Is the superhero cinema saturation point nigh?

[uebersoldat]

what brings us to saturation isn't really saturation...it's lack of quality. MCU has shown some pretty consistent quality. They will continue to make money until the end of time if that pace is kept. Unfortunately for Disney, actors get old and that same talent will have to be somehow re-created or they will go the way of vampire and zombie flicks because they are pretty much carrying the superhero genre in film right now. DC and XCU have been on the decline for some time now.

On the flip-side, if a really good vampire movie came out that isn't a CGI cheese-fest and well-written and filmed it would be a hit. People don't get tired of the subject material so much as how it is presented and I think that has been proven throughout Hollywood's history. Who knows who will, if anyone, carry the torch after Feige's done? ..and that won't be for lack of trying. The man just 'gets it'.

[Comic Book Addict]

I loved Logan (saw it three times in theaters.) That, and Deadpool, have proven that it's possible to break the mold of the MCU's formula, which has become the status quo for a "successful" superhero movie IMO. I also agree that superhero films are so flexible in terms of genre/other general possibilities, which is why I don't think the market is/will become saturated.

[alton]

I agree with you on one of your points, if the studios get complacent, and just start grinding these out with nothing new in each film, the audience will tire of them faster. I don't agree that they are all formulaic yet (although Avengers is pushing it), but it's a definite danger.

You noticed two Avenger movies that were exactly the same? Throw in Thor Dark Realm and you just won the trifecta.

[AJBopp]

Here's kinda the thing with the superhero fatigue doomsayers.

In 2014, Winter Soldier came out in April. Conventional Wisdom was that this was risky. It was ahead of the traditional "movie season," there were no holidays around it, and huge box offices had rarely if ever been drawn before that early in the season. But it set all kinds of pre-release records.

In 2016, BvS was released in March. This was widely regarded as an even bigger risk. It was still winter in large parts of the country. But presales were very good and, had it been a decent movie, there's every reason to expect that it would have been very successful. Actually, it would have been successful as is, if the budget had been reasonable.

In 2018, Black Panther is released in February, and is setting new records for box office pre-sales.

New, successful trails are being blazed in some fashion every year for the superhero genre, even when there are a few disappointments. There is no reason at this time to assume that the disappointments are a trend in the genre as a whole, just with a specific subset that insisted on a particular vision that hasn't been widely accepted.

Until, at the very least, we reach a point where we aren't setting new records just anticipating new movies, during periods of the year where it was previously unthinkable to release a movie expected to do major box office business, there is no logic at all in suggesting that there is a downturn in interest just around the corner.

My feeling is that the first big test of the genre will come after Avengers 4. If the next 3-6 superhero movies can continue at a comparable clip, the genre is still safe. If not, then it might be time to consider pulling back on the frequency of the films.

[Colossus1980]

Is there any genre that's virtually bullet-proof? No. There might be less Superhero movies in the near future but no genre is a guaranteed success.

[DrNewGod]

Here's kinda the thing with the superhero fatigue doomsayers.

In 2014, Winter Soldier came out in April. Conventional Wisdom was that this was risky. It was ahead of the traditional "movie season," there were no holidays around it, and huge box offices had rarely if ever been drawn before that early in the season. But it set all kinds of pre-release records.

In 2016, BvS was released in March. This was widely regarded as an even bigger risk. It was still winter in large parts of the country. But presales were very good and, had it been a decent movie, there's every reason to expect that it would have been very successful. Actually, it would have been successful as is, if the budget had been reasonable.

In 2018, Black Panther is released in February, and is setting new records for box office pre-sales.

New, successful trails are being blazed in some fashion every year for the superhero genre, even when there are a few disappointments. There is no reason at this time to assume that the disappointments are a trend in the genre as a whole, just with a specific subset that insisted on a particular vision that hasn't been widely accepted.

Until, at the very least, we reach a point where we aren't setting new records just anticipating new movies, during periods of the year where it was previously unthinkable to release a movie expected to do major box office business, there is no logic at all in suggesting that there is a downturn in interest just around the corner.

My feeling is that the first big test of the genre will come after Avengers 4. If the next 3-6 superhero movies can continue at a comparable clip, the genre is still safe. If not, then it might be time to consider pulling back on the frequency of the films.

Good points. I don't think it's declining yet myself, and am actually suspicious of the piece I pasted in the OP. I mainly started the poll because I'm interested in what others say on the subject. On the other hand, no genre is immune, and the question that interests me is what conditions would turn studios off of it?

One is international interest. At present, China's a pretty reliable market for many (not all) kinds of US cinema, but China's interest in their own domestic solutions to everything is growing. As they progressively perceive themselves as a world power, the Chinese could easily come to a place where they're less interested in foreign (and especially American) offerings of all kinds. To a lesser extent, this is a risk for all international cinema markets; if Brand America declines, the appetite for American Cinema might go with it.

Another is studio champions. IMO, the best thing the MCU had going for it was Feige, who was both an experienced Hollywood insider, and an unabashed and faithful comicbook fan. He happened to be positioned in a way could get an experiment done with IP that wasn't really doing anything for Marvel at that moment in time (remember, this was pre-Disney). After the initial success (still, pre-Disney), he had the clout to keep his vision rolling with minimal interference. By the time Disney bought them, Marvel had a proven program of success with which Disney seemed disinclined to tamper. Now, there are still movie folk a-plenty that love comics, but among those, how many have the clout to elbow their way past less-interested people with no understanding of/affection for the source material that just want to get their snouts into the revenue returns these films boast? How long before shallow IP-pumpers begin diluting the kind of good creative contribution that has made these films go?

