filming early next year. David F. Sandberg ( Annabelle: Creation) is the director.

It was originally presumed that Black Adam, played by Dwayne Johnson, would be the villain of Shazam! but he's since been granted his very own standalone movie.

Wonder Woman 2

Set for December 13, 2019, Wonder Woman 2 is probably one of the safest bets on this slate, given the popularity of the first movie. Patty Jenkins, who was somehow not signed to a multi-picture deal, is currently in final negotiations to return as director. Probably with a much-deserved raise.

Cyborg

Cyborg's standalone movie is supposedly going to come out on April 3, 2020. That's pretty much all we know so far, save that Joe Morton is going to be playing Dr. Silas Stone again.

Green Lantern Corps

Similar to Cyborg, Green Lantern Corps has a release date in 2020 but not much else. It's set for July 24, 2020 and David S. Goyer and Justin Rhodes are writing a script based on an idea from Goyer and Geoff Johns.

Justice League Dark

Previously known as Dark Universe, which was deeply confusing when Universal decided to give its shared monsterverse the same name, this was originally announced in 2013 with Guillermo del Toro at the helm. He was replaced last year with Doug Liman, with a whole new script surrounding John Constantine, Swamp Thing, Deadman, Zatanna, and Etrigan the Demon. However, Liman also left in 2017, leaving the project without a director and, according to reports, in the midst of another rewrite.

Flashpoint

Strap in, kids, this one's especially bumpy. A standalone Flash movie was announced in 2014 and for a long time it was presumed that Ezra Miller would play Barry Allen in a move coming out on March 16, 2018. That release date receded into the realms of fiction as Warner Bros. didn't get its first choice of director-the team of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, whom the studio signed to script the movie and was courting for the director's chair. Then Seth Grahame-Smith ( Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter) was hired to write and direct. He left in 2016, with his script put in the hands of Dope 's Rick Famuyiwa. Who also left that year.

At SDCC this year, the Flash movie was revealed to actually be a Flashpoint movie, based on multiverse-bending comic book event. And now we're back to trying to find directors, with a possibilities including Robert Zemeckis, Matthew Vaughn, Sam Raimi, and Lord and Miller again.

The Batman (If That Is Still the Title)

Welcome to Ben Affleck's own personal hell. Affleck was hired to play Bruce Wayne in Batman v. Superman and was then set to take the reigns behind the camera for the Dark Knight's standalone movie. There was ( or maybe wasn't) a script and Joe Maganiello was going to play Deathstroke.

None of these things is certain anymore, including Affleck even staying on to play Batman. Early this year, Affleck stepped down as director and was with Matt Reeves ( War for the Planet of the Apes). He's scrapped Affleck's script and recently managed to confuse everyone by h , "When they approached me, what they said was, 'Look, it's a standalone, it's not part of the extended universe.'" Which could just mean it's a standalone within the continuity of the DCEU but without the burden, say, Batman v Superman had to set up things for the rest of the universe. Or, given recent other announcements about the direction DC and WB are headed, could literally mean a parallel universe Batman movie. I think the former is still slightly more likely. But, at this point, either could be true. It's still unclear.

Batgirl

Joss Whedon entered the DCEU in order to write and direct Batgirl. It will begin production in 2018.

Nightwing

Early this year, another Batfamily picture was announced centered on Dick Grayson's post-Robin identity. Chris McKay ( Lego Batman) was hired to direct and Bill Dubuque was hired on to write.

Lobo and Deadshot

Neither of these movies officially exist yet, but Jason Fuchs was supposedly writing a Lobo movie at some point and Deadshot was once rumored to be getting a Suicide Squad spinoff of his own.

Suicide Squad 2

The sequel was formally announced at Comic-Con last month. Last night, The Hollywood Reporter said the movie was being fast-tracked and it could come before some other just-announced plans.

Joker Movie

This Tuesday came the news that Warner Bros. is expanding their DC slate with a Joker origin movie that falls outside the canon of the DCEU. So the movies will have several universes-the exact opposite of Marvel's "it's all connected" mantra.

This Joker movie is intended to be made without Jared Leto, with Martin Scorsese producing and Todd Phillips ( The Hangover) directing. It's supposed to be a "gritty and grounded hard-boiled crime film set in early-'80s Gotham City."

Joker and Harley Quinn Movie/Gotham City Sirens

In further Joker news, last night we learned that Glenn Ficarra and John Requa ( This Is Us and Crazy, Stupid, Love) are in the final stages of being hired to write and direct a "criminal love story" with Leto and Margot Robbie back as the Joker and Harley

There was a brief moment when it was reported by Deadline that this movie was going to replace the previously announced Gotham City Sirens, which has Suicide Squad's David Ayer attached to direct. That version of the story is gone now. Gotham City Sirens will be another villain team-up movie and also have Robbie and Leto back in their DC roles.

That's a lot of moving pieces, although given how many movies there are and how far out they're being planned, it could be worse. What absolutely does emerge is a renewed focus on Batman, his allies, and his villains. While the earlier slate focused on getting Justice League members in their own movies, the people of Gotham have dominated the recent announcements. That's simultaneously interesting-it's much less diverse than Marvel's plans, for example-and boring-WB just keeps going back to the Batman well for its comic book movies. WB's track record isn't the best, but they could be turning it around.

Mostly, this lookslike throwing spaghetti against the wall and there's no way to tell which pieces will stick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Current State of DC Superhero Movies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's been a confusing few days for people trying to keep track of what's going on in Warner Bros.' movie universe, called the DC Extended Universe (DCEU). So we've compiled a list of all the movies currently planned and their statuses.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Comic Book And Superhero Movies Will Never Go Out Of Style | moviepilot.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Comic Book And Superhero Movies Will Never Go Out Of Style | moviepilot.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ByMichael Colan, writer at Creators.co

A film fan ever since I was a young child watching Jurassic Park and Star Wars. This lifetime love affair with film continues to this day

There's a lot of talk about comic book movie fatigue these days. When will it happen? Will it happen? Has it already happened? Moviegoers have never been treated to as many comic book and superhero movies as we are today. This year we are getting/have already gotten Logan, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, another Spider-Man reboot, a Lego Batman Movie, Valerian, Thor, Wonder Woman, Kingsman, Atomic Blonde and the first Justice League movie. That's quite a lot of movies - 10 in fact. With so much happening, I think it's fair to ask the question on everyone's mind: When will audiences grow tired of these movies?. Steven Spielberg chimed in on this topic and compared the superhero subgenre to Westerns and predicted the subgenre "will go the way of the Western."

Despite what Mr. Spielberg may think, I believe the comic book movie subgenre is here to stay. That's not to say they will always be the most popular movies in Hollywood, as Hollywood is known to move in cycles. Spielberg even noted this in the same interview:

"I'm only saying that these cycles have a finite time in popular culture. There will come a day when the mythological stories are supplanted by some other genre that possibly some young filmmaker is just thinking about discovering for all of us."

This is true, and there is plenty of history in Hollywood to support this claim. In the 1980s, the most popular horror subgenre was the slasher flick. Now? Paranormal is the most popular in horror with The Conjuring- type movies making a big impact at the box office. Slashers are still around but they aren't as prominent.

The ultimate point is that Hollywood comes and goes in cycles. One day comic book movies might fade a bit, but they won't go away for good. However, I don't believe the Western is the correct comparison. Why? Comic book movies are not a singular genre.

Why Did The Western Die?

Why did the Western genre die out as the most popular genre of film? The Western died because no matter how many variations you create with a formula, at the end of the day the films don't vary much from an aesthetic perspective. The Western has a very specific look, and films don't deviate much from it simply because they can't. The movies took place in the wild west, typically centered around a hero with a cowboy hat, who rode a horse and shot a gun really well. I love Westerns but in a true Western there isn't a lot of aesthetic wiggle room.

Hollywood produced a large number of projects when the Western was popular. For example, in the years 1951-1954 there were literally hundreds made. It's no wonder why the Western faded away. Aesthetically, they were not different enough from one another, and the sheer amount oversaturated the market. That isn't to say Westerns haven't changed from a thematic or stylistic standpoint, but they all still bore some visual relation to one another.

The superhero movie has avoided this problem so far.

The Quick Evolution Of The Superhero Movie

Looking at the history of the superhero film, the subgenre has changed and evolved over the years. Right now, the type of superhero films being made are universe driven. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, the DC Extended Universe, the X-Men Universe are where the most popular superhero movies are made. Even Sony decided to team up with Marvel Studios to bring Spider-Man into a Marvel Universe because that's where audience's interests lie.

This is different than the early 2000s where all superhero movies had an individual focus. These movies were not as concerned with setup and establishing a universe where the studio could spin off other movies, everything was taken one film at a time.

If you're a film critic like Roger Moore, who once wrote about Marvel fans, "you're being played, toyed with, lured, pre-sold," maybe you'd like to see the current state of superhero movies decline. Perhaps one day it will change. One day, the universe building will either go away or evolve, or we'll see more auteur-driven superhero films like Logan.

Either way, I don't foresee the subgenre staying stagnate given its clear stylistic evolution since the early 2000s. The Western waited too long to change. By the time the films were shifting in the 1960s into Acid and Spaghetti Westerns the general populace had been burnt out by the classical John Ford-style western.

Let's be clear though: Superhero movies are not a genre. Rather, it is a subgenre of other genres such as science fiction and fantasy. However, they are not limited to just that. The key word is variety. This is the big advantage superhero films have over Westerns.

The Variety Superhero Films Encourage

Let's look at the superhero movies being produced this year. There are seven superhero movies being released, which was a far cry for dozens upon dozens of Western movies that were released every year in the 1950s. The longevity of the subgenre will depend on variety. The superhero subgenre may fall under the category of sci-fi and fantasy, but they have the great potential for a lot of cross-genre pollination.

This year has proven that - The Lego Batman Movie is a comedy/satire, Logan is a serious sci-fi/Western drama, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is a space opera that is stylistic driven (and I would be tempted to not even call it a superhero movie), Wonder Woman is a WWI-grounded period piece, Spider-Man: Homecoming is a teen comedy, Thor: Ragnork appears to be an '80s psychedelic sci-fi/fantasy, and Justice League is a Zack Snyder movie (from an aesthetic and stylistic perspective at least).

Every single one of those films is visually different from one another and stem from different genre types. Even if there are thematic crossovers (which is true of almost any genre or subgenre), the claim that every single superhero movie is the same is false - variety once again wins out.

There is also something to be said about the emergence of cinematic universes which could also extend the life blood of the superhero film. Eventually, something else could come along that could reinvent the subgenre; in 1978 it was Richard Donner's Superman, in 1989 it was Tim Burton's Batman, in 2000 it was Bryan Singer's X-Men, in 2008 both Jon Favreau and Christopher Nolan reinvented it again with Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Another progression will come along. Perhaps Deadpool and Logan are those next films that could push the subgenre further.

Comic Book Movies And Superheroes Are Here To Stay

The great thing about superheroes is there are so many different stories to draw from that filmmakers won't run out of material. Also, having 6-7 movies a year really isn't that many movies in the grand scheme of things.

As long as different studios keep putting out their own style of films and mix in some more auteur-driven movies, the superhero subgenre won't go anywhere. Comic book movies aren't going anywhere because comic books are simply books. Book adaptations aren't going anywhere, comic book movies aren't going anywhere.

For this film fan (film fan of all types - blockbusters, art house, big and small), I could not look more forward to the future in Hollywood where these films are made.
What do you think about superhero movie fatigue?
(Sources: Hollywood Reporter)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Comic Book And Superhero Movies Will Never Go Out Of Style

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ByMichael Colan, writer at Creators.co A film fan ever since I was a young child watching Jurassic Park and Star Wars. This lifetime love affair with film continues to this day There's a lot of talk about comic book movie fatigue these days. When will it happen? Will it happen?

# data[].attributes.headline
Even superheroes may not be able to save Hollywood’s desperate summer | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Even superheroes may not be able to save Hollywood’s desperate summer | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the summer film season draws to a close, Hollywood film bosses are set for some serious soul-searching: entering its penultimate weekend, the US summer box office is heading for its lowest return in more than a decade.

When the ticket stubs for summer are totalled up, they will paint a bleak picture: takings are expected to be down by as much as 15% year-on-year to an estimated $3.8bn. The heroics of summer hit Wonder Woman have failed to shore up a take for the period - the Hollywood summer typically runs from the first Friday in May to the Labor Day holiday in early September - that is $600m lower than last year.

The true scale of the potential problem facing the industry can be seen in the precipitous drop in movie attendance this summer, down 52% year-on-year to 385 million at the time of writing. It is the lowest level of attendance since the summer of 1992, when Batman Returns ruled the US box office.

So what has caused one of the most dire summers in modern US film history? And what can Hollywood do about it?

Superheroes fill the sky

Superheroes have continued to be invincible at the box office with Wonder Woman, the second instalment of Guardians of the Galaxy and Spider-Man: Homecoming accounting for almost a third of the US summer box-office take.

Hollywood's difficult summer.

"Superhero flicks are the only thing firing on all cylinders in terms of a specific genre right now, so don't expect to lose those codpieces and breastplates just yet," says Jeff Bock, senior box-office analyst at industry analyst Exhibitor Relations. "In fact, with Wonder Woman shattering the glass ceiling this summer, plan on a whole new wave of female heroism over the next few years."

The superhero genre has flourished and Hollywood has started to develop a potentially dangerous overdependence on its continued success. It is striking to recall that, little more than a decade ago, more often than not superhero films were box-office kryptonite.

By 2019, it has been estimated that there will be something like 25 superheroes appearing in individual and ensemble films, raising the question of when the superbubble will burst. "About then, we must be hitting peak superhero," says David Hancock, a film analyst at data firm IHS Markit.

This year, Warner Bros is looking to ape Marvel's Avengers success by bringing together its DC Comics heroes - Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman - in an ensemble film, Justice League. This follows the introduction of the antihero cast of characters in the Will Smith-led Suicide Squad, which Universal is quasi-copying with its "dark universe" of monster films, ranging from this summer's The Mummy to forthcoming attractions The Invisible Man, Dracula and vampire hunter Van Helsing.

