Let's just get it over with: Superhero Fatigue

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Henry**

Grimskul wrote:

Oh it's bad, almost comically so, but it gets old real quick and shows how the quality has dropped a lot in a lot of musical portions are in their live action remakes:

I'll present a controversial opinion, but I didn't find anything wrong with that by itself. Where I think it falls down is that I can't feel it totally gelling with the original songs from the animated movie, although it does carry the calypso vibe.
Those older cartoons had such a wonderful consistency running through the whole show. It's why I thought Beyonce's effort in The Lion King was a dreadful mess. It had no appreciation for the musical setting and was the lyrical equivalent of "I want attention and you will give it to me now!"

**BobtheInquisitor**

Ha! That song made me laugh. For me Awkwafina’s voice is just humorous no matter what she does, like Harvey Fierstein’s or Gilbert Gottfried’s. Weird song, but memorable. I’d listen to this again before a Beyoncé Nala song, that’s for sure.

**insaniak**

Yeah, I didn't mind it. And, probably more importantly, my daughters thought it was hilarious.

**Vulcan**

Ahtman wrote:
Vulcan wrote:
Keep spending a couple hundred million on movies intended for niche audiences and... well, conservatively, they've lost $750 million dollars on movies this year alone. Disney Plus has also failed to show a profit thus far.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there, and pretty soon you're talking about having lost some SERIOUS money...

Disney Live Action remake films aren't "niche" audiences, they're kids, and Disney's entire portfolio of films isn't live action remake fare. You know what kids don't tend to care about? Race or ethnicity.

A $750 million loss versus a gain of what? Disney isn't overall in the hole in any capacity and will still be generating billions and billions.

The huge drop in their stock value the past couple years says it's not doing half as well as you think it is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
At the rate Geek Media is going, the MODs will have to shut this part of the site down the same way they had to shut down the Politics section.

Some of us can not handle nice things.

Nope, just this thread in particular. The rest of the threads seem to be holding up just fine.

**Klickor**

Disney + is bleeding them billions as well. It is expensive to have a streaming service. Before they got a lot of royalties from their old media when it was shown on TV, other streaming services or when physical copies were sold. But now they limit that as much as possible to draw subscribers to their own platform. A platform they are losing money on. Merch is also faring much much worse than it used to do for many of the IPs that Disney own.

So if they don't make the money back in the box office they are unlikely to make it back later from other revenue streams. This is huge and should not be underestimated. Lots of movies or shows that weren't that successful upon release or season 1 could still get a long lifetime and give the company a steady stream of income for years or even decades. That isn't the case any longer.

There is no risk Disney goes under though because if they just cut their losses and start to license out their stuff to others, the company itself can live for decades alone on a cut from their old IPs and the parks. But they will have to either downsize a lot and/or change how they produce new content.

**Vulcan**

Assuming Disney can get anyone to buy the franchises, given the sheer amount of damage Disney has done to them.

**Overread**

Starwars is how old now and still going strong and the original 3 films are still massive hits?

If anyone can afford the Disney price, they'd want Starwars in their bag. Heck moving to a new studio and owner is an ideal time to "ok we are going to remake it from film 1 and start over" grounds.

In fact you can probably bet somewhere is already a Disney plan to remake films 4, 5 and 6 at some stage.

**Easy E**

In a twist, Disney decides to take Live Action Star Wars and remake it as cell drawn animation!

**LunarSol**

Easy E wrote:
In a twist, Disney decides to take Live Action Star Wars and remake it as cell drawn animation!

They effectively started to do this pretty early on in the purchase through a series of animation shorts highlighting iconic moments from the films.

**Overread**

Easy E wrote:
In a twist, Disney decides to take Live Action Star Wars and remake it as cell drawn animation!

That was basically done by Family Guy already

**Jadenim**

Easy E wrote:
In a twist, Disney decides to take Live Action Star Wars and remake it as cell drawn animation!

Ok, that’s weird, I literally just watched a clip that had popped up on my social media feed where someone had done an 80’s style animation (think Transformers / Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors) of an Imperial fleet intercepting a bunch of rebel fighters. And it was awesome!

**Bran Dawri**

Klickor wrote:
Politics outside of the movie itself can have a rather huge impact on the quality of the writing even if the movie plot is non political. It sets up outside restraints that doesn't reflect how either the world in the IP works or how human works or both. Possible to write a good story with that constraint but it makes it more difficult and increases the need of good writers, something which Disney clearly lacks.

