Are comic book films taking away the fun of going to theaters

Hey guys i just wanted to know with the comic book films being king of the box office every year and marvel and dc coming out with an average of three to four movies a year and with it seeming like each year they get even more popular even with kids are comic book films doing irreparable damage to hollywood and the overall movie going experience. I mean you have your avatars and your franchise films like indiana jones and others but it just seems to me that if you want to see smaller films sometimes you have to drive a long way to see them Ex. The banshees of inisherin has 99% on rt and has been hailed as one of the best films of the whole year only problem is in order for me to see it i have to drive 52 miles to a theater in another city to see it because unfortunately black adam is out this week as well and has most of the screens at my local theater. I mean i just think that there are not enough people that support films that are new and original or that have a smaller budget which could in turn hurt the oscars because a lot of films put up for best picture are smaller budget films like banshees of inisherin which get no support from people at all. I mean part of the fun of going to the movies for me is seeing films that are new fresh and different and i like comic book films like the next guy but what's the problem with going to a small budget horror film or a drama every now and again Ex. So me and my dad went to barbarian last sunday it was my second time seeing it in a theater and guess what it was only me my dad and one other person in there watching the film thats it absolutely no support for a great smaller budget horror film none. And this has been a growing problem in hollywood because most people who review films on sites like imdb bitch and moan about there being no originality in hollywood anymore yet those same people did not support the films that were original and decided to skip them now you can blame the marketing if you want and if the marketing for a film isn't great thats partly on the studio but so what go online and look actually look at the films at your theater and don't pick the superhero film don't pick the franchise film pick a film that makes you go oh that looks interesting i haven't heard of that one before. And the biggest excuse is well because of covid i have to be picky about what i go see.Thats a load of bull you can go see a film in theaters you just don't want to admit that you don't want to give a smaller film a chance furthermore christmas for example a great time of the year to go to the movies so how about instead of staying home and watching glass onion at home or going to the theater to see avatar the way of water you go see a film like babylon or the whitney houston biopic i wanna dance with somebody. But what do you guys think did i hit all the points do you think that comic book films are hurting the industry yes or no let me know below sorry about the length of the post.

Taking away the fun of going to the theaters might be a bit of a generalization. I think if people don't want to see comic book movies, they will seek out what they want to see.

Yes, next question.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Most movies are dreck. Comic book movies just replaced westerns since you don't see many of them anymore.

They're not just bland, but insidiously insipid. Alan Moore had it right. These are stupid stories for simple people.

Take the latest DCU offering, Black Adam (which is really just "The Rock" playing "The Rock," so they really missed the opportunity to name it "Black Rock"). It shows clearly defined "neo-imperialist" baddies, the "intergang," representing no particular state. Don't worry, they're simple. They only want to strip Wakanda of its Vibranium. Wait... ...make that "strip Kahndaq of its Eternium." There is no complexity. We're checking boxes. Recycling and regurgitating. Black Adam matters, or so we're told repeatedly, because it finally gives representation to people of a country that doesn't exist (good job?). And we even get the old Riddick "Evil is Good" thing -- you know that film series which debased poor Judy Dench with lines like "Sometimes to fight evil, you need another kind of evil." That is, evil is good, at least instrumentally, so it's OK to Hulk out and break things, because that's how you have get things done sometimes (omelets and eggs, baby!), and nationalism is great so long as it is representative of the "people" who want to be "free." Sure?

We're supposed to care about the relationship between Dr. Fate and Hawkman, because we're told that they have a history together in tossed off lines of dialogue. We're never shown their history. We're merely assured that they're good bros. So, I guess we're supposed to care when two people we don't really know, and in fact we just met (and to our eyes look like Great Value Marvel Characters) in a film that's really about The Rock have a relational moment in the third-act (because, you know, it matters?). This is modern Hollywood writing. It simply asserts. It does not show, because it doesn't know how to show. So, it tells. It simply tells us who the bad guys are. "You are part of the evil Intergang which is strip-mining our country." It simply tells us that we should care, Hawkman: "You know all those great adventures and relational moments we had in the past, off-screen? Dr. Fate: Yeah, I love you too man." It tries to advance its themes like Twitter mic drops. "This is not your son. And this is not your country. So, we're going to let the bad guy have the world-ending MacGuffin for now, OK?"