"Is 25 too many? You bet it is," says Bock. "But right now, Hollywood is stuck in a rut and it needs a safety net - superhero flicks fit that bill right now."

Sequelitis sets in

The issue has been building up for years, but 2017 could well mark the point of peak sequel, with the market awash with over 40 sequels, reboots and remakes scheduled throughout the year. With almost one a week to watch, Hollywood's safety-first approach of attracting a repeat audience, or reviving a built-in fanbase, is facing the law of diminishing returns.

From Tom Cruise's remake of The Mummy to a big-screen rehash of David Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson's 90s TV hit Baywatch (recast with the usually reliable star power of Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron), audiences were not impressed.

This year also saw noticeable franchise fatigue for banker brands such as Cars, Alien, Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean, all of which plummeted in popularity compared to their predecessors (in the US at least).

"There are a number of franchises that are clearly waning - and sequels, which are a different beast, drop off about 10% to 15% each time on average," says Hancock. "But you need to remember that the industry is about much more than just the US these days. So a Pirates or a Transformers may have pulled in a lot less in the US than previous incarnations, but globally they have done well - which prompts another one to be made."

Mid-budget films dry up

In a typical summer season, about 250 films - from studio blockbusters to independent movies - are released. This year there were just 208.

"The last time I saw figures that low was in 2011, the year films made in the budget-stricken financial crisis of 2009 were released," says Richard Cooper, film expert at consultancy Ampere Analysis.

In recent years the major Hollywood studios have dramatically cut back the number of films they make annually and focused on spending more on fewer blockbusters that they believe represent the best chance of achieving big box office returns.

In 2005, the top five Hollywood studios released 173 films; last year that dropped to 118. In 2016 Disney, the home to blockbuster franchises from Marvel and Pixar and the Star Wars films, became the first studio to break $7bn at the global box office - from just 13 releases.

"It is mid-budget films and their fans that have tended to suffer," says Cooper. "Those that the Hollywood studios are not sure are going to attract a huge audience so don't want to risk financing and pushing out."

Over the course of a year, 100 films take 92% of the US box office, and the other 650 releases fight for the rest. Fans of smaller films and non-blockbuster fare are increasingly finding less and less to entice them to the cinema.

The Netflix effect

The boom in popularity of streaming services such as Netflix, which has more than 100 million global subscribers, is beginning to pose a real threat to the Hollywood movie model.

The deep-pocketed digital upstarts have contributed to the so-called new golden age of television, funding shows such as Netflix and Sony's £100m co-production The Crown.

Big-name writers, directors and actors that viewers are more accustomed to seeing in cinemas are now regular fixtures on the small screen - from Brad Pitt in Netflix's War Machine to Nicole Kidman, Reece Witherspoon and Laura Dern in an all-star cast in HBO's Big Little Lies.

For film fans, theatres still have an allure for the launch of big movies, but in the new world, where all media is competing for eyeballs and time in the "leisure economy", the Netflix threat is rising.

"Hollywood is no longer in just a skirmish with streaming content, but an all-out battle for viewership supremacy," says Bock. "Yes, there will always be room for both, but the tide is definitely turning towards online distribution, and Hollywood needs to fight back."

Chinese hits and misses

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Wu Jing in Wolf Warriors 2. Photograph: Deng Feng International Media

China has rapidly grown to become the second-largest film market in the world but it is a hard place to predict a hit. This year the US-China co-production of Matt Damon's The Great Wall, the most expensive feature ever shot in China, turned out to be a box-office flop, while the domestically produced action film Wolf Warriors 2 slayed all comers.

In fact, it made almost $800m in China: the second-biggest box office take by a film in a single market, passing Avatar's US performance and only behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It has only made $2m in the US.

"The immersion of China and US cinema hasn't quite lived up to the box-office expectations Hollywood had pined for," says Bock.

"The synergy of action films, stars and directors is a difficult task to make work on a worldwide basis - especially considering there is only one Vin Diesel - and the cultural barriers are so acutely different when it comes to what each specific audience enjoys."

Shifting schedules

Summer used to be a box-office battle royale between the Hollywood studios, vying against each other for bums on seats. But this year several traditional "summer" films were released much earlier.

Beauty and the Beast and The Fate of the Furious, launched in March and April respectively, have each grossed $1.2bn globally. If they had been launched in the summer period they would have added $725m to American box office figures for the season, putting them up year-on-year. "One feature of recent years is that the 'summer', in terms of the release of blockbuster movies by the US studios in particular, has begun earlier and earlier, as films have been [scheduled] so as not to cannibalise each other's audience," says Phil Clapp, chief executive of the UK Cinema Association.

What can be done?

The short answer is: nothing. The year-to-date figures for the US box office show it is down only about 5%. That is not going to be enough to set off the alarm bells, even if the dire attendance numbers should.

"I refuse to jump on the bandwagon that the movie theatre experience is heading for extinction," says Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore. "I would say the industry has to evolve in order to remain viable and that there are many early warning signs that will allow for a course correction, rather than bracing for the impact of an inevitable decline."

In terms of the immediate future he reckons that with Justice League, Blade Runner: 2049 and Star Wars: The Last Jedi heading for cinemas in the run-up to Christmas, there is a very good chance that the overall US box office could recover and even rise slightly over last year.

Longer term, Bock says that there needs to be a move to more high-quality film-making, as exemplified by the Marvel and Pixar films.

"They spend time incubating their projects, most notably in the script stage," he says. "If it's not on the page, it's not on the screen. Sequels aren't the death of Hollywood, but rotten, stinking, middle-of-the-road continuing sagas could be."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Even superheroes may not be able to save Hollywood's desperate summer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the summer film season draws to a close, Hollywood film bosses are set for some serious soul-searching: entering its penultimate weekend, the US summer box office is heading for its lowest return in more than a decade.

# data[].attributes.headline
Martin Scorsese Will Produce A 'Hard-Boiled' Version Of The Joker's Origin Story | Gizmodo Australia

# data[].attributes.subject
Martin Scorsese Will Produce A 'Hard-Boiled' Version Of The Joker's Origin Story | Gizmodo Australia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At last, the Joker is getting his own movie. It will star a yet-to-be-cast actor, good news for anyone who was turned off by Jared Leto's interpretation of the character in Suicide Squad. And it will be an origin story that pays stylistic homage to 1980s Martin Scorsese films - with the legendary director himself producing.
Image: DC Comics
got the scoop, reporting that the project is still in "the early stages" at Warner Bros and DC, but that Todd Phillips (The Hangover) and Scott Silver (8 Mile) are penning the script, with Phillips set to direct and act as co-producer with Scorsese. It will be an origin story styled as "a gritty and grounded hard-boiled crime film set in early-'80s Gotham City that isn't meant to feel like a DC movie as much as one of Scorsese's films from that era, like Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or The King Of Comedy".

That actually sounds rather inspired, and while it's hard to picture the guy from The Hangover series tackling something in this vein, having Scorsese aboard lends the project a ton of credibility. And since the film "isn't part of any other iteration", that means it will star someone other than Leto - though he'll still reprise the character in Suicide Squad 2 ( if it ever gets made) and the Harley Quinn movie (ditto). An origin story suggests a younger actor, though who it will be is anyone's guess at this point.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Martin Scorsese Will Produce A 'Hard-Boiled' Version Of The Joker's Origin Story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At last, the Joker is getting his own movie. It will star a yet-to-be-cast actor, good news for anyone who was turned off by Jared Leto's interpretation of the character in Suicide Squad. And it will be an origin story that pays stylistic homage to 1980s Martin Scorsese films - with the legendary director himself producing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Risk and Originality in Today's Hollywood

# data[].attributes.subject
Risk and Originality in Today's Hollywood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Their business model depends on the assured audience and the blockbuster."

When I think of my wife, I always think of the back of her head. I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brain, trying to get answers. The primal questions of a marriage: What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we done to each other? What will we do?

Fincher's Latest...

So begins David Fincher's latest film, Gone Girl, about a man whose wife mysteriously disappears. Its unconventional structure kept me guessing, and when the credits rolled, all I wanted was to curl into a ball and blast some feel-good music.

In classic Fincher fashion, the film feeds on our deep-set fears, this time about coupledom. It plays on our suspicion that, "In some fundamental sense, it necessarily entails victimization. To be in a couple," Joshua Rothman reflects, "Is to be in a power relationship. And in power relationships, there are always winners and losers."

Love it or hate it, Gone Girl is an undeniably smart film, expertly crafted and thematically daring. It was refreshing to see something so original and uncompromising come out of Hollywood.

Curious, I looked up the film's budget: $61 million. I then looked up the film's box office performance: roughly $368 million worldwide, a 500% Return on Investment.

I was surprised that so dark a film secured so formidable a budget and succeeded so resoundingly... Until I realized (embarrassingly late) that the film is an adaptation of Gillian Flynn's New York Times bestseller.

...Is "A Presold Concept"

Everything clicked into place: Gone Girl was a sound investment because it was "a presold concept", ie., a concept with which people were familiar.

The book guaranteed the film an audience, and the celebrity status of David Fincher, Ben Affleck, and Rosamund Pike sweetened the deal. "Analysts say viewers can instantly identify and understand an existing title," Scott Bowles writes for , "A plus in a rising tide of entertainment offerings that makes marketing a challenge."

Indeed, as we've discussed in depth here at Lights and as Bonnie & Clyde director Bruce Beresford summarizes, "People financing films are amazingly cautious and terribly worried about losing all their money." Nine times out of ten, the safest investments are the investments that get made.

This helps to explain much of the content coming out of Hollywood these days, visualized in this well known infographic by Short of the Week:

At risk of generalizing, we live in The Age of Presold Concepts. Last March, The Atlantic observed that in 2013, ten of the thirteen films grossing more than $200 million in the US and Canada were sequels and adaptations:

This year, we've seen franchises like Taken 3, Insidious: Chapter 3, Pitch Perfect 2, Sinister 2, the conclusion of The Hunger Games ... The list goes on.

It's Not Just Them, It's Us

Short of the Week interprets this trend as proof of Hollywood's "waning creativity".

But if it's about Hollywood's creativity, then it's also about our own; we are, after all, the audiences attending these films. Numbers don't lie. So long as they bring in the big bucks, Transformers 4 and their ilk will continue to get made.

Global Hollywood

Of course, it's not only the domestic market that buoys the blockbusters.

As reports, "non-US ticket sales today account for 70% of business and climbing." This staggering statistic begs some interesting questions:

[I]t was inevitable that Hollywood's desire to traffic in foreign countries would eventually collide with the tinderbox of politics, religion, cultural differences and economics prevalent in offshore markets. These factors have only grown more combustible,... forcing Hollywood to reconsider - perhaps even reinvent - how to tell stories in films that need to travel and profit in a dangerous, complex world.

Arguably, Hollywood literally can't afford to risk distancing its international audiences with creative but potentially offensive films.

For example, as one western executive puts it, "If there are 10 projects presented to us, I know right off the bat the ones that won't work in China because of the subject matter so we don't even consider developing them... You can call it self-censorship, but I don't see it as that different to what studios do when they make a $200 million superhero film. There are no political issues in those films either. It's the same process, just for different reasons."

The Decline of "The Film Artists?"

In his controversial piece for The New Republic, film critic David Denby goes so far as to claim that the structure of the movie business today "has kicked bloody hell out of the language of film", replacing careful craft with characterless "conglomerate aesthetics".

So we have "the clangorous Transformer movies... in which dark whirling digital masses barge into each other or thresh their way through buildings, cities, and people, and at which the moviegoer, sitting in the theater, feels as if his head were repeatedly being smashed against a wall." Denby laments how such fare trumps the original and uncompromising works of "the film artists" - the Paul Thomas Andersons, the Alfonso Cuaróns, the Guillermo Del Toros - for whose movies "there isn't a big enough audience."

Not big enough, anyway, to merit a multimillion dollar budget without hesitation. Unless your original and uncompromising work happens to be an adaptation of a New York Times bestseller. "A movie studio can no longer risk making good movies," Denby concludes. "Their business model depends on the assured audience and the blockbuster."

Growing Pains

I suppose the question is this: how does the current climate in Hollywood affect our own filmmaking endeavors? What constraints does it suggest for spec scripts and productions? What about for Denby's "film artists"?

Many are migrating to television, but if you want to pursue the feature format, don't need a big budget, and don't want to play by the studios' rules, you can run with the independents.

Granted, "For filmmakers... who insist on dealing in hard truths, the battleground has never been more perilous", but neither has it been more level! We have so many tools at our disposal; more can be done with less now than ever before. The future of Hollywood may be uncertain, but the future of film is not. It will adapt to the changing tides, as it has always done.
We'd love to hear from you! What are your thoughts on the state of the film industry today? Feel free to share in the comments below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Risk and Originality in Today's Hollywood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I think of my wife, I always think of the back of her head. I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brain, trying to get answers. The primal questions of a marriage: What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we done to each other?

# data[].attributes.headline
U.S. Studios Don't Need U.S. Audiences Anymore — LRM Online

# data[].attributes.subject
U.S. Studios Don't Need U.S. Audiences Anymore — LRM Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Studios Don't Need U.S. Audiences Anymore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stop me if you've heard these: Wonder Woman is the highest-grossing film of the summer. The latest Transformers is a flop. Valerian has no chance to make its budget back. All of these statements are false (well, maybe not the one about Valerian...).

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero Shows Are Coming to Amazon, Netflix and Hulu -- Can They Boost Subscribers? - TheStreet

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero Shows Are Coming to Amazon, Netflix and Hulu -- Can They Boost Subscribers? - TheStreet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you thought that superhero fever was exclusively a big-screen phenomenon, think again. By the end of the year, all three major media streaming services -- Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu -- will have a superhero show on their slate.

Netflix ( NFLX) has been bringing superheroes to the small screen for a couple years now, beginning with the release of "Marvel's Daredevil" in spring 2015. Since then, the streaming giant has released shows centered around fellow Marvel characters Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist. Those standalone series have built up to "Marvel's The Defenders," the small screen equivalent of "The Avengers" which will see all of those superheroes unite.