The most obvious example is of course that Dr Strange have nothing to do with what happens in Wandavision. That make it so the world building won't feel natural to those who know that Dr Strange exists in the MCU and messes with the whole idea of connecting everything.

There has also been a quite obvious focus on moving away from white men to women and minorities. In itself not a problem but it seems they focused more on the demographics of the cast than the story that would elevate the new cast to the popularity of the old cast. At least it hasn't been to the level of some of the fantasy shows in which the increased diversity without thought, messes up the world building in major ways.

The aversion to have female main characters fail or show real weakness before overcoming the obstacles in the end (often with help of mentor figures) make them harder to connect with and often make them feel stand offish. The modern HERo's journey is different from the standard hero's journey that has been successful for the length of human history.

Men and women are different and should perhaps also be depicted a bit different to make for engaging characters. Just taking a male archetype and putting a woman in the role and then removing the weaknesses (the only real part we often can relate to when it comes to people with super powers since our strengths are quite different) is making everyone a disservice. I have seen some recent media in which the white male villain is the more sympathetic and likable character just because he is allowed to fail and have weaknesses so he is the person most acting like an actual human.

"Failing" like what Rey does and then immediately succeed above what previous Jedi have done without having to pay a price or need someone to do it for her isn't showing weaknesses. Iron Man failing with having meaningful relationships and suffering from PTSD or Luke losing limbs and family is the kind of thing we want to see our heroes subjected to. Make it so much more rewarding in the end when they win.

A few movies here and there with just pure action can be fun and probably successful for years to come in the super hero genre but I think we need to have more relatable and liked characters for entire franchises to be able to live on.

Well said. I don't mind a movie with a political message - albeit not in what'ssupposed to be a fun popcorn movie that I went to see to get away from all that - but if I wanted to get preached at, I'll go to a bloody church. I'm certainly not going to pay a ridiculous amount of money for that. Especially if it's the same bloody sermon over and over and over again.

**Geifer**

Overread wrote:
In fact you can probably bet somewhere is already a Disney plan to remake films 4, 5 and 6 at some stage.

Disney already did that. It sucked.

Besides, I don't think a reset or remake is going to work for Star Wars. People are happy with the core of the franchise. The original movies are classics and there's a lot of fond memories in there and some stuff based on it. The prequel trilogy didn't land, but the Clone Wars era has managed to find its fans in the meantime. You can see that Disney tries to capitalize on that by expanding on those things with shows set in the early Empire and after Endor where they can still use the same beloved bad guys. The issue is quality. That's not something a remake is going to fix if it's made by the same people that failed with the shows we got.

I think Marvel is in a similar position. The MCU has been so successful in the lead up to Endgame that we have a decade of movies that strongly shaped the audience's expectations, and for one reason or another the newer offerings fail to live up to that. This isn't the fault of the successful parts of the franchise and the idea of remaking that in an attempt to get better numbers is completely backwards.

Sequels have never been easy. You have to keep the best parts of the past in while providing a new experience that meshes with the old stuff. Getting the mix right takes skill and conviction, which isn't always as present as it should be.

**Overread**

Jadenim wrote:
Easy E wrote:
In a twist, Disney decides to take Live Action Star Wars and remake it as cell drawn animation!

Ok, that’s weird, I literally just watched a clip that had popped up on my social media feed where someone had done an 80’s style animation (think Transformers / Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors) of an Imperial fleet intercepting a bunch of rebel fighters. And it was awesome!

If that's the one that does the rounds the yes that is freaking awesome and Disney should give the guy a boatload of money to direct more - though its unlikely to ever happen but it would be really awesome.

**Haighus**

Yeah, I agree with the folks that this is less superhero fatigue, and more just being fed up with the contempt of studio execs over their product and consumers.

To paraphrase smarter people than I who work in creative endeavours (see below for a link to one), on the whole it appears business people do not understand creativity and do not respect it enough to try understand it. The recent decisions of corporations like Disney or Warner Bros. have been deeply cynical attempts to turn creative media into a profit-generating formula, and it shows. The fact they think generative AI could replace actual human writers is proof enough- they think endlessly rehashing the stuff that worked will be sufficient.