The hero movies are the worst, because they're so damned lazy. But it's everywhere. You know, like the latest Halloween movie where our characters are constantly offering soliloquys about how bullying hurts and how trauma causes lasting pain (thanks for those deep deep insights, kiddos!). So, it's not unique to superhero action schlock which tells kids that the world has good people and bad people and that we need to solve our problems with violence, and even wickedness as an instrumentality with the release of punching all of our frustations (e.g., ecology, economy, dearth of meaning, pandemics, increasing state power, fear and hatred of fellow citizens, sexual politics) into dust, however, when the decision is made to make yet another one of these box office juggernauts, the decision has been made to make the world a little stupider, yet again.

Look, I am all for stupid turn-your-brain-off fun and catharsis and explosions and quips, but when the flagship product, the main output, of an entire artistic industry has the artistic complexity and nourishment for mind and soul of a Doritos Taco (and I might be insulting the Taco), this is a deeply troubling sign. We're being coddled, infantilized, offered a safety valve, and not challenged by our art. We come out of the film slightly dumber than when we went in.

I have no issue with the sub genre, (at this point it’s fair to label it a sub genre) myself. I have an issue with the over saturation. It’s too much. They’re typically not well written, or over written which results in the writer trying too hard to be “hip” or sarcastic or irreverent for todays audience. *

The best ones took themselves seriously. I’m thinking of Superman 1 and 2. The Dark Knight Trilogy. In the beginning, they were good fun, but they’re way past they’re relevance at this point. They’re just not interesting enough.

Now, this isn’t true for all, I’m sure. I heard really good things about the latest Batman. And future films may even be worth a watch. At the moment, though, it’s not unlike the slasher period of the 80’s where you had to wade theough a lot of crap to find those pearls. Never mind the lingering stench you had to endure to get there.

Comic books have they’re place, as do comic book movies, and I don’t begrudge anyone who likes them, and or even look “down” on any fans (I’m not an arrogant or egotistical putz after all). I once collected comics, once upon a time.

I don't begrudge anyone in particular either. However, these films say something about us in the aggregate. I like plenty of these movies, personally. And yet I find them rather repugnant as a type or group (i.e., as a genre) and that says something about us, collectively.



The Benthamite formula of "Poetry is as good as Pushpin" does not square with claims that art deserves to be protected. If filmic art isn't simplyappetitive and relative, if what we consume does not matter ("It's just a movie, man!"), then art does not matter (and thus deserves no special protection or consideration). If what we consume does matter, if it is potentially transformative and progressive,then it deserves criticism from those who consume it as a product. I take a view of art as mattering, as being reflector and a director, and thus inviting and even requiring evaluation and confrontation. We talk to each other through our movies, they are a cultural mythology through which our values and beliefs and attitudes are transmitted. Right now, our cultural mythology is dominated by power fantasies in which might makes right. This is bad. If it makes me an egotistical putz to say so, then so be it. It needs to be said.

I disagree that most of these films are saying "might makes right," but I agree with pretty much all the rest (and agree with the syllogism if not that particular premise).

To the OP, though: I think, actually, they're the kinds of films that are more fun in the theaters, even if that's maybe not entirely what you meant. If anything should be seen in the theaters it's films made up largely of spectacle and/or which benefit greatly from a community viewing experience.

Perhaps it's not that might makes right (causally), but the assumption might proves right (argument by sign). Our heroes enter into trial-by-combat. They demonstrate their virtue through combat (e.g., Tony Stark proves that is the guy that will lay down on a wire) and their superior martial virtue (e.g., teamwork, sacrifice, endurance, courage) contributes to their victory. It's close enough that violence is still lingering as a justification.

Not all films are meant to be taken as “artistic”. There’s nothing wrong with pure escapist films, which the super hero films clearly are. And that’s fine, I’m not going to these for some deep dive into the human psyche.