That show comes on August 18, and exactly a week later Amazon ( AMZN) will release its own superhero show. Whereas "The Defenders" is a serious-minded, high-stakes superhero show, "The Tick" is more of a parody: the titular superhero wears bright blue spandex complete with antennae and is known for his nonsensical remarks. Amazon is likely hoping to tap into the same audience that made the flippant "Deadpool" a hit for its first superhero series.

Amazon's "The Tick"

Hulu, too, will premiere its first superhero series with the November 21 release of "Marvel's Runaways." The show follows six superpowered teenagers who unite against their criminal parents, and comes in the wake of Hulu's biggest success to date in "The Handmaid's Tale."

All of these shows arrive during a record year at the box office for superhero movies. So far in 2017, four have been released--20th Century Fox's ( FOXA) "Logan," Disney's ( DIS) "Guardians of the Galaxy, vol. 2," Warner Bros.' ( TWX) "Wonder Woman," and Sony's ( SNE) "Spider-Man: Homecoming." And incredibly, all have been blockbuster hits with glowing reviews and domestic grosses over $225 million. Indeed, those films constitute four of the top 5 films of 2017 so far, leaving only the year's highest-grossing film "Beauty and the Beast" without a superhero.

"The bar has been raised high by the big-screen superheroes, and it makes complete sense to capitalize on that huge audience enthusiasm by creating small-screen superhero content," said senior ComScore ( SCOR) analyst Paul Dergarabedian.

Hulu's "Marvel's Runaways"

All three streamers will, of course, be fishing for more subscribers with all of this spandex. Netflix currently leads in this department with 104 million subscribers worldwide. Amazon currently has roughly 85 million people signed up for its Prime service, and Hulu counts 47 million among its subscriber base. Given that the superhero genre has driven ticket sales for the film industry this year, it stands to reason that small-screen superhero fare will similarly goose the subscriber bases for these streamers.

Indeed, Netflix's Marvel shows have probably attracted a sizable audience to the streaming service already. While Netflix notoriously does not release ratings for its shows, an impressive 10.7% of subscribers watched at least one episode of "Daredevil" in the first 11 days that the show was available, better than "The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" (7.3%) and "Bloodline" (2.4%). And the premiere of "Luke Cage" led to a rare hourlong service outage for Netflix, indicating high levels of anticipation for the Marvel show.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Superhero Shows Are Coming to Amazon, Netflix and Hulu -- Can They Boost Subscribers?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you thought that superhero fever was exclusively a big-screen phenomenon, think again. By the end of the year, all three major media streaming services -- Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu -- will have a superhero show on their slate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kevin Feige Shares His Thoughts On Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.subject
Kevin Feige Shares His Thoughts On Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question gets asked every year in one form or the other: "Will moviegoers get tired of superhero films?" Superhero fatigue is a phrase that gets tossed around constantly. Now, if the box office is any indication, the answer to the question above is simple - not any time soon.

But will the average audience member grow tired. The Marvel Cinematic Universe alone will be releasing its 21st film in March, 2019 with Captain Marvel. By the time 2017 is all said and done, we will have had six come out. You can even throw in The LEGO Batman movie and Power Rangers to make eight. And if this money train looks to be slowing down - well, you're looking at the wrong train.

Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige weighed in on the subject in a recent interview with Variety. Though he may not have been the first to assemble heroes on the big screen - what with Fox and Sony paving the way with X-Men and Spider-Man - he is certainly the one to do it in the most efficient and groundbreaking manner by introducing a shared universe:

"Yeah, I do. I mean really, all I worry about are the films that we make and the films that we can control. And nobody would get fatigued more than all of us at Marvel Studios," Feige said. "We live this, we breathe this 24-hours a day,
7-days a week. So almost every film we make and every decision we make is to keep ourselves interested and to keep things fresh and to keep things unexpected. And so far, as you say, 19 films in, the audience seems to be responding to that."

Even coming off an incredibly hyped Day 3 of San Diego Comic-Con, where superhero fatigue is more myth than anything, it may be easy to forget about those who put in the work to deliver these products. Fans are no stranger to getting subpar material in the past from various studios, but it seems as though those studios are starting to pick up on the things needed to progress the superhero genre and avoid stagnation.

Fox has implemented groundbreaking, adult themes into its recent installments such as Deadpool and Logan and that may carry over to an upcoming film. Sony finally managed a deal with Marvel Studios to bring a more comic book accurate Spider-Man that, despite its critics, is a sure step up from where the two previous Spider-Man franchises ended. Warner Bros. recently had its first big critical hit in Wonder Woman, which broke down some barriers for women in film and the studio is starting to embrace a lighter tone as evidenced by the most recent Justice League trailer that dropped at SDCC. Even a well-oiled machine such as the MCU has been criticized for its films sticking to a very specific formula, but with Black Panther being compared to The Godfather and James Bond in tone and Thor: Ragnarok embracing the '80s, it's something the studio seems well-aware of.

No matter the differences between each studio and the way they embrace the superhero genre, the one common denominator is that change is good and for the genre to survive, that evolution has to be embraced.

Source: Variety

10 Sub-Genres We Want To See In Superhero Films

Superhero films have existed since the 1920s (if you count Zorro) and have always been a part of our public lexicon. However, recently, superhero films have had an exponential uptick in production, thanks to CGI and film budgets finally being able to accurately keep up with our imagination. Currently, the superhero film is the mainstream blockbuster. Ever since Iron Man hit theaters way back in 2008, the amount of modern-day superhero films has continued to grow. Sure, there were superhero films before that, from Superman in 1978 and Batman in 1989, as well as Blade in the late 90s to X-Men in the early 2000s, and Sam Rami's Spider-Man trilogy. But now, superhero films are the dominant form of pop culture entertainment. This year alone, there are 7 superhero movies hitting theaters. It's a good time to be a geek! Many of our favorite characters growing up are now getting their due on the big screen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kevin Feige Shares His Thoughts On Superhero Fatigue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The question gets asked every year in one form or the other: "Will moviegoers get tired of superhero films?" Superhero fatigue is a phrase that gets tossed around constantly. Now, if the box office is any indication, the answer to the question above is simple - not any time soon.

# data[].attributes.headline
Wonder Woman Audience Older & Female | Screen Rant

# data[].attributes.subject
Wonder Woman Audience Older & Female | Screen Rant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In stark contrast to other blockbuster films, a new study shows that much of Wonder Woman's success was due to female and older audience members. When it comes to superhero movies, audiences tend to skew young and male. Though older audiences, families, and female moviegoers come out in large amounts, men aged 18-25 tend to edge out other viewers. Part of this is down to the characters, with most superhero movies serving as male wish fulfillment. In recent years, however, that trend has begun to change - and audiences are responding.

Though the DCEU has scored big at the box office with their previous three films, Wonder Woman has blown them out of the water in domestic tickets sales. Even more impressive, critics have showered the film in praise. Though it features some familiar beats, the movie's focus on hope, optimism, and a powerful female lead is still resonating with fans worldwide. The film has already passed $700 million at the global box office in just a little over a month, and its run isn't done yet. And while plenty of male movies fans came out to see Princess Diana's solo debut, they weren't the only group helping the film achieve success.

published the results of a new study focusing on the demographics of Wonder Woman's audience and some interesting data has emerged. For one, the film has managed to become the only tentpole film to reach parity between male and female audiences, outshining even The Force Awakens. With the average superhero film featuring an audience that's 62 percent male, the even split between men and women is further proof that audiences will flock to films that represent them.

Along with the increase in female audience members, the data also shows an above average amount of viewers over 50. As word of mouth spread for Wonder Woman, more and more older audience members came out. Likewise, there was an increase in families seeing the film and infrequent moviegoers (described as those who only see 1-4 films a year).

All told, this data not only highlights Wonder Woman 's appeal to a variety of audiences, but the film's rare ability to gain new viewers over time. While each new week of the film's release naturally saw a drop off, the numbers show it was far less than a typical tentpole. Even then, it was mostly a decrease of young male viewers, while other demos began seeing the film more and more.

With Hollywood executives continually making excuses for why women can't lead action films and tentpoles, this data is yet another nail in that coffin. Not only have most female-led blockbusters done well at the box office, but movies like Wonder Woman actively attract audiences that usually shun superhero and genre films. Thanks to the success of Wonder Woman, the DCEU has now passed $3 billion globally. All in all, it's no wonder Patty Jenkins will be back for the inevitable sequel.

As Wonder Woman is still in theaters, we'll likely learn more about its continued success in the weeks to come so stay tuned.

Source: Variety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wonder Woman Box Office Success Driven by Older & Female Moviegoers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In stark contrast to other blockbuster films, a new study shows that much of Wonder Woman 's success was due to female and older audience members. When it comes to superhero movies, audiences tend to skew young and male. Though older audiences, families, and female moviegoers come out in large amounts, men aged 18-25 tend to edge out other viewers.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Memes Help Form Today's Culture Around Movies and TV

# data[].attributes.subject
How Memes Help Form Today's Culture Around Movies and TV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Internet's favorite jokes aren't just funny.

Although coined by Richard Dawkins in a pre-WWW 1976, memes have now become inextricably linked with the most popular means of their dissemination: the Internet. Their newfound online influence is undeniable, with two new features based on wildly popular memes currently in the works (one based on a tweet , and one based on a cult online figure).

In a phrase, they are the digital age's "inside jokes": exclusively funny to those who know what they're referencing (although some memes are designed to be less funny than heartbreaking). Both inside jokes and memes are community- and culture-forming since they rely on a communal experience through their establishment of a point of shared knowledge and friendly association.

Rihanna looks like she scams rich white men and lupita is the computer smart best friend that helps plan the scans https://t.co/PhWs1xd3nj

- kateria 🌸 (@artthekid) April 18, 2017

The tweet that made a movie.
They differ, though, in terms of inclusivity. Inside jokes are often postfaced with "you had to be there", but the door to "getting" a movie or TV meme is always open. "You had to be there" becomes "you have to watch it", changing the tense from past to present, actively inviting the un-amused into the fold of the tickled. Since TV and film memes reference such widely-shared media, there is usually no limit on how large the community of people "in" on the meme can be - and neither do they have to know each other (unlike inside jokes, which are usually limited to small groups of friends or family). Memes like the following, which references the catchphrase of James McAvoy's character in M. Night Shyamalan's Split, are effectively contagious amongst fans of the film or show in question, since the very act of "getting" them signals membership of a community (even if that community is as simple as People That Have Seen Split).

Parents: "Where did u spend all your money?"

Me: "Food, etcetera...." pic.twitter.com/LVP6hZOJOW

- Common White Girl (@GIRLposts) January 25, 2017

For those who haven't seen the film or show in question, databases like Know Your Meme exist, cluing the confused in on the references a meme makes with a brief contextual explanation; making it accessible to anyone, anywhere. But, interestingly, sites, like Know Your Meme, may actually be the last resort for those outside of the loop. In their study on inside jokes, scholars Flamson and Barrett examined which versions of the same joke people preferred: the version that explicitly explained the particular background of the joke (i.e. what it referenced, and hence what made it funny - as a Know Your Meme entry would) or the context-devoid version. "Decoding" a joke on your own, they found, made it funnier.

So what does this mean for memes specifically? I think it suggests they have a secret power to actively motivate people into watching the media they reference. We're a social species, so the intimacy and sense of camaraderie involved with "getting" the meme appeals to us. But some memes are less simply translated into words, so it can take a lot of eloquence to explain and effort to understand the intricate plot and character workings behind one if you haven't seen the work it references in the first place. You could try to find the Know Your Meme entry for the memetic phrase "etcetera" (you'd fail; it doesn't exist as of yet) and try to understand the joke through the site's rather anatomical explanations - or you could just watch Split.

I wanna see split just so I can understand this whole meaning behind "Etcetera" 🙄🙄

- Ella (@EllaNicole14) January 25, 2017

I NEED TO WATCH SPLIT ALREADY BECAUSE I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE ETCETERA MEMES

- MK (@MariaKEspinosa) January 25, 2017

I wanna see Split tomorrow just so I can understand this etcetera meme.

- Christian Rivas (@RadRivas) January 24, 2017

The sense of community invoked by memes works both ways, too. There are those on the outside looking in (people who want to " get" it), and there are those who want to share it, as below.

I NEED everyone to see split, I can't reference hedwig and "etcetera" with out looking weird asf 😫

- Parker Dean (@CaliPark3) January 26, 2017

I want everyone to see Split so they'll understand this meme.!! 😂😂 https://t.co/NFeeYWRUwT

- Raven Blakley (@g_rungetrash) January 25, 2017

For fandoms, this is doubly true. Memes are part and parcel of any fan community, but for tightly-bound, self-selected groups (like those devoted to or the BBC's ) memes have a keener ability to reinforce inward ties like belonging and kinship; the more obscure the reference, the tighter the circle of fans who get it. Outwardly, the fandom establishes its group status and claims a positive space for its members: whole sections of social media are devoted to meme accounts for specific shows, and attract large followings of devoted fans who want to gather together to revel in their shared passion; see: this for Game of Thrones memes, this for Harry Potter and this for ).

(It's worth noting that fandoms don't tend to congregate around stand-alone movies; with the exception of some cult favorites, franchises and TV shows have the advantage here.)

That memes from the long-dead Friends and the Harry Potter films are as popular as those from still-running shows like Game of Thrones points to the resurrective ability of memes. Dormant fan bases can be reactivated by their positive pull and promises of shared laughter and commiseration, ensuring the magic never dies even when the franchise has.

Memes matter to fans, so they matter to studios and marketers, too. Because of their stronger sense of self-defined community, fandoms, in particular, tend to engage with their beloved show or film at a deeper level. Research from brand consultancy firm Troika confirms just this: not only do fandoms "watch more" of their chosen media, they also "buy more" and "evangelize more", increasing visibility of a show as well as its studio's bottom line profit. Courting fandoms through memes, then, has become a necessary part of marketing and merch-selling strategies (take a look at these Instagram posts for some Tyrion Lannister-inspired examples).