I am not against the concept of reworking old narratives to counter old biases or favour modern sensibilities (in fact, I am in favour of it if done well) but I recognise Disney et al have not generally been doing that in a good or effective way. It feels inauthentic... because it often is. Some exec just thinks it will tick a box and expand their marketable demographic, or it did well in a focus group that has been taken out of context etc.

The underlying issue is the greed and lack of respect of those running the show (literally), but sometimes we still get good products due to the efforts of the creatives working around the execs whims.

Some More News has a great vid on this (warning- crude humour): https://youtu.be/OZ28knLt5Rs?si=GF7D_HNp1JCO1sa8

**Easy E**

I am going to put on my pretentious hat for a moment. The high level is that all movies are preaching to you, just some are better than others.

[Pretentious Hat]

All movies, TV, or radio are preaching something to you. They all have a message to promote to you. It actually was more ham-fisted in the 60s, 70's and 80's than now, because those were times of big changes in the culture.

The 60's, 70's and 80s had much more of a Mono-culture than we do today. Sources of information were much more condensed. Audiences were shared. Therefore, messages from movies were more influential as most people probably saw all the same movies and about the same time. This Media is what shaped the Monoculture.

The most basic was just to promote consumerism. These often leaned into cultural fears and status seeking. However, pro-consumerism messaging is intrinsically linked to pro-capitalism messages. As time went on, these naturally led to anti-labor and anti-collective action messages as they were also anti-Communism messages. Of course, there were a number of other "social' messages but many of them were conservative/status quo in nature. The ones that were counter-cultural are notable for that very fact.

Some Media has to work harder at it than others, and the further you go from the cultural zeitgeist or norms; the more obvious "the message" typically becomes. Then, since our media and culture is fragmented they will not have nearly the same cultural impacts as they did in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

[/Pretentious Hat]

Anyway, Media has always had an agenda and to act like now is somehow different is.... a take.

**Haighus**

Oh yeah, I would not pretend that modern media is unique in having an agenda, even an overt one. It has definitely always been the case too.

**Vulcan**

Overread wrote:
Starwars is how old now and still going strong and the original 3 films are still massive hits?

If anyone can afford the Disney price, they'd want Starwars in their bag. Heck moving to a new studio and owner is an ideal time to "ok we are going to remake it from film 1 and start over" grounds.

In fact you can probably bet somewhere is already a Disney plan to remake films 4, 5 and 6 at some stage.

Oh, yes, absolutely there are Disney plans to remake 4-6, with Leia as the main character. The groundwork was laid in the Obi-Wan series, where Luke was stated to be unimportant.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Leia was a main character you absolute melt.

**Geifer**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Leia was a main character you absolute melt.

I find your lack of differentiation between "the" and "a" disturbing.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I find Vulcan’s posts tedious and not based in reality.

**Overread**

You know I'd actually welcome a remake of 4-6 that were longer in each film and gave Leia more roles to appear in a lead role. A lot of her elements appear either before the 4th film or off-screen. Eg in the 4th film almost all her parts are before the film itself; whilst in the 2nd again whilst she was clearly leading those at Hoth (or in the top ranks) we saw her flight from Hoth more than her setup and command.

That said Luke is very much the main focus of all 3 films and whilst other characters are very well developed; the central story is Luke's as we see his discovery, training and development as the Last Jedi.

I don't think you should lose that, its central to the story; however giving more time for other characters would be neat.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Not sure we even need that.

The early scenes show Leia to have cajones the size of a small moon.

Shoots someone dead, after doing what she can to reach Kenobi. Gets captured, and promptly stands up to Vader and Tarkin, taking precisely none of their intimidation.

She doesn’t even break when her home planet is threatened with utter annihilation, because she lies.

Granted Tarkin is smart enough to predict a bluff and knack Alderran anyways.

Resists a mind probe. Gets Luke, Han and Chewie out their Not Very Good Plan, whilst also taking exactly none of their nonsense.

Gets the plan to Yavin, and then not being a qualified fighter pilot can only look on.

ESB? Yeah there she’s massively underutilised. She’s still in possession of cajones the size of small moons like.

ROTJ? Still a central, leading figure within the Rebel Alliance. Very, very nearly succeeds with a one person plan to get her crush out the hands of a space slug. A space slug she never submits to and promptly strangles to death with the very chains meant to enslaver her.

I know this is going to upset some Dakkanauts? But Leia, like Ripley and Sarah Connor was, is, and will forever be, a feminist icon on account at the time the relevant movies were released.