It’s an unfair comparison by many because these films don’t pretend to be anything more than just “fun”, even if they aren’t always “fun”. People attack them, but what they’re railing at is what they see as a loss of artistic integrity, which they never aimed for anyways.

There are plenty of better films out there, some that would meet other peoples requirements of what they seek from a film that they won’t get from a marvel comic film, so I don’t think it’s as dire as some project it to be.

I go to the theater when I want to go to the theater.
If anything, the failure of DC to produce any movies I wanted to see (despite being a comic-book fan), the precipitous drop-off of quality in Marvel films, not to mention the pitiful state of the Star Wars franchise, has allowed me more opportunities to go to the theater to see things like Memoria.
And honestly, if half the country wants to drag themselves to the theaters to see blockbusters that are barely (and often not even) competent films, it just means the theater-system won't die out and I'll be able to get tickets to good movies on short-notice since most people will be in the bad ones.

Pretty much this.

Last year, upon returning to the theaters when they re opened, I was able to enjoy several films that, even though were limited, were pretty good to great. Films such as In The Heights (I was singing to myself while watching the opening) WereWolves Within, CODA, The Green Knight and The Last Duel.

If super hero films can help the theaters stay open with strong box office showings, then I stand with Wooley.

Sidenote: super jealous you got to see Memoria in the theaters.

This is OK if we are talking about a particular film or your particular preference. I am speaking here about trends -- "comic book films" (plural). If you want to eat a Twinkie, that's fine. If all you eat are Twinkies, then a friend should have the courage to challenge your choices. And if we look at this sub-genre as a kind of junk food for our mindless consumption (which, like Bentham, you do not judge), relative to other products on the market, we must conclude




I think it's fair to ask what this product is doing for and to us. Because it is now the staple and no longer the treat.





That's not quite true. They purport to teach a variety of moral lessons (e.g., X-Men is an allegory for LGBT acceptance, Batman offers a critique of capitalism and statism, Black Panther makes an argument against colonialism and continuing systemic oppression). More than this, there is the performative lesson of these films (messages implied by themes, plot devices, characterization, etc.).



Beyond this, endorsing violence as mindless fun is a stance in and of itself. As Blackburn remarks, "One of the marks of an ethical climate may be hostility to moralizing, which is somehow out of place or bad form.”





Aiming low is not necessarily exculpatory. An industry protesting that it was "only trying to make insipid spectacles to fill a two-hour holes" is not necessarily worthy of praise for having hit the target so effectively and repeatedly. Yes, McDonald's is only trying sell cheeseburgers. But if all you eat is McDonald's, you will be super-sized.





I no longer accept this as a valid argument. If most of the students graduating from a high school, for example, could not read or do math, this scandal would not be washed out by the handful of honors students it still produces. That there are always "some good movies" that are being made doesn't change overall trends. Not every age of cinema is great. And if we don't get to criticize what is happening as a major trend or the dominant trend until there are no longer ANY good movies left, then we would have to wait for absolute disaster before we could fairly object.



Again, this is about what is being made for us and what we're selecting. These films are a mirror and engine, a reflector and director, and they're concerning in both aspects. It's as if we're saying, "this is the best we can do" or "this is as high as our ambitions go." If anything, I think these films show how small we feel, and how frustrated we are ("Go ahead HULK, smash, it's OK -- break your toys"). Art can be dangerous and it can signal danger. In my estimation, that's what makes it interesting, dignified, and worth fighting for.

The degree to which someone gets this impression (which is reasonable!) is, I think, the degree to which the MCU is a victim of its own success, the degree to which it has successfully repackaged and sold something very old. Here's what I mean:

The reason this has "worked," at least box office wise (I'd argue it worked creatively early on, too, but no matter), is that it's felt reasonably grounded: it's not "here's a wild comic book world" but "here's what happens to our world if you drop X, Y, and Z into it." The United Nations still exists, the heroes fight, they reference pop culture, etc. The good guys kick a lot of ass and always win, so the films are unsurprisingly met with these kinds of objections: that it's a power fantasy, an expression of latent fascist sympathies (a bit much to my mind, but whatever).