In terms of engagement and yield, fandom-loved shows and movies have the bonus of greater depth and longevity (AKA: self-subsisting, high profits). But one-offs have had their fair share of success in increasing viewership and sales via memes, too. Ever since they became a "thing", savvy studios have been rolling out viral-friendly marketing campaigns for their films. Straight Outta Compton is a great example here: 3 weeks before its release, the movie's marketers launched #StraightOutta, a meme-generating site that allowed would-be fans to personalise the film's logo, often leading to humorous effect. Campaigns like these turn fans into prosumers: audiences who effectively perform free marketing for studios through the sharing of their meme creations. It worked: the marketing campaign won a Shorty Award for its innovative use of and success with viral content (9 million #StraightOutta memes were generated), while Fortune put part of the film's phenomenal box office success - a well-above-estimates $60m on opening, and a world record for how quickly it passed $2bn in US ticket sales - down to its finely-tuned meme machine.
#StraightOutta was deemed so successful that it was co-opted to promote other films.
Memes are a fine art, though, and if used without a healthy dose of self-awareness, can make a film flop. When the corporate entities behind Ghost in the Shell launched a meme generator in the vein of Straight Outta Compton's, tone-deafness to criticisms of the film's controversial casting led to the campaign's extraordinary backfiring. Detractors of the film repurposed the generator to produce memes calling out its whitewashing of the original story, effectively rendering the campaign a spectacular own goal (and one that contributed, in part, to the film's bombing at the box office).

Why do memes matter? They are, in effect, industrial-strength cultural glue; tapping into our inherently social dispositions by fostering a sense of positive community amongst hardcore and casual TV and film fans alike. For established shows and franchises, they are a means of expressing both their light-hearted and sentimental values amongst fans and can inject new life into sleeping art. Their virality can lay the groundwork for new releases, too, securing them a prime spot in pop culture as well as engineering financial success as word-of-mouth fills theaters. Impossible to ignore for filmmakers, and a fundamental, positive aspect of any self-respecting fanbase, memes matter because they are our cultural contagion: uniting fans and rejuvenating and championing the art we love best.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Memes Help Form Today's Culture Around Movies and TV

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although coined by Richard Dawkins in a pre-WWW 1976, memes have now become inextricably linked with the most popular means of their dissemination: the Internet. Their newfound online influence is undeniable, with two new features based on wildly popular memes currently in the works (one based on a tweet , and one based on a cult online figure).

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A superhero (sometimes rendered super-hero or super hero) is a type of heroic stock character, usually possessing supernatural or superhuman powers, who is dedicated to fighting the evil of his/her universe. Protecting the public, and usually battling supervillains. A female superhero is sometimes called a superheroine (also rendered super-heroine or super heroine), although the word superhero is commonly used for females also.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Psychology Behind Superhero Origin Stories | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.subject
The Psychology Behind Superhero Origin Stories | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How does following the adventures of Spider-Man and Batman inspire us to cope with adversity?

Smithsonian Magazine |

"Why is every superhero movie an origin story?" complained Entertainment Weekly film critic Adam Markovitz after seeing a trailer for this summer's Man of Steel -yet another version of the 75-year-old Superman saga. Perhaps we love origin stories, Markovitz suggested, because they "show the exact moment when a normal guy goes from being Just Like Us to being somehow better, faster, stronger."

I'm inclined to disagree. As a clinical psychologist who has written books about the psychology of superheroes, I think origin stories show us not how to become super but how to be heroes, choosing altruism over the pursuit of wealth and power. I've learned this through hundreds of conversations at comic book conventions, where fans have been remarkably candid about their lives and the inspiration they draw from superhero stories.

In one form or another the superhero origin story has been around for millennia: A hero battles "supernatural" forces and returns home "from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man," as the mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote.

In my surveys of the genre, I've found that superheroes undergo three types of life-altering experiences that we can relate to.

The first is trauma, which lies at the heart of Batman's origin story, in which Bruce Wayne dedicates himself to fighting crime after seeing his parents murdered. In real life, many people experience "stress-induced growth" after a trauma and resolve to help others, even becoming social activists.

The second life-altering force is destiny. Consider Buffy the Vampire Slayer, about a normal teenager who discovers she's the "Chosen One"-endowed with supernatural powers to fight demons. Buffy is reluctant to accept her destiny, yet she throws herself into her new job. Many of us identify with Buffy's challenge (minus the vampires) of assuming a great responsibility that compels her to grow up sooner than she wants to.

Lastly, there's sheer chance, which transformed a young Spider-Man, who was using his power for selfish purposes until his beloved uncle was murdered by a street thug. Spider-Man's heroism is an example of how random adverse events cause many of us to take stock of our lives and choose a different path.

At their best, superhero origin stories inspire us and provide models of coping with adversity, finding meaning in loss and trauma, discovering our strengths and using them for good purpose. (Wearing a cape or tights is optional.)

Comic book writers could have chosen not to endow their characters with origin stories. (In fact, Batman's back story wasn't published until the comic's seventh installment.) But those writers were keen observers of human nature. And they were able to translate those observations into captivating stories reflecting aspects of psychology that were confirmed by researchers decades later. In doing so, they tap into our capacity for empathy, one of the greatest powers of all.

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Psychology Behind Superhero Origin Stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Smithsonian Magazine | "Why is every superhero movie an origin story?" complained Entertainment Weekly film critic Adam Markovitz after seeing a trailer for this summer's Man of Steel -yet another version of the 75-year-old Superman saga.

# data[].attributes.headline
Main/Super Hero Origin - Television Tropes & Idioms

# data[].attributes.subject
Main/Super Hero Origin - Television Tropes & Idioms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every Superhero has an origin story, telling how they gained their powers and decided to fight crime. It may be revealed in their first appearance, or not until an eventual flashback. But once established, it sets ground rules for which tropes ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Origin story - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.subject
Origin story - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In The Superhero Reader (nominated for a 2014 Eisner Award for Best Scholarly/Academic Work), edited by Charles Hatfield (Professor at University of Connecticut), Jeet Heer (Toronto-based journalist), and Dr. Kent Worcester (Professor of Political Science at Marymount Manhattan College), the editors write in "Section One: Historical Considerations": "Almost all superheroes have an origin story: a bedrock account of the transformative events that set the protagonist apart from ordinary humanity.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and why has the superhero genre progressed to become mainstream Hollywood cinema? | A2 Media Essay

# data[].attributes.subject
How and why has the superhero genre progressed to become mainstream Hollywood cinema? | A2 Media Essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How and why has the superhero genre progressed to become mainstream Hollywood cinema?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The superhero film genre has moved its audience from a niche audience to a more mainstream audience over time and has become a hugely profitable and popular genre within Hollywood. The genre has developed greatly since back in the 1940's when superheroes came straight out of the popular comics such as 'Batman' and 'Captain Marvel',...

# data[].attributes.headline
BBC News - Superheroes and the billion dollar global box office

# data[].attributes.subject
BBC News - Superheroes and the billion dollar global box office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The latest film in the X-Men franchise, 'Days of Future Past,' opened in cinemas around the world this past weekend.

Box office takings have already hit $350m (£209m), far exceeding the production budget of $200m.

It is likely the studio's profits will eventually run to hundreds of millions of dollars.

This level of success is fairly typical. In fact, when you look at the box office take of superhero movies in the U.S. on their opening weekend, the latest X-Men film does not even make it into the top 10.

Superhero films have always been popular with cinema-goers since Christopher Reeve first played Superman in 1978. Three sequels were to follow over the next decade.

In the 1990s, it was Batman's turn with Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney playing the Caped Crusader in four films.

However, since the turn of the new millennium, there has been an explosion in the number of films.

According to Box Office Mojo, there have been 61 movie releases in the superhero genre since the first X-Men film back in 2000. On average, there are a half dozen new films each year.

Box office mojo

So why are there so many superhero films? Well, the simple answer is that they sell cinema tickets.

To date, there are four films that have grossed more than $1 billion at the global box office - The Avengers ($1.5bn), Iron Man 3 ($1.2bn), The Dark Knight Rises ($1.1bn) and The Dark Knight ($1bn).

If box office receipts are adjusted to reflect cinema ticket prices in 2013, then the main superhero franchises have made close to $25bn thus far.

Even when the films do poorly, they are rarely disastrous. The 2004 film Catwoman starring Halle Berry was panned by critics.

Despite this, the box office take was only $12m less than the $100m production budget.

Others include Green Lantern in 2011 and Elektra in 2005. However, when you compare box office takings with production budgets, both films actually made a small profit.

The main reason for the surge in box office receipts is the popularity of the superhero genre around the world.

It used to be the case that the US box office was the be all and end all for commercial success. But, for recent superhero movies, the US typically accounts for no more than $4 out of every $10 made.

For example, this year Captain America (The Winter Soldier) and The Amazing Spiderman 2 were big hits in China's massive box office.

This means that films which would just about break even on the basis of US receipts can become successful when earnings from around the world are added up.

DC Comics versus Marvel

Before superheroes were movie stars, they were primarily comic book characters with most falling into one of two stables.

DC Comics, now part of Warner Brothers, has relied on its two main stars Superman and Batman for box office success.

After the not stellar Superman 4 in 1987, the franchise was brought back 20 years later in the 2006 film Superman Returns and last year's Man of Steel.

Both did well, but it was Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, staring Christian Bale as Batman, that has proved to be by far the most lucrative.

Other forays into the superhero genre, including Green Lantern, Catwoman, and Jonah Hex have not worked out quite so well.

It is probably not surprising that the next planned release will be a joint Batman and Superman film.

Marvel, on the other hand, has a superhero squad that includes Spiderman, Hulk, Fantastic Four, X-men, Avengers, Thor, Captain America and Iron Man among its stars.

It has largely fuelled the boom in superhero films.

Since 2000, there have been five Spiderman films with two more in the pipeline, seven X-men films with three more planned, three Iron Man films, two Fantastic Four films with two more planned, two Captain America films with one more in production, one Thor, and one Avengers with another to be released later this year.

Its cast of arguably lesser known stars has grossed more than twice the combined receipts of the Batman and Superman franchises.

The $4bn paid by Disney to acquire Marvel Entertainment in 2009 now looks like a bargain, even though Spiderman is currently licensed to Sony Pictures and X-Men to Fox.

Why are superheroes so popular?

So why has there been a surge in the popularity of superhero movie films?

Advances in technology have certainly helped. The older movies struggled to recreate the comic book strip on the big screen in a realistic way. The superheroes didn't quite look the part either, as they were mostly grown men in spandex costumes.

These problems have been solved by modern day CGI.

Success of course breeds success. Production budgets are continuously upped which not only allows for more CGI, but also brings in the bigger name actors, directors and producers into the genre.

Where superhero movies have been particularly successful is in their wide audience appeal. Most are rated PG-13 so have large viewership.

Many adults are drawn in by their memories of the comic books, but the films are still very popular with those that didn't.

The superhero bubble does not look like bursting soon. And with more films in the pipeline, Spiderman, Captain America, the X-Men, the Avengers, the Fantastic Four, Batman and Superman will be busy for at least the next couple of years saving the world time and again.

For more on the business of movie franchises, catch Talking Business with Linda Yueh.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Superheroes and the billion dollar global box office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The latest film in the X-Men franchise, 'Days of Future Past,' opened in cinemas around the world this past weekend. Box office takings have already hit $350m (£209m), far exceeding the production budget of $200m. It is likely the studio's profits will eventually run to hundreds of millions of dollars.

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero Movies at the Box Office - Box Office Mojo

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero Movies at the Box Office - Box Office Mojo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Superhero Movies at the Box Office - Box Office Mojo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Top Grossing Superhero Movies at the Box Office.

# data[].attributes.headline
Superhero Movies, The Boom And Bust Cycle | The Empire Blog

# data[].attributes.subject
Superhero Movies, The Boom And Bust Cycle | The Empire Blog

# data[].attributes.headline
▶ Erikson's Stages of Identity Formation - YouTube

# data[].attributes.subject
▶ Erikson's Stages of Identity Formation - YouTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit Study.com for thousands more videos like this one. You'll get full access to our interactive quizzes and transcripts and can find out how to use our videos to earn real college credit. YouTube hosts only the first few lessons in each course. The rest are at Study.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Greatest Super-Hero Films (chronological by time period and film title) Introduction | Flash Gordon | Buck Rogers | Superman | Batman | Spider-Man | X-Men Marvel Cinematic Universe | The DC Extended Universe Iron Man | Hulk | Thor | Captain America | The Avengers | Guardians of the Galaxy Others: A - F | Others: G - N | Others: O - Z

# data[].attributes.headline
Fandom: How Hardcore Fans Are Killing Superhero Potential - Flickering Myth

# data[].attributes.subject
Fandom: How Hardcore Fans Are Killing Superhero Potential - Flickering Myth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Warning - spoilers ahead...
Comic book adaptations are rife with challenges. Making a $200 million epic that pleases everyone has to be a thankless task. You're never going to please everyone. Especially those hardcore fanboys who believe they know best. I've read a few dozen comments that basically can be reduced to the following thought:

"Superman would never do that."

It's the sentiment you hear from the most die hard fans who believe that they have a better grasp of the character than those adapting the story. While I understand the motivation behing these statement, I find this obsessive level of entitlement puzzling.

Like many of you, I'm a fan of Superman. I've been reading the comics since I was a kid. I've seen the movies, read almost every iteration of the character. I've seen the Max Fleischer cartoons. I winced my way through Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. I even suffered through several seasons of Smallville. There are so many different version and interpretations of the character. Personally, I prefer Grant Morrison and Frank Quietly's exceptional All Star Superman. I think it's the greatest Superman story ever put to paper. However, I can still enjoy Man of Steel even though the movie isn't a live action adaptation of that story. For some people, it will never be that simple. Comic book fans seem to think they are a privileged lot that require appeasement. This thought process produces gems like this:

"I buy comics weekly. All of this shit, the big pie, starts with me. Deal with it."

Ah, hubris. There are those who truly believe this. Removed from reality, lacking the scope to understand that a $200 million film requires broad appeal to achieve any level of success. Last year when The Dark Knight Rises was released, a particular malcontent kept damning the entire film based on one simple concept:

"Batman never quits."

That was the foundation of his entire argument. The fact that Nolan had made his version of The Dark Knight abandon his cape and cowl for eight years was a unforgivable flaw that tainted the entire experience. There's a basic critical disconnect with these narrow minded fans when it comes to comic book characters. If anyone (in this case Nolan) does anything outside the constraints of the 'right' version of the character, it is tainted and therefore without value.