So, the sky is not falling. How long does that last?

[AJBopp]

So, the sky is not falling. How long does that last?

I'd go back to looking at what happens after Avengers 4. It is widely viewed that some new direction is going to have to happen. Actors will reach the end of their contracts and be too expensive to rehire. New heroes will need to be developed into major box office performers. Existing heroes may have to be reimagined in some way.

Outside of Marvel, other indicators will be if WB can successfully bail out their sinking ship, and if unknown but high quality titles like Valiant can make decent inroads.

The risk is when you have directors that want their own vision on characters. By and large, we the audience want the familiar vision. Also when you have executives wanting new directions. But for now, I don't think either of those things are near the horizon on the Disney side of the business.

[RikWriter]

I'd go back to looking at what happens after Avengers 4. It is widely viewed that some new direction is going to have to happen. Actors will reach the end of their contracts and be too expensive to rehire. New heroes will need to be developed into major box office performers. Existing heroes may have to be reimagined in some way.

Outside of Marvel, other indicators will be if WB can successfully bail out their sinking ship, and if unknown but high quality titles like Valiant can make decent inroads.

The risk is when you have directors that want their own vision on characters. By and large, we the audience want the familiar vision. Also when you have executives wanting new directions. But for now, I don't think either of those things are near the horizon on the Disney side of the business.

I think the real risk is when Marvel loses RDJ and Chris Evans. Without one or both of them, they really don't have a headliner that the public has come to love. I know that I am starting to feel like I won't be as excited about the MCU after Evans is gone.

[OutlawGunStar]

Im personally tired of origin stories.

[DrNewGod]

I think the real risk is when Marvel loses RDJ and Chris Evans. Without one or both of them, they really don't have a headliner that the public has come to love. I know that I am starting to feel like I won't be as excited about the MCU after Evans is gone.

That's an issue (if it actually is an issue at all) for one set of extended franchises, not superhero movies as a whole.

But to address your comment, honestly, I think these risks are overblown. You have to remember that RDJ was mainly thought of as substance-abuse-burnout rather than a BO Draw when Iron Man was cast, and most folks didn't know who Chris Evans was (for those who did, his performances were way far away from his Steve Rogers). Will recasting them cause bumps? Certainly. Does it have any better chance of accelerating decline than recasting Connery did for the Bond Franchise? I doubt it (and that's before considering that Marvel has A Lot of properties it can go to while giving IM and CA time to cool off).

The solution to their recasting is the same as it is for delaying saturation of superhero franchises as a whole. Good scripts and good performances, threaded through good project development, that can entertain the uninitiated and still tickle the nerd-centers of the comic fans.

[DrNewGod]

The risk is when you have directors that want their own vision on characters. By and large, we the audience want the familiar vision. Also when you have executives wanting new directions. But for now, I don't think either of those things are near the horizon on the Disney side of the business.

Agreed! and I think you're right.

You can almost see the conference:
Prospective Director: We've an opportunity to make a really important film out of this, so Iron Man needs to abandon his technology and learn the value of sustainability by practicing techno-shaminism!
Disney Exec: That's awesome! Tell you what tho, why don't you work on this other project over here, I think it really needs more of your creative touch...(while scrolling through his phone's contacts for a replacement).

[AJBopp]

Will recasting them cause bumps? Certainly. Does it have any better chance of accelerating decline than recasting Connery did for the Bond Franchise? I doubt it (and that's before considering that Marvel has A Lot of properties it can go to while giving IM and CA time to cool off).

For me personally, I am much more likely to maintain my interest in Iron Man and Captain America if they recast the roles and keep Tony and Steve as characters, than I would be if they shoehorn in a different character into the costume. I've no interest in seeing Bucky pretend to be Cap, or something along those lines.

[DrNewGod]

For me personally, I am much more likely to maintain my interest in Iron Man and Captain America if they recast the roles and keep Tony and Steve as characters, than I would be if they shoehorn in a different character into the costume. I've no interest in seeing Bucky pretend to be Cap, or something along those lines.

Hm. Again, agreed. A decent approach might be to use recast new Tony and Steve in small supporting roles in other characters' movies (Captain Marvel, BP2, Dr. Strange 2, the BW film...), then return them to films of their own.

But, I digress...

[Carabas]

I think the real risk is when Marvel loses RDJ and Chris Evans. Without one or both of them, they really don't have a headliner that the public has come to love. I know that I am starting to feel like I won't be as excited about the MCU after Evans is gone.

It doesn't really seem to hurt any of the movies neither of them is in.

[Soubhagya]

Good news. Logan got a nomination. Best Adapted Screenplay. Its awesome! One of the top five major awards. Not something like vfx or costume design which a category of fans discount.

It did not get a Best Picture nod. It had hardly any chance there. None of the acting nods or directing. But Adapted Screenplay is great. I got my wish as it got at least one nomination in the 'important' categories.

Some fans might be sad for no Wonder Woman. Personally i think it was fine. While an excellent film it was not as great as Logan. And Logan did not get nominated either. You can't just be great to be nominated. You have to be among the best among the handful of great films. So its fine. Though i would have wished some more nods.