But I think the whole MCU makes a lot more sense, and is less objectionable, if we don't think of them as trying to exist in our reality at all, and maybe don't even think of them as cinema, but instead think of them as modern mythology. Maybe even as fairy tales. The kicking ass is just virtue manifesting as strength, symbolically, in the way every it has in every story about every knight slaying every beast. There's a relevant Chesterton quote I think about a lot these days, and it's the first thing that came to mind for me when Stan Lee died:

"Fairy tales are more than true–not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten."

The MCU made its own bed here in trying to seem relatively grounded and modern and all that. It probably had no choice given what audiences are like now. But ultimately I think that's just what allows it to penetrate our more cynical defenses, allowing us to enjoy the same kind of deep reassurance and catharsis that fairy tales have always given us.

Dude, it was funny. My friends said, "You wanna go see the new Tilda Swinton movie?" And I had just seen a trailer for 3,000 Years Of Longing but didn't remember the name of it and I was like, "Yeah, sure, George Miller, Tilda Swinton, Idris Elba, take my money."
When we got to the theater, I didn't see any posters or signs for 3kYL and, since I didn't remember the name of it anyway I asked, "Hey what's the movie we're seeing called again?" and they said, "Memoria", and I thought that didn't sound right and then I saw the poster for that movie on the wall and I realized, "Oh, I literally have no idea, zero, what I am going to see. Should I bail?" And then I thought, "No, it's still Tilda Swinton, you stay for Tilda Swinton."
So I got a truly blind viewing of this movie, I didn't know it existed, I didn't know anything about it at all. And I just accidentally saw it.
Funny thing was I could tell just by watching the movie that it was made by Apichatpong "Joe" Weerasethakul. I mean, I just knew it by the end of the film, even though I had no idea what I was going to see.
And we all really liked it by the way, it remains my favorite movie of the year, and I don't just mean my favorite movie that was in theaters this year, I mean my favorite movie that I SAW this year.

Yeah, I don't buy into that at all. I see the super-hero thing (probably less-so Batman) as really being about people who are selflessly doing their duty to others, in this case protecting them, because they can. I think it's actually a great message. Even misguided Tony Stark, who keeps creating as many conflicts as he fights against (sometimes one and the same), feels a sense of duty to protect because he can.
For example, yesterday at work, somebody remarked that I had a lot of influence with our administration and asked me (with gratitude, to be clear about the situation) why I was negotiating with our bosses on their behalf, and I said, "because I do have greater influence with them than most, so it's my responsibility to represent the people who don't."
And I'm not gonna say I only learned that lesson from comic-books and super-heroes, but I absolutely at least partly learned that lesson from comic-books and super-heroes, and I'm perfectly happy if kids go to the theater and see people with power like Captain America and Super-man and Black Panther and Spider-man, seeing their power as coming with a sense of duty to others. That, if you can help your fellow man, you should.

I don't dislike superhero movies (many comic book movies are not superhero movies like 300 and Alita Battle Angel), but I dislike how dominant they become. In the early 2000s, they made several superhero movies, but also there was more diversity in the types of movies Hollywood made. Now movies that are not superhero stuff are rare, and I am bored of superhero movies.

I think that much of the potential talent that once was involved in movies moved to TV shows in recent decades (as the resolution of TVs improved to match the movie theater).

I'll grant that I would not endorse an alternative stance of showing our heroes always lose (or eventually lose after an initial victory). On the other hand, Batman's justification for his extra-legal policing of Gotham's streets when he tell others not to is that he simply has better kit





And there is a lot of "chosen one" mythologizing by which might selects the right to be mighty. Only those who are worthy can wield Thor's hammer. Only the noble will be selected by a Lantern Ring. Dr. Fate's helmet selected him. The Wizards of (whatever?) only select a few to say SHAZAAM! That is, the universe is basically meaningful and is making you mighty, because you actually are better than everyone else (might proves right).



And who doesn't want to think that they're secretly Luke Skywalker or Harry Potter, secretly better than everyone else, chosen! And when we flatter ourselves with tales of becoming all-powerful when bitten by radioactive spiders, we shed the reality of our banality (where our real problems are waiting for us).