Some obsessive fans seem to have a singular view of their comic book heroes. Our friend who claimed "Batman never quits" can't quite accept that Nolan's version did. Then again, so did Frank Miller's version of the character when he penned the now classic graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns. He had to leave the mantle of the bat behind before it could be reclaimed.

Fanboys have this morbid death grip on these fictional characters. A bizarre sense of ownership. If you watch a movie, and your criticism for it is derived from what you think or believe a fictional character should say or do, you're going to be disappointed. To even claim you have a better understanding of these characters than the people involved in the adaptation is an act of pure hubris. There are examples of this all over the web.

Some ten years ago, HitFix writer Drew McWeeny (then writing as 'Moriarty' for Aint It Cool News) posted a review of the J.J. Abrams scripted Superman movie then under the working title of Superman: Flyby. The review was scathing. The kind of merciless beating fueled by fanboy indignation and an epic sense of entitlement. The project was scrapped, in no small part to the fan backlash that originated from his review. McWeeny was playing the role of Mark David Chapman in this artistic execution. And though McWeeny has a more impressive pedigree than your typical online troll, the general maliciousness and sense of fanboy ownership came from the same place. That kind of tight-fisted clutch that strangles new ideas in favor a streamlined, expected version of the character. Much like our friends who declare "Superman would never do that" or "Batman never quits", McWeeny believed that he knew what would work best in a Superman movie, and that J.J. Abrams' script wasn't anything close.

The problem lies in the basic critical conceit that if we go about judging movies based on what we believe is the 'right' version of the character, we have doomed anyone from ever trying anything new. You end up with Superman Returns where you get a director who obsessively sticks to the predetermined path another creator has forged. While that might service the fans, it inhibits the idea that someone would create an original take on the character. I don't know if J.J. Abrams' Superman would have been any good with a Kryptonian Lex Luthor and other assorted deviations. But I think having those things exist is more interesting than watching fans clutch their beloved heroes so tightly that they strangle the potential for something new and different.

In this new franchise friendly Hollywood where we get superhero comic adaptations every few months, I would prefer some risks being taken and some new roads charted. If not, these movies are going to get very boring, very quickly.

Sadly, fans don't often embrace changes made to their favorite characters when adapated to television and film. Maybe because for many people, that is the most popularized version of the character. The kind that makes the largest impression. Not everyone may have read All Star Superman, or John Byrne's excellent Man of Steel relaunch, or Mark Waid's Birthright. But they'll know the film version. Or the one from the TV show. It's those adaptations that make the largest media impact and are therefore considered cultural cannon. I expect the reason die-hard fans are so angered by these changes because somehow they feel left out. What they like about the character has been abandoned. Rather than embrace the idea of a different version of Superman, one that deviates from the traditional scripting, they retreat into their narrow minded cocoon and make claims of just how wrong this version of Superman is.

The truth is there is no 'right' or 'wrong' with a character like Superman. There are 75 years of stories that range from the serious to the silly. The character has been launched and re-launched endlessly. Continuity was abandoned ages ago. There's no reasonable way to expect any filmmaker, no matter how gifted, to take all of those stories, all those versions of the character, and make something that will be universally pleasing.

There will always be a vocal group of fans who believe themselves better stewards of their favorite fictional characters. Who think Hollywood will never get it 'right'. Like the guys who claim "Batman never quits." or film website personalities like McWeeny who at one point thought felt better suited to steer the Superman franchise than those at Warner Brothers. For me, I'd rather have movies like Tim Burton's Superman Lives or the unbridled ludicrousness of something like J.J. Abrams and McG's Superman: Flyby than a lifeless on-the-rails adaptation like Superman Returns.

In a perfect world, we would have a scenario like Warner Brothers created with Batman. You have the dark and wonderfully weird Burton version of Batman. Then we have the ridiculous and often tragic Joel Schumacher take on the character. Then we had three great films from Christoper Nolan. I can't wait to see where they go next with the character. What creative team will be next to tackle the character? Who's going to play Batman? What directions will they take that corner of the DC Universe? I like Tim Burton's Batman, AND I like Christopher Nolan's Batman. They are very different takes on the character. I expect the next person to take on Gotham City will add their own twists and turns. I hope the next creator who helms Batman takes it somewhere it hasn't already been.

Everybody seems to be so resistant to the idea of re-booting a franchise or a character, but isn't that a better alternative to stagnant choices and rehashing the same tired plot points and characters? Give me another Superman film from David S. Goyer and Zack Snyder. When they've done with their version of the character, pass it along to someone else. Why should the films be any different than the comics where rotating creative teams take the characters in wildly different directions?

New ideas. New takes on our favorite characters. Isn't that more interesting that the same tired, endless retreads covering the exact same cinematic territory?

If every movie adheres to pre-existing archetypes, why even bother making them? The screaming fanboys demand adherence to a specific form. I'm more interested in seeing movies by filmmakers who are interested in exploring something outside the traditional framework.
Anghus Houvouras is a North Carolina based writer and filmmaker. His latest work, the novel My Career Suicide Note, is available from Amazon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fandom: How Hardcore Fans Are Killing Superhero Potential

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anghus Houvouras believes that hardcore fans are killing the potential of superhero movies.... Warning - spoilers ahead... Comic book adaptations are rife with challenges. Making a $200 million epic that pleases everyone has to be a thankless task. You're never going to please everyone. Especially those hardcore fanboys who believe they know best.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fandom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.subject
Fandom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A fandom can grow around any area of human interest or activity. The subject of fan interest can be narrowly defined, focused on something like an individual celebrity, or more widely defined, encompassing entire hobbies, genres or fashions.

# data[].attributes.headline
The economics of Hollywood | Economics Help

# data[].attributes.subject
The economics of Hollywood | Economics Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm not really a movie goer. I think the last Superhero move I watched was the original Superman back in the days when Coal miners were still a political force and people used to rent videos to watch in VHS tape players.

One reason I don't like the usual Hollywood movies is that they are so predictable, and frankly you can get soon bored of the same formula - good guy goes down on his luck, but when things look really bleak - Superman comes back from the brink, defeats the bad guy and everyone lives happily ever after.

So, if they are so depressingly predictable, why do so many super-hero style movies get made by Hollywood?
Risk vs solid reward
Making movies is a risky business. But, ultimately studios are interested in making a profit - not in producing artistic films which may appeal to hard bitten film critics. You have to put a lot of money in, and you need to guarantee that you get a good return. With superhero style movies, they have a strong track record of getting decent revenues. If Superman 1,2,3, and 4 all made a profit. Then you could make an approximation that Superman 5 has a good chance of making profit too.

Suppose some new film director came along with a risky plot - something very independent, different, 'artistic' and challenging. - It could be a great success, but equally it could be a flop. You could make slightly higher than usual profits, but equally you could make a loss. Given the choice between a risky new style film and a guaranteed 'banker' - there is a strong economic incentive for you to choose the 'safe' option of another superman hero movie.

A good example, is the TV series 'Breaking bad' - It is critically acclaimed as one of the most innovative and well produced TV series of all times. But, when the creator approached TV networks, no one wanted to touch it. TV producers couldn't see any track record for successful / profitable TV based on a chemistry teacher cooking crystal meth. It was very successful in the end, but the success was unexpected. Generally, TV producers would rather commission something with a more certain audience (like minor celebrities eating worms in the jungle)
Advertising and brand loyalty
One difficulty with producing films is that you have to gain strong brand loyalty in a short space of time. If nobody has heard about the subject of the film, it will be harder to attract interest. The advantage of producing a superhero movie is that there is an instant brand loyalty and awareness of the superhero like Spiderman / Superman. By using well known comic characters, you have effectively got a lot of free advertising - from the long period of customer awareness of the superhero.

The most successful film franchise - James Bond has a huge advantage because the brand of the film series is so well known. You know a James Bond film may be quite predictable, but at least you know you are going to see some good action shots, fast cars, beautiful women and spectacular backdrops.

It is one reason why books are often made into films. Awareness of the books, helps with the advertising for the film.
Famous actors
The difficulty of going to a film is that you don't know whether it is worth the money, until after you have seen it. You can go on reviews, but apart from that you have to make an educated guess. I remember choosing videos (in the days of video rental shops). The only thing you had to go on was the title, cover shot and list of actors. You had to guess whether the film was going to be any good on this rather flimsy basis.

This is why famous actors can command such a high wage. If customers see a famous actor (who they like) in the movie, they are more likely to go. If the film is about an unusual subject, with unknown actors, it will be much hard to attract sufficient demand. The actor is at least a known quantity. The rest of the film is unknown. So people may base their choice of films based on the actors in it.
The 'Starbucks effect'
Suppose you go to the cinema, and you have a choice between two films. One is Spiderman 2, and the other is the 'Unknown adventures of an Oxford economics teacher'. Which film are you going to see?

Well, Spiderman 2 is going to be predictable, but at least you can guarantee a certain standard, a bit of shooting and some excitement. You would probably rank this a 7/10.

The adventures of an Oxford economics teacher could really go either way. It may be a dazzling, informative and challenging film, which surpasses all your expectations (10/10) or it could be a horrible flop - about as interesting as, well, revising economics.

Faced with this choice, customers would most likely choose the risk-averse option of Spiderman 2 - at least you know what you are getting.

The reason I call it the Starbucks effect is that if you go to a foreign town, many customers prefer the certainty of a well established brand label like Starbucks - rather than risk an independent coffee shop (an independent, which could be better, but also could be worse)

This is why studio producers want to concentrated on well known film subjects, rather than take a punt on art house classics.
Related

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The economics of Hollywood - Economics Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm not really a movie goer. I think the last Superhero move I watched was the original Superman back in the days when Coal miners were still a political force and people used to rent videos to watch in VHS tape players.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genre and Super-Heroism Batman in the New Millennium VINCENT M. GAINE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power, Choice, and September 11 in The Dark Knight CHRISTINE MULLER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Fantastic Four doesn...erhero genre - GQ.co.uk copy

# data[].attributes.headline
Will Deadpool Success Spur More R-Rated Superhero Movies? | Collider

# data[].attributes.subject
Will Deadpool Success Spur More R-Rated Superhero Movies? | Collider

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to Hollywood, you can pretty much bank on success breeding imitators. It's happened time and time again, most recently with the YA boom following The Hunger Games' explosive opening, and it inevitably leads to a string of misfires that learned the wrong lesson in the first place. With The Hunger Games, character and thematic resonance were key, but other studios simply saw "dystopia + female lead" and ran rampant with adaptations like and The 5th Wave. So it stands to reason that, in the wake of the unprecedented box office success of , the comic book movie genre is in for a shakeup. But how, exactly, will this play out, and what effect will 20th Century Fox's Deadpool have on existing superhero franchises?

The wrong lesson to glean from Deadpool's success is that audiences just want R-rated superhero movies. Folks didn't simply turn out in droves because Deadpool had naughty language (this isn't the first R-rated superhero movie, after all-see: Kick-Ass, Watchmen, etc.). They came for the uniquely irreverent tone, from which the profanity, violence, and by extension R-rating sprouted organically. Deadpool offers something entirely different within the superhero genre-something audiences have never seen before-and that's why it was such a huge success. Well that and a brilliant marketing campaign.

While we're in the midst of the superhero movie's heyday, the genre is constantly evolving and Deadpool could mark another step in that evolution. 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy proved that superhero movies didn't have to be either dark and serious or colorful and fun, they could also be weird and non-traditional, and Deadpool takes that weirdness one step further by refusing to take the genre as a whole seriously. Superheroes are silly and while Guardians had its fair share of self-referential material, Deadpool addresses this explicitly, calling out the conventions of the traditional superhero movie and turning them on their head.

So what does this mean in the immediate future? It's hard to tell, but the lukewarm fan response to Avengers: Age of Ultron (which was its own kind of weird, but more serious), intense passion for Guardians of the Galaxy, and wild success of Deadpool could signal a step further into "fun" territory, which means a step further away from the dramatic and serious boon that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight began.

The real litmus test here will be just how big Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is. The film is very much being sold on the grave seriousness at the heart of the story, which stands in stark contrast to the Marvel Studios mold. That's not inherently a bad thing, but if Deadpool has audiences climbing the walls, it'll be interesting to see how they react to Batman v Superman-a tone and story arc they definitely have seen before, and many times. Is there still room for the Christopher Nolan approach, or have audiences tired a bit of that kind of superhero movie in favor of something, well, different?

The Warner Bros. mold tackles its comic book adaptations with a much more dramatic angle, but the studio already seems to be hedging its bets by selling this August's Suicide Squad as their version of fun and irreverent (though not necessarily self-referencial)-the most recent trailer screams Guardians of the Galaxy. It feels like David Ayer's villain-centric pic has the potential to be the studio's big breakout film of 2016, but the fact remains they've got a slate built on Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman tone that includes a World War I-set Wonder Woman and a Snyder-helmed Justice League. If audiences react less than enthusiastically to Batman v Superman when the film opens next month, it may be time to rethink that strategy.

But Warner Bros. does have the option of going R-rated, and it wouldn't be entirely out of the realm of possibility. Producer Charles Roven previously told us all of their planned films up through Justice League are intended to be PG-13, but those plans could certainly change on account of Deadpool's success. Levity is key, though, so one imagines the studio would want to tread carefully when combining their dramatic approach with an R-rating to avoid getting mired in the doom and gloom, not to mention the rating should be the right fit for the property-an R-rated version of is probably not the best of ideas, and there's no way they make an R-rated Batman movie, right?

Marvel Studios, meanwhile, has an advantage in that their approach has never been overtly serious. They take their characters seriously, yes, but the colorful palettes and humorous sensibilities always shine through with an acknowledgment that superheroes are inherently a little silly, and with an upcoming slate that includes Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, Doctor Strange, and a Taika Waititi-directed Thor: Ragnarok, they're not exactly lacking in the variety department. What they don't have is the ability to venture into R-rated territory, given that they're owned by Disney, so while they can certainly get irreverent to a point, the Marvel approach is family friendly at its core.

And then there's 20th Century Fox, the studio that for so long resisted the risky Deadpool adaptation and now stands to gain the most from its success. The Ryan Reynolds-fronted film now exists within an interconnected universe, so injecting his character into future films like present day-set X-Men sequels and the Gambit spinoff would automatically infuse those movies with a smidge of the Deadpool flavor, but as producer/Fox superhero guru Simon Kinberg recently said, not every superhero movie is improved by making it R-rated.

Kinberg did mention one specific property that, should it get off the ground, he could envision as being R-rated in nature, and that's X-Force, which is like a darker version of the X-Men. That seems like the next logical step for Fox, besides the Deadpool sequel, and the film that could carry this very specific, self-referential tone squarely into the "shared universe" era. It's also possible that Hugh Jackman's final Wolverine movie could land an R-rating, given that The Wolverine nearly did.

While it's unclear exactly what will happen next on account of Deadpool's success, we can definitely count on some sort of reaction. Studios will no doubt want to capitalize on the profitable nature of Deadpool's performance by making their own smaller-budgeted, more risky adaptations (ie. R-rated), but the question is whether they'll have learned the right lesson-that Deadpool worked because it's irreverent and unique, not just irreverent-or if we'll simply get a slew of pale imitations, no doubt of the R-rated nature. Speaking from experience post- Guardians of the Galaxy, filmmaker James Gunn seems to think it'll be the latter, and history tells us he's probably right, but I'd argue one studio that got the right idea from Guardians was Fox, who saw that "risky" Marvel movie's success as a big reason to take a gamble on Deadpool-it's no coincidence Fox finally gave the film the greenlight a month after Guardians opened in theaters to massive success.

So then what, specifically, will we see happen at the major studios currently making comic book movies? Marvel's family friendly atmosphere may mean business as usual, but between Warner Bros.' very serious tone and Fox's position to capitalize on the Deadpool craze directly, the scramble could be on to either change course significantly or quickly put a different kind of comic book adaptation into fast development. Whatever the case, Deadpool's success is a testament to the passion and perseverance of Reynolds, director Tim Miller, and writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick in the face of continuous pushback, so it's serendipitous to see them now leading the charge of the next stage in the superhero movie genre's evolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Does 'Deadpool's Success Mean for Future Superhero Movies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to Hollywood, you can pretty much bank on success breeding imitators. It's happened time and time again, most recently with the YA boom following The Hunger Games ' explosive opening, and it inevitably leads to a string of misfires that learned the wrong lesson in the first place.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review: Deadpool Inverts the Superhero Formula -- Vulture

# data[].attributes.subject
Review: Deadpool Inverts the Superhero Formula -- Vulture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Jokey, Self-Aware Deadpool Is an Enjoyable Inversion of the Superhero-Film Formula

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s a send-up of Marvel movies but in no way a takedown of them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Movie review: Insane ‘Deadpool’ deconstructs superhero genre

# data[].attributes.subject
Movie review: Insane ‘Deadpool’ deconstructs superhero genre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ryan Reynolds stars in Tim Miller's wild, funny, deranged, self-reflexive take on superhero films

"Deadpool" is completely out of its mind.

It's the meta deconstruction of the superhero movie, a superhero movie that knows it's a superhero movie and can't stop commenting on the fact that it's a superhero movie. It blurs the lines between audience, screen and cinematic universe so thoroughly that watching it is like having Deadpool sitting next to you in the theater, riffing on the film and spilling popcorn onto your lap.

All of which could be incredibly annoying, and the film's use of lowbrow, fratboy insults is grating. But otherwise "Deadpool" is a very funny, very wild ride that takes comic book movies to a new level of self-reflexivity.

Credit rookie director Tim Miller, writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick and star Ryan Reynolds with setting fire to the Marvel Universe model and turning it into their own house of mirrors. It starts during the opening credits, when Reynolds is credited not by name, but as "God's Perfect Idiot," alongside a shot of his 2010 People magazine "Sexiest Man Alive" cover. (Other cast members are credited as "Some Hot Chick," "British Villain" and "Gratuitous Cameo.")

Reynolds has never meshed as well with a character or found a better outlet for his smirking, smart aleck persona. He's been somewhat adrift since 2011, when "Green Lantern" let off a stinkbomb that's stench has lingered for years. He followed it up with a string of limp flops, including "R.I.P.D." and "Self/Less" (yikes, even the titles are awful), but "Deadpool" rescues him from that cinematic swamp.

He plays Wade Wilson, a low-rent vigilante who describes himself as "a bad guy who gets paid to (mess) up worse guys." He meets and falls in love with a prostitute named Vanessa ("Homeland's" Morena Baccarin), and together they have a warm, believable sexual chemistry. But Wilson receives a terminal cancer diagnosis that drives a wedge into their life plans.

Wilson meets a shady figure who offers him a cure for his disease and puts him in contact with Ajax (aforementioned British villain Ed Skrein), a mad doctor who experiments with Wilson's body. He mutates his genes, giving him rapid powers of regeneration, but leaves him horribly scarred and left for dead. After escaping the lab, Wilson reinvents himself as Deadpool, donning a red suit and mask while seeking revenge against the doctor and his goons, who kidnap Vanessa.

Deadpool doesn't dismantle his victims like most superheroes; he shoots, stabs and does all sorts of R-rated things to them. This is a movie where bodies (and brains) go splat; as Deadpool himself says, "I may be super, but I'm no hero." Great power and great responsibility can take a hike.

The attitude of the character and the film are supercharged, and the movie goes all the way with its post-modernism; at one point a song on the soundtrack narrates the on-screen action. Plenty of other films have commented on genre conventions and played with fourth-wall barriers - "Last Action Hero" was an example of how not to do it - but "Deadpool" hits just the right tone. It's deeply sarcastic without being cynical or sour.

Marvel being Marvel, "Deadpool" takes up residency in the larger "X Men" universe, where Reynolds' character was introduced in 2009's "X Men Origins: Wolverine." A pair of "X Men" characters, Colossus (voice of Stefan Kapicic) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (newcomer Brianna Hildebrand) figure prominently in the picture and make strong sidekicks for our hero.

But this is Deadpool's story, and he leaves a lasting impression while annihilating the genre. Superhero movies, from here on out, consider yourself Deadpool'd.

agraham@detroitnews.com

twitter.com/grahamorama

Rated R for strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity

Running time: 107 minutes

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/1XlL5wo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review: Insane 'Deadpool' deconstructs superhero genre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ryan Reynolds stars in Tim Miller's wild, funny, deranged, self-reflexive take on superhero films "Deadpool" is completely out of its mind. It's the meta deconstruction of the superhero movie, a superhero movie that knows it's a superhero movie and can't stop commenting on the fact that it's a superhero movie.

# data[].attributes.headline
Film Review: "Deadpool" Addresses the State of the Superhero Genre | STASHED

# data[].attributes.subject
Film Review: "Deadpool" Addresses the State of the Superhero Genre | STASHED

# data[].attributes.headline
R-rated film “Deadpool” offers satirical take on the superhero genre ￼ - Pipe Dream

# data[].attributes.subject
R-rated film “Deadpool” offers satirical take on the superhero genre ￼ - Pipe Dream

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo Provided by 20th Century Fox

With all the superhero films released in the last decade, it's practically impossible not to notice the repeated structure, themes and conclusions from one movie to the next. Though "Deadpool" isn't part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Deadpool himself is a Marvel character, and his awareness of this fact - that he is a character in a superhero movie - is what makes the film one of the freshest, most satisfying superhero origin movies in recent years.

Before he went by Deadpool, Wade Wilson was a mercenary with a murky past and a skewed sense of morality. Ryan Reynolds shines as the titular antihero who is diagnosed with cancer, then subsequently becomes a physically scarred mutant with an accelerated healing factor after going through an experimental, torturous procedure to be cured. Despite this, Wilson still maintains the witty, albeit crude, sense of humor Deadpool is known for, and Reynolds depicts this vengeful, comedic character to near perfection.

What makes this movie stand out from so many other superhero films is the same thing that made the comics popular: self-awareness. "Deadpool" often breaks the fourth wall and addresses common quirks among films of the same genre.

For instance, the opening credits don't feature the actors' names, but rather the types of roles they're portraying- "The Comic Relief," "A British Villain" and the like. Its R-rating - as opposed to Marvel's usual, box office-friendly PG-13 ratings - gives it a bit more leeway, which the filmmakers definitely take advantage of. With dirty jokes, graphic violence and several depictions of sex, "Deadpool" revels in its maturity, using raunchiness to increase the level of entertainment without being too serious.

The film plays on the whole origin story trope - how a superhero gets their powers - by acknowledging that it's cliché and overused. The movie starts in the middle of the action, then flashes back to how Deadpool came to be the character shown in the opening scene. It often hops back and forth between the past and the present, balanced out by smooth transitions of Deadpool's narration. Though this style of storytelling works well to enhance the irony the movie is based upon, it limits the depth that could have been achieved had the story been told in chronological order. By flashing from past to present often, the audience misses out on how the various events shown in the film affected its title character.

At one hour and 48 minutes, "Deadpool" is on the shorter end of modern superhero films. Because of the length, not much time is spent on developing the hero or the supporting characters. For example, Wade's time with Vanessa, his former girlfriend and the main female character, seems much too short. Though clearly not meant to be a romantically driven film, we hardly witness Wade falling in love with her before he discovers he has cancer and leaves to find a cure.

Despite this, "Deadpool" is clever and engaging, and Reynolds' performance will have the audience sympathizing with him every step of the way. It is the character's self-awareness and frequent direct contact with the audience that sets him and the movie apart from other superhero films. Because of this, superhero movie lovers also experience a feeling of self-awareness; their favorite genre can be playfully prodded at with accurate but humorous critiques. They are able to humbly accept that though superhero movies may become repetitive and predictable, they are, at heart, pure entertainment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
R-rated film "Deadpool" offers satirical take on the superhero genre ￼

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With all the superhero films released in the last decade, it's practically impossible not to notice the repeated structure, themes and conclusions from one movie to the next.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Superhero Movies Became Too Big To Fail | Rolling Stone

# data[].attributes.subject
How Superhero Movies Became Too Big To Fail | Rolling Stone

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's a scene roughly halfway through Batman v Superman in which Bruce Wayne's loyal butler cautions his billionaire vigilante boss against going to war against the alien savior of Metropolis. "Men fall from the sky and gods hurl thunderbolts," Alfred tells his master. "That's how it starts."

Spoken like a man who's seen a few superhero movies in his time. In a film that sketchily traces Wayne's history in the cape and cowl, Alfred's observation is one of the few overt nods to the fact that Batman has been around the block, cleaning up the streets of Gotham. And yet, if Alfred were truly as well-versed in this stuff as he claims to be, perhaps he would have finished that thought: "Everyone shakes hands, soberly surveys the wreckage, and promises the audience that their next battle is going to be even more exciting ... That's how it ends."

Audiences have long since come to understand that superhero movies, whatever their virtues, function as glorified advertisements for the next installment of their franchises - just as studios have come to understand that perpetually sustaining the inertia of hype is a better financial strategy than delivering a truly satisfying experience.

You don't have to see Batman v Superman (henceforth BvS) to know that its title is a farce - not even the film's trailer has the nerve to pretend that the two most iconic figures of the DC universe are actually going to remain enemies for long. "Fight night!" is what Lex Luthor labels the brief and hilariously resolved clash of the titans, but since we've already been informed that these adversaries will be on the same side in the next movie, watching them go at it feels more like having front row seats to an all-star game. And ever since the Age of Ultron inaugurated the current phase in which caped crusaders are brawling with each other, it's become clear that these heroes are throwing phantom punches. Nobody is playing to win. It's just about putting on a good show for the cameras.

One of the great joys of comics and graphic novels is that absolutely anything can happen - matched only by soap operas as Western culture's most fluid narrative form, they can follow their bliss wherever it leads them, their stories flowing like river water. Superman famously died in the early Nineties, and was thereafter replaced by four different iterations. It doesn't work like that in the movies. At all. Hollywood literally can't afford to abide by the same rules. To paraphrase Peter Parker's Uncle ben: "With great budgets comes great responsibility." Superhero movies are too big to fail.

Denied the flexibility that powers their source material, these films push around their characters like pieces on a chessboard, teasing endless variations and gambits yet only capable of moving in a finite number of directions. Nobody can die; in the rare case that they do, they're resurrected shortly thereafter for a TV show. Nobody can fall in love, but distant stares and secret families are okay. Nobody can change; they can only have brief episodes of insanity. Lip service can be paid to ideas, and every ideological conflict ends in a stalemate. Characters can only be rebooted if they're Trojan-horsed into a franchise already in progress (it's the difference between The Amazing Spider-Man and the sleek new web-slinger who drops in to Marvel's upcoming Civil War). The superhero genre isn't a bubble, it's a balloon that's growing more transparent as it inflates to the breaking point. And BvS is nothing if not full of hot air.

At first, Zack Snyder's magnum opus appears as to be an overdue corrective to a generation of weightless superhero movies - one for which he is partly to blame. The Man of Steel director has been taken to task for his Superman's inability (or indifference towards) preventing collateral damage, and BvS opens by essentially rewinding the tape and revisiting the mondo destructo climax from a more human perspective. Cloaked in his civilian identity, our new Bruce Wayne runs headlong into downtown Metropolis while Superman and General Zod raze it to the ground. Ben Affleck may be history's beefiest Batman, but he's introduced in a moment of profound impotence. In stark contrast to the lip service that Iron Man often pays to "what happened in New York," (the way in which Marvel leverages the character's PTSD as an anguish of convenience has been cheap at best, and insulting at worst), it's viscerally clear how Batman's fear could drive him to wage war against an invincible foe.

Superhero movies aren't killing the film business. The film business is killing superhero movies.

But it's all a joke. After exhaustively laboring to justify why his two heroes should want to kill each other, Snyder undoes 90 minutes of motivational groundwork in the span of a single arbitrary coincidence. Batman resolves his playground tiff with Superman because he learns that their mothers share the same first name. The moment is intended to pierce through the fog of Bruce Wayne's rage. Instead it exposes how thin Batman really is underneath his steroidal armor.