Don't get me wrong. I am all for slaying those dragons. But who are those dragons anyway? And how shall we slay them? Are we presented with simple problems (if only Dragons weren't stealing all our Eterniam we would be a paradise)? Are we given simple dragons (essentially evil others who deserve no sympathy and are literally bent on making life bad for everyone? Yes? How convenient!). And do we simply beat our problems into submission? Or do we use empathy, intellect, patience, and perseverance). If your hero only perseveres in the sense of being willing to punch people indefinitely ("I can do this all day"), what does that suggest to us (apply violence until things finally get better)? And what is the message within the message. Take Black Adam, for example,







Fairy tales are good for children, true. Let them have their tales. And Twinkies can be a nice snack, yes. But we, as a society, don't really go to the theater anymore, or read all that much. The art we consume is predominantly the art of moving images. This is our literature. And what does today's literature say about us? Does it complicate us and challenge us? Does it infantilize us and flatter us? Does it subtly communicate that the dragon is not really our problem? Does it prompt us to face the dragon within?

I agree. The idea that these things are for children only fundamentally misunderstands the role that mythology plays, I think. As I grow older I appreciate simpler things more, not less. There's a good C.S. Lewis quote about this:

There's also really no limiting principle here, either. What could anyone really say, for example, to someone who went a step further, and didn't look down on adults who liked comic book movies, but adults who liked pretty much any movie? "Those are just silly made up stories. I'm a grown-up, I concern myself with real events." We're all deciding to care about the form itself, about fantastical made-up things that speak to real emotions with some layer of abstraction. I'm not sure it's significantly less silly to care deeply about a straight drama than it is something with sci-fi or fantasy elements. To whatever degree it is silly to care about fiction, it's kinda silly all the way through, almost regardless of how much it resembles reality.

Anyway, if someone wants to say they don't benefit from the occasional cinematic "pep talk" in some regard, they can. I'm not sure I'd believe them.

We are very much on the same page here, except that that's Batman's justification, not the film's. I actually wrote an entire essay about this (Christopher Nolan's Useful Lies). Short version is: the movies aren't endorsing that view at all. If you'd rather not read it I can try to summarize.

While I agree there is sometimes a "chosen one" element, I think some of those examples are the opposite. Thor's hammer isn't wielded by Thor just because he's throw, but by anyone worthy. Ditto for being "noble" enough to use the Lantern Ring. That's an important element: that's specifically countering the "chosen one" stuff. The "better than" you're describing is the "pure of heart" better than, which is not might makes right at all.

Now, that has its own pitfalls: lots of kids growing up thinking that being pure of heart always wins the day, and in turn prioritizing intent over results and reality, and so on. But I don't think it has the particular pitfall of equating strength with virtue.

Yeah, this is definitely a thing that exists. I like those stories, too, but I think those are pretty different from most superhero films.

These are all fine questions, but I think it's okay that modern mythology/fairy tales don't try to be nuanced policy prescriptions or roadmaps for living.

I think whatever we do with it, it's on us. I like your Twinkie example. I don't want Twinkies to go away. I just don't want people to try to make them into a main course. Some people do, but that doesn't sour me on the whole concept or think that it doesn't have a lot of value and use.

But I will agree with maybe the implication here, that some people care way too much about this. To the degree I've cared about MCU films (and I have! And I am 100% not embarrassed by it) it's been the degree to which they reminded me of ideas and concepts I hold dear. The people who watch and deeply care about every single output of that machine, who react to every development in even the mundane soap opera quality twists and turns, are pretty alien to me.

There's a running bit, mostly on Twitter, where people see others relating everything to Harry Potter: explaining how some politician they don't like is Voldemort or some group they don't like is Slytherin, or whatever, to which they are quote tweeted and told to "READ ANOTHER F*CKING BOOK." Never fails to amuse me. And I say that as someone who thinks those books are lovely.

It may seem like there's some tension here when I talk about calling those people out while simultaneously defending the value of the things they're obsessed with, but I think the unifying idea here is that, when you think you know what something is really for, it bothers you all the more when someone else doesn't.