Clark Kent, meanwhile, is the perfect synecdoche of how the movie works as a whole. Invincible and larger than life, the Kryptonian immigrant struggles to reconcile his desires as a man with his self-imposed responsibilities to mankind. He wants to have it both ways, to be a citizen and a savior, but the world holds him accountable for so much that his choices are ultimately made for him. Nobody is saddled with such a clear understanding as to why superhero movies are stuck between a rock and a hard place. And what's he going to do about it? Naturally you'll have to see the next installment to find out.

Twentieth Century Fox Film

Alas, size isn't everything when it comes to why these films are so dramatically inert. Enter the Merc with a Mouth, who (re)introduces himself to the film world by looking into the camera and promising that he's the answer to our prayers. "You're probably thinking 'This is a superhero movie, but that guy in the suit just turned that other guy into a fucking kebab.' Surprise, this is a different kind of superhero story." If only.

The kind of parody that's provoked into existence when a genre becomes petrified by its tropes, Deadpool was so outrageously successful in part because people have grown bored of costumed sound and fury signifying nothing. Shot on a wing and a prayer after "leaked" test footage sparked a support from the fan community, the R-rated megahit was made for roughly the same amount of money that BvS spent on Ben Affleck's protein supplements. A refreshingly grounded origin story about a recently disfigured hunk who's afraid to show his new face to the woman he loves, the film's scale makes Ant-Man seem colossal by comparison.

Unfortunately, Deadpool tried to have its meta cake and eat it too. Too cheap to compete with the big boys (the action in this film is uglier than its hero), but too expensive to risk alienating viewers by fully embracing its self-reflexive streak, it tried to bowl a seven-10 split and ended up sending the ball straight down the middle. It's an annotated guide of what's creatively bankrupt about superhero cinema: Another origin story, another British villain, another climactic fight on an airship. For all of its naughty language and inside baseball, Deadpool is ultimately just a less serious, less spectacular version of the movies that it was made to mock.

The risk/reward ratio is now too imbalanced to underwrite a healthy creative process. Filmmakers know this, and as a result are fleeing from the genre - there's a reason that an auteur like Edgar Wright was bounced out of Ant-Man, just like there's a reason Deadpool has a first-time director. Ryan Coogler's Black Panther film and Taika Waititi's Thor sequel offer slivers of hope, but it's tempting to think that Marvel will continue to keep using bold ideas (e.g. an adorable humanoid tree) to continue disguising the painfully generic aspects of their storytelling.

As the genre continues to expand at an exponential rate, these films will only push harder against the narrow confines of what's possible for them. Audiences will begin to feel the walls closing in with every new installment, and even hardcore fans will be pulling at their collars. With Civil War right around the corner, 2016 is shaping up to be the year that we're forced to amend one of the most persistent fallacies about our current blockbuster landscape: Superhero movies aren't killing the film business. The film business is killing superhero movies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Superhero Movies Became Too Big To Fail

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's a scene roughly halfway through Batman v Superman in which Bruce Wayne's loyal butler cautions his billionaire vigilante boss against going to war against the alien savior of Metropolis. "Men fall from the sky and gods hurl thunderbolts," Alfred tells his master. "That's how it starts."

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Superhero movies and games are so popular right now - MoviePilot.com

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Superhero movies and games are so popular right now - MoviePilot.com

# data[].attributes.headline
As 'Suicide Squad' Bombs With Critics, What Can DC Comics Change to Catch up With the Marvel Universe? - The Atlantic

# data[].attributes.subject
As 'Suicide Squad' Bombs With Critics, What Can DC Comics Change to Catch up With the Marvel Universe? - The Atlantic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Suicide Squad debuts to poor reviews, efforts to compete with Marvel are being dogged by creative issues and studio interference.

Warner Bros.

When a studio is launching a franchise, one bad movie is an anomaly, two is a problem, and three in a row spells possible disaster. This is the issue facing Warner Bros., which on Friday is releasing its third and newest entry in the universe of films based on DC Comics. Early reviews for Suicide Squad have been largely unkind. Fan outrage is already reaching fever pitch: A petition calling for the shutdown of the review-aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes has 13,000 signatures from viewers upset with Suicide Squad's poor ratings. Rumors of massive studio interference with the film are already beginning to leak out. As a narrative of damage control takes hold, it's becoming clearer what mistakes the studio has made in trying to roll out an entire cinematic universe-and how it can turn things around for the future.

Related Story

Batman v Superman's Empty Obsession With Grimness
A tale about demented villains forced to team up by the government, Suicide Squad is tracking to open big at the box office, but poor word of mouth and bad reviews can cost a film in the long run. Those things are what kept previous DC entries Man of Steel and Batman v Superman from crossing the coveted billion-dollar mark worldwide, an increasingly essential milestone for these films, which tend to cost between $300 and $400 million to make, market, and distribute. DC's comic-book rival Marvel has released four billion-dollar grossers so far, and its future lineup looks stacked with more guaranteed hits. The key difference between the two? Marvel has already established the identity of its franchise, while the DC Extended Universe-three films in-is still trying to define itself.

The Hollywood Reporter's deep dive into Suicide Squad's troubled production sums up the panicky creative approach that led to the film, which is a jumbled mess. Clocking in at just over two hours (relatively trim for a superhero movie), it rushes through the job of introducing its massive ensemble of antiheroes, and it is far too reliant on clunky music cues and hasty voice-over exposition. Some characters show up out of nowhere and are introduced with a single line of dialogue; others disappear from the plot without ever being addressed. The film's tone swings wildly between brutal, dark action and whimsical comedy throughout, which is apparently partly thanks to an early, comedy-heavy trailer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's the Matter With the DC Comics Movie Franchise?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Suicide Squad debuts to poor reviews, efforts to compete with Marvel are being dogged by creative issues and studio interference. When a studio is launching a franchise, one bad movie is an anomaly, two is a problem, and three in a row spells possible disaster.

# data[].attributes.headline
List of American superhero films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.subject
List of American superhero films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
List of American superhero films - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a list of superhero films produced by American film studios by year to date.

# data[].attributes.headline
Don't call it a reboot: how 'remake' became a dirty word in Hollywood | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Don't call it a reboot: how 'remake' became a dirty word in Hollywood | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Some of the greatest Hollywood movies of the modern era are remakes. Martin Scorsese's grubby Boston gangland thriller The Departed riffs shamelessly on the Hong Kong crime epic Infernal Affairs, while David Cronenberg's 1986 body horror classic The Fly is an update on the 1958 Kurt Neumann chiller. The Coen brothers' 2010 remake of True Grit is generally considered to be superior to the hokey 1969 version starring a past-his-best John Wayne, while the 1982 version of the Antarctic science fiction horror The Thing is a better movie than the 1951 film The Thing from Another World from which it drew inspiration.

And yet the very term, along with its younger sibling the "reboot", seems to have become a dirty word in Hollywood in 2016. If Star Wars: The Force Awakens had been made a few decades ago, it might easily have been sold as a remake, but with George Lucas's prequels having already been blamed for ruining countless childhoods, the movie was pitched as a sort of "re-quel", a sequel with all the elements of a remake necessary to inspire nostalgia but enough new material to move the story on and set up future adventures.

One imagines Paul Feig's Ghostbusters might have saved itself a lot of pain by following a similar approach. At least the team who put together the (otherwise much-hated) first trailer got one thing right, as they tried to pitch the new version as a sort of pseudo-sequel to the Bill Murray/Dan Aykroyd version. "30 years ago, four scientists saved New York," read a caption. "This summer a new team will answer the call." Sadly, by this point, it was already too late: the media had long been referring to the movie as a female-fronted remake, and the "bro" brigade was already on the warpath.

It seems others are now keen to avoid making the same mistake. With one eye on sidestepping the gaping pothole marked "ruined childhoods" that seems to manifest wherever these types of movies are being shot, the Rock this week on Instagram insisted the new version of the Robin Williams fantasy romp Jumanji is most definitely not a remake. "For the record, we are NOT making a reboot, but rather a 'continuation of the story'," he wrote.

Roma Downey, producer of the new Ben-Hur movie, was at it too last week at the LA premiere for the swords and sandals, ahem, reworking. "It's been almost 60 years since the Charlton Heston film," she told Variety. "There is a whole generation of people who haven't even seen the 1959 film. And there are so many differences in this version, so if you brought grandpa along, he wouldn't recognise it." Studio Paramount has been pitching the film as a new version of the 1880 novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, which, naturally, the 1959 version was based on too. But it's not a remake, just so's you all understand.

Then there's the forthcoming new version of The Craft, the little-remembered witchy 90s teen chiller that's been reworked with Leigh Janiak, director of the critically acclaimed low-budget 2014 horror Honeymoon, in the hot seat. Yep, you guessed it, this one's not a remake, either.

"I wouldn't say that we wouldn't so much call it a remake as a 'twenty years later,'" producer Douglas Wick told Hitfix in May. "There will be callbacks to the original movie, so you will see there is a connection between what happened in the days of The Craft, and how these young women come across this magic many years later."

Here's the thing. If the term "remake" has become taboo in Hollywood, studios only have themselves to blame. From the slash-and-burn cinema of Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes, with its slew of ill-considered horror rehashes, to Sony's incessant attempts to bring back Spider-Man with almost exactly the same story as last time ( now abandoned, thankfully, in favour of handing the wallcrawler over to Marvel), audiences are simply fed up with an approach to cinema that looks a lot like asset stripping.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course. The Force Awakens was so slickly and lovingly made that all but the most po-faced of Star Wars fans found themselves far too wrapped up in nostalgia to complain. Jurassic World arrived just long enough after 2001's middling Jurassic Park III that audiences found themselves grudgingly enthralled by the prospect of meeting all-new awe-inspiringly photorealistic CGI dinosaurs. And Mad Max: Fury Road belatedly cut away all the fat and gristle of the long-running dystopian desert warrior saga to reveal the gleaming bones of a road chase movie so relentlessly minimalistic that it actually broke new ground in cinema.

But let's be honest: all of the above are remakes of a sort. Painting the old wagon with fresh paint is one thing, but it's not going to stop the wheels falling off further down the line. Ben-Hur looks likely to lose Paramount and MGM up to $100m after bombing at the domestic box office this past weekend, and even Steven Spielberg couldn't convince audiences to come out for his new version of the BFG earlier in the summer. Let's not even mention last year's pointless remake of Kathryn Bigelow's enduringly thrilling 1991 surfer crime romp Point Break.

Perhaps Hollywood can learn something from TV. The current Netflix smash Stranger Things, by way of example, was reputedly written by the Duffer Brothers after they lost out on the chance to oversee the forthcoming big screen remake of Steven King's It. With its gloriously nostalgic riffing on 80s themes, from ET to Stand By Me, the supernatural thriller is certainly better than the much-loved but deeply flawed TV movie double-header that inspired it. What's more, it's likely to be superior to the new big screen It, which recently lost the visionary director Cary Fukunaga and is being produced by sometime horror philistines New Line (makers of those terrible remakes of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th, alongside Platinum Dunes).

Small-screen producers seem capable of picking choice candies from the glorious snack pack of the past without ruining everyone's sweet tooth. Hollywood, meanwhile, seems determined to serve up a relentless platter of regurgitated and recycled fare. And it's slowly making large portions of its audience sick.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Don't call it a reboot: how 'remake' became a dirty word in Hollywood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some of the greatest Hollywood movies of the modern era are remakes. Martin Scorsese's grubby Boston gangland thriller The Departed riffs shamelessly on the Hong Kong crime epic Infernal Affairs, while David Cronenberg's 1986 body horror classic The Fly is an update on the 1958 Kurt Neumann chiller.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Fox is ditching Marvel’s superhero strategy - The Verge

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Fox is ditching Marvel’s superhero strategy - The Verge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Deadpool sequel is in the works, but it's in need of a director. reported last week that director Tim Miller walked away from the project due to creative differences with star Ryan Reynolds over how to approach the follow-up. Miller wanted a bigger budget to make a more "stylized" movie. Reynolds, along with screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, wanted to stick to the R-rated, comics-inspired humor that helped make the film so successful. In the end, Reynolds and the writers won, and their victory is crucial to understanding how 20th Century Fox hopes to stand out in an increasingly crowded superhero landscape. Lagging behind Marvel, Fox is betting big on going small, in effect creating a new formula to get audiences excited about its superhero movies again.
Fox is betting big on going small
It's a common practice in Hollywood to go bigger for action movies and their shared universes. It already defines the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and it's certainly why Warner Bros. has invested billions in Zack Snyder's grim and bombastic aesthetic. But Deadpool was a hedged bet from the start, Fox only greenlighting the hard-R project - at a relatively modest budget of $58 million - after director Tim Miller's test footage leaked in 2014. Showing Wade Wilson punching his way through faceless goons all while quipping for the camera, the footage was received by the fan community with incredible enthusiasm, pushing a studio that had been more focused on the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises off the fence. (Going small might also have had something to do with Reynold's last turn as Deadpool in the awful X-Men Origins: Wolverine.)

But having a small budget meant Miller and Reynolds needed to lean harder on the uniqueness of the character to sell the concept. What made Deadpool so good was more than just its humor. It was also a gleeful rejection of what audiences have come to expect from the superhero genre. The on-screen Deadpool, like his comic book counterpart, broke the fourth wall constantly, referencing Reynolds' real career and how attractive Hugh Jackman is, while also calling bullshit on genre tropes like "the superhero landing." And, of course, there was that R rating, meaning Miller and Reynolds could be as gross and irreverent as they wanted to be. It was an anti-superhero-movie superhero movie, with a personality and style all its own. It's no wonder critics called it " a breath of fresh air."
Superhero franchises are hard to pull off
Fox had a choice on how to move forward: mount the big-budget sequel that Miller reportedly wanted, with all the risk that comes from that, or stick to the scrappy dynamic that made Deadpool so notable in the first place. When it came down to doing something that could have potentially ended up looking the same as every other franchise blockbuster, Fox made the conservative play by going with Reynold's character-driven vision, even if it meant losing Miller in the process. But it wasn't a truly noble decision, either.

It turns out superhero franchises are hard to pull off, even with the template of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Warner Bros. has so far failed to strike critical gold with its similarly ambitious DC Extended Universe, and Sony had to broker a shared licensing deal with Marvel after the failure of the Amazing Spider-Man franchise. By going with a smaller sequel - and not even trying to replicate the bigger-than-bigger strategy employed by most franchises - Fox can let the next Deadpool focus on character rather than budget-inflating effects, floating apart from the competition in a sea of superhero movies.

It's an approach that already seems to be reflected in Fox's larger strategy, as well. Next year's Wolverine swan song Logan will be rated R, something that would be a definite no-no for Disney-owned Marvel. And given that Deadpool exists in the X-Men film universe, it's all too easy to imagine the Merc with a Mouth - and all of his raunchy attitude - stepping in to prop up that otherwise mediocre franchise. If anything, not trying to simply play Marvel's game is slowly becoming a virtue when it comes to genre properties in Hollywood. It's why Fox and Sony felt comfortable skipping San Diego Comic-Con this past year. And the money saved from avoiding an astronomical budget can then be pumped into a marketing campaign that can raise the bar.
Fox has a real chance to reinvigorate a superhero genre that's getting stale
None of this is to say that Deadpool 2 is now guaranteed to be a good movie, especially since Miller's aesthetic was so important to the original. Fox is now hunting for a new director, and even with names like Drew Goddard and Quentin Tarantino being bandied about, the sequel could still easily be as mediocre as the rest of Fox's X-Men movies. But the studio deserves credit for attempting to write a new formula. Superheroes movies aren't going anywhere. But thanks to Deadpool accidentally pushing the envelope, Fox has a real chance to reinvigorate a genre that's growing a little stale.

The entire Marvel Cinematic Universe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Fox is ditching Marvel's superhero strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Deadpool sequel is in the works, but it's in need of a director. reported last week that director Tim Miller walked away from the project due to creative differences with star Ryan Reynolds over how to approach the follow-up. Miller wanted a bigger budget to make a more "stylized" movie.

# data[].attributes.headline
Superheroes: The fight between television and film - Highlander

# data[].attributes.subject
Superheroes: The fight between television and film - Highlander

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The superhero genre has become a staple in today's film and television industry. It's become the driving force of contemporary blockbusters, with many of them becoming the highest-grossing movies every summer. Marvel and DC comics have headlined movie theaters across the world with characters like Iron Man, Superman, Batman and Captain America, as they have come to life from the small comic book pages they once dominated to the silver screen, reaching a broader audience than ever before.

For example, when Marvel Studios first released "Iron Man" into theaters in 2008, the studio aimed to start a cinematic universe in which all the properties they owned would share the same universe. This culminated in 2012's "The Avengers," in which Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and The Hulk finally teamed up and shared the big screen together. It went on to gross over one billion dollars at the box office, making it one of the highest-grossing movies of all time .

But after a decade of superhero films overflowing theaters, superheroes are finding a new medium, by which to translate that impact to audiences - television.

Superheroes by the likes of Green Arrow, The Flash and Daredevil have begun their foray into our homes so we can follow their story as they partake in kick-ass crime fighting. Beginning with "Arrow" in 2012, DC Comics began crafting their own television universe on the CW in which other superheroes from their respective shows, "The Flash," "Legends of Tomorrow" and just recently, "Supergirl" coexist in the same universe as "Arrow" and have the ability to cross over with one another. Likewise, Marvel has been expanding in their current world domination by partnering with Netflix and releasing "Daredevil," "Jessica Jones" and just recently, "Luke Cage" on their streaming service.

These superhero shows have been received with much acclaim from dans and critics alike. "The Flash" in particular has been critically acclaimed averaging a 94 percent out of 100 on the review aggregator website, Rotten Tomatoes . On the flipside, Marvel's "Daredevil" has averaged an even higher rating with 98 percent out of 100 .

However, despite the individual success of superheroes in television and film, there has been a disparity between the overall reaction to these mediums. Recent films like "Suicide Squad," have received less than stellar reception and with Marvel still going at it with their films, there's a risk that they're maybe fatiguing their audiences with oversaturation of these superheroes. But with high praise invading the recent surge of Marvel superhero shows on Netflix and DC shows on television, are audiences preferring to watch their beloved superheroes on television instead of in theaters.

In the superhero renaissance of today, yes. Audiences have become more attached to the heroes of TV, and the answer is simply in the medium itself. As opposed to film, the average person gets much more time with their beloved superheroes on television. Television shows have the privilege of telling their story through several episodes, each usually consisting of 45 minutes or more. And with seasons sometimes lasting up to 20 episodes (or 13 for Netflix series), there's way more room for storytelling. Films are simply more limited. With only two hours or so to set up the characters and story, the storytelling has to be short but effective, and sometimes, it doesn't live up to the "effective" part. And while films sometimes get the job done, it's still only two hours you're wasting on these heroes. And if you want to continue the story, you would have to wait about two years until its sequel is out.

The fact that television has the opportunity to release new installments of its shows every week lends itself to how comic books were originally consumed. Fans would have to wait to get their hands on the next issue of the continuing adventures of their favorite superhero. And with television, they get just that. Or in the case of Netflix, all at once, which is a perfect adaptation for a newer generation of fans accustomed to instant gratification.

And because of the binge-watching format, Marvel has had great success with its properties on the streaming service. It's the perfect way for audiences to get attached quickly and easily, even more so than regular television. Plus, considering how accessible it is to stream from your phone, tablet, gaming console or computer, more so than television, it's a given that audiences will become more enamored with superheroes right at their fingertips.

So with superhero TV shows garnering so much praise from both fans and critics alike then the films must be doing good as well, right? Well, not really. The most recent superhero movie, "Suicide Squad," was critically panned. And not long before that, "Batman V. Superman" got an overwhelming mixed to negative response. Even Marvel's latest film "Captain America: Civil War" did not appease critics and fans. But Marvel's problem is that of oversaturation: "Civil War" was host to many superheroes in one film fighting against each other. With superheroes ranging from Ant-Man to Black Panther to even Spider-Man, the film felt more like an "Avengers" movie than a "Captain America" movie. It's perhaps getting a bit too convoluted for the average moviegoer to follow.

With television, this problem seems to just go away. Sure, we have multiple superhero TV shows now, but the great thing about them is that there is so much time dedicated to building up the titular hero of the show that these films just don't have. We can have about two hours with Captain America in his films before we see him team up with "The Avengers." But we get about 10 or more hours with The Flash on his show before we even see him team up with other heroes.

With so much more time dedicated to storytelling on television, it's really feeling like television is the best place for superheroes to be. Given the fact that television is serialized just as comic books were, the continuous installments have become more effective for its audience than that of film. And with less than stellar reception to recent blockbuster films and oversaturation of them in recent times, television is starting to become a gold mine with live-action superheroes. With Marvel on Netflix and DC on The CW, their potential for the future is exciting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Superheroes: The fight between television and film - Highlander

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The superhero genre has become a staple in today's film and television industry. It's become the driving force of contemporary blockbusters, with many of them becoming the highest-grossing movies every summer. Marvel and DC comics have headlined movie theaters across the world with characters like Iron Man, Superman, Batman and Captain America, as they have ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Newest Superhero 'Farce' Confirms There Is No Justice in the World

# data[].attributes.subject
Newest Superhero 'Farce' Confirms There Is No Justice in the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amy Smart and Shawn Michaels have joined the cast of the latest superhero spoof, Avengers of Justice: Farce Wars, and the described plot of this upcoming farce of a film confirms Thanos is already here and we as a species don't deserve to be saved from his wrath. Basically, imagine if Superhero Movie was lazier and stole the plot of Disney's The Incredibles.

In the film, Earth is reeling from one too many superhero and super-villain clashes. These face-offs have led to billions of dollars in damages, and forced heroes with superpowers into hiding.

Super original, guys.

According to Variety, the movie parodies several Marvel and DC films, along with Star Wars, more likely for name recognition than a connection to the superhero mythos. And how do they spoof these billion-dollar franchises? Not by actually having clever social commentary about the surge in superhero idolatry and the inevitable implosion of an oversaturated market, but by combining one character's name into another character's name.

Superman and Batman become "SuperBat," Joker and Darth Vader morph into "Dark Jokester," Thor and Chewbacca create "ThorBacca," and Smart plays a combination of Jean Grey and Wonder Woman called "Jean Wonder." According to the synopsis, SuperBat reunites the Avengers of Justice in order to save Jean Wonder, who got kidnapped (because, of course, she did). The new superteam includes iconic figures like a racist Hispanic stereotype, "El Capitan South America," and what will likely be a scantily-clad woman who shows her boobs at some point, "Beaverine."

I'm not saying superhero films are above parody because nothing is. The superhero genre turns out some amazing, complex, and heartbreaking stories, but it's also about grown adults in costumes fighting crime. You can't not laugh at that at times. The Lego Movie did an excellent job poking fun at the genre, and many of us loved the Thor mockumentary from Captain America: Civil War. As serious as some of the movies are, the superhero genre should never take itself too seriously. However, there have been about 75-million Zack Snyder "hot-takes" about that very topic, so I won't embellish.

The stupidity that was the Scary Movie-style parodies of the early 2000s is over, and for good reason, because people are smarter than this shit. I can point out several superhero spoofs on YouTube that are way funnier and more clever than Avengers of Justice: Farce Wars promises to be. There's a slim chance it will surprise me in the end, but come on...Beaverine? You've got to be joking.

About the author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newest Superhero 'Farce' Confirms There Is No Justice in the World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amy Smart and Shawn Michaels have joined the cast of the latest superhero spoof, Avengers of Justice: Farce Wars, and the described plot of this upcoming farce of a film confirms Thanos is already here and we as a species don't deserve to be saved from his wrath.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Batman for the real world: is Casey Affleck's Villain the superhero we deserve? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
A Batman for the real world: is Casey Affleck's Villain the superhero we deserve? | Film | The Guardian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For a reminder of superheroes' roots in the hard-boiled pulp fiction of the 1920s and 30s, you only need to watch one of Netflix's shows about "street level" heroes such as Luke Cage, Jessica Jones or Daredevil. Costumes are often dispensed with, central characters sometimes struggle to pay the rent, and powers are downgraded to a level where they're suitable only for protecting the streets of Manhattan - rather than taking on alien invaders and all-powerful AI supervillains.

But on the big screen, with the honourable exception of upcoming Marvel movie Spider-Man: Homecoming, the genre is becoming ever more outlandish and fantastical as studios battle to hit ever-more grandiose levels of epic spectacle in a sort of superhero arms race. Not so long ago, Guardians of the Galaxy opened up the Marvel universe to a radical shift into outrageous space opera, while current offering Doctor Strange introduces us to an entirely new world of magical and mystical entities across multiple head-spinning dimensions. Meanwhile, the DC expanded universe seems to have hit peak crazy with far-out villains such as Suicide Squad's Enchantress, a gyrating ancient sorceress bent on taking over the world, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 's Doomsday, a monstrous zombie alien creature formed from the dead body of General Zod lovingly infused with Lex Luthor's DNA.

Is it all, perhaps, getting just a little bit out of control? Legendary Batman comic book writer (and sometime film-maker) Frank Miller hinted at his feelings on the current comic book movie zeitgeist this weekend when he told Variety he would make the dark knight "smaller" if he were ever handed the keys to the franchise.

"My dream would be to ... lose the toys and to focus more on the mission, and to use the city a great deal more," said Miller, who wrote the seminal Batman graphic novels The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One. "Because he's got a loving relationship with the city he's protecting. And unlike Superman his connection to crime is intimate; it has been ever since his parents were murdered. And he defeats criminals with his hands. So it would be a different take. But it will never be in my hands, because it would not be a good place to make toys from. There wouldn't be a line of toys."

Miller's strategy for reinventing the caped crusader sounds a lot closer to Christopher Nolan's relatively minimalist Dark Knight trilogy than Dawn of Justice, which threw itself into an epic, outsized storyline and found itself faltering in the details - with a dark knight who seemed strangely disconnected from his traditional moral centre.

With luck, we might get to see a Batman closer to his pulpy detective-story roots in Ben Affleck's upcoming solo outing, The Batman. But if the demands of the DC universe make a minimalistic caped crusader an unlikely prospect any time soon, Affleck's brother Casey might have just the tonic. Variety reports that the younger sibling is pitching a new thriller titled Villain, which will focus on a Batman-style vigilante who gains superpowers after being shot in the head during a brutal burglary. Intriguingly, this new "real-world" superhero sounds a lot like Affleck's raging, murderous dark knight in Dawn of Justice. Is the younger Affleck satirising his own brother's work? To quote the trade bible:

The movie is set in a city overrun with crime. Affleck's character loses everything of meaning in his life when a brutal home invasion leaves his family dead and two bullets lodged in his head. He develops a unique power in the wake of his trauma - an ability to see into people's pasts, presents, and futures - and goes on a mission of revenge to find the men who killed his family, and in the process clean up his city long overdue for justice.

But as his vigilante acts become more frequent and violent in nature, his arrival as the city's hero may instead be the announcement of its most prolific villain.

As the superhero genre continues to gain in popularity, it was perhaps inevitable that we would see comic book tropes beginning to seep into other genres. What are the heroes and villains of Josh Trank's Chronicle, Neil Burger's Limitless or Luc Besson's Lucy experiencing, after all, if not a form of superpower? In fact, as Miller suggests, the only reason studios need to keep their heroes wearing recognisable costumes is to make sure they sell plenty of toys.

Comic-book films remain in their relative infancy - the oft-compared western genre took more than three decades to hit its peak - and it seems unlikely that audiences will tire of superheroes with silly names, outlandish outfits and extravagant powers any time soon. But there is surely room for more introspective and cerebral material that plays on our fascination with superhuman abilities - especially with the meta-fuelled Kick-Ass saga having most likely given us our last big screen instalment.

Which Affleck superhero flick would you rather see? Ben's epic tale of gun-toting Batman's battle with Deathstroke on the streets of Gotham? Or Casey's intriguing examination of the corrupting nature of superpowers? I'm a huge Batman fan, but I'm going with the younger Affleck on this one.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Batman for the real world: is Casey Affleck's Villain the superhero we deserve?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For a reminder of superheroes' roots in the hard-boiled pulp fiction of the 1920s and 30s, you only need to watch one of Netflix's shows about "street level" heroes such as Luke Cage, Jessica Jones or Daredevil.