**Easy E**

I always knew they would remake Star Wars someday. I often wondered what it would look like. What would a new director focus on? What would they make different? What new would they bring to the table.

Thankfully, I got to see the remake with The Force Awakens!

<Insert Ed McMahon "Heh-yo!" Gif>

Do we feel like Marvel's formula is failing because they are become more genre focused? I.e. they are putting superheroes in superhero films? For a long time they put them in a different formula, but made the main character a superhero. We had a super in a heist flick (Ant-Man), a super in a spy flick (Cap II), a super in a wuxia flick(Shang-chi) , a super in a horror flick (WW by Night), etc.

Of course, it doesn't hold up 100% but it is a thought. DCEU was busy trying to make regular and grim super flicks, and they never really caught on. The most successful were WW who was in a WW1 flick, and Aqua who was in a Dirk Pitt-esque adventure story. Superheroes on their own doing superhero things are not so successful, like Black Adam, Eternals, Quantomania, etc.

Just a theory.

**insaniak**

Easy E wrote:
Superheroes on their own doing superhero things are not so successful, like Black Adam, Eternals, Quantomania, etc.

I don't think the problems with those movies are down to them being too 'superhero'... Black Adam was an unlikeable character. Remove him, and the movie was actually pretty good. Eternals failed because you never had time to care about any of the individual characters. And Quantumania, while having individual bits that were fun, was a bit of a mess.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem that superhero movies have at the moment is the exact same problem most other movies are having, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread - studios are still using box office sales as a measure of success at a time when most people have no incentive to go to the cinema.

They all need to find better grading metrics, and better ways to budget movies that don't rely on taking a billion dollars at the box office.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

For me?

Maybe the secret to the MCU’s success was just bog standard humanity.

Cap, Hulk, Iron Man. All just started out as bog standard human beans. And one way or another, became absolutely rock hard.

And we typically saw them first fight against their dark reflection. Their powers and/or abilities applied to amoral purpose at best, outright immoral at worst.

Through that trial, we saw their truly heroic nature. That they could now bend a faction, country or planet to their own will. But resisted that.

And that’s a trope repeated throughout the MCU. A chance to see what such power could do if held by an absolute arsehole for their own gain.

**Overread**

insaniak wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Superheroes on their own doing superhero things are not so successful, like Black Adam, Eternals, Quantomania, etc.

I don't think the problems with those movies are down to them being too 'superhero'... Black Adam was an unlikeable character. Remove him, and the movie was actually pretty good. Eternals failed because you never had time to care about any of the individual characters. And Quantumania, while having individual bits that were fun, was a bit of a mess.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem that superhero movies have at the moment is the exact same problem most other movies are having, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread - studios are still using box office sales as a measure of success at a time when most people have no incentive to go to the cinema.

They all need to find better grading metrics, and better ways to budget movies that don't rely on taking a billion dollars at the box office.

It's also interesting because you can see a few studios don't even want to be in the cinema any more with how hard they are pushing streaming and how fast they are jumping films from cinema into streaming. So on the one side its interesting to see them blast a film for failing at the Box-Office - at the same time the studios behind the films aren't actually helping the cinemas and if anything are setting the cinemas up to fail. Which when you then add the cost of living and the rising cost of going to the cinema ontop; makes for a really painful time for cinemas.

Cinemas are getting what theatres got when movies came out. It will be interesting to see what happens and if cinemas survive as they are; or if they become a bit like theatres - contracting back to a smaller number with a few big top end ones; and then the rest much more small scale and likely relying on set themes or vintage material (ergo affordable stuff for a local setpu not a national chain)

**Vulcan**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Leia was a main character you absolute melt.

I presume that's an insult? Temper, temper!

No, the plan was for Leia to be the action hero, and Luke to be left on Tatooine as irrelevant. I expect there were plans for Han and Yoda as well, because of the whole 'men can't be teaching women' anymore that has plagued Star Wars since The Last Jedi, where Rey's the one instructing Luke on what it means to be a Jedi...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I find Vulcan’s posts tedious and not based in reality.

.... nah. Not worth it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Overread wrote:
You know I'd actually welcome a remake of 4-6 that were longer in each film and gave Leia more roles to appear in a lead role. A lot of her elements appear either before the 4th film or off-screen. Eg in the 4th film almost all her parts are before the film itself; whilst in the 2nd again whilst she was clearly leading those at Hoth (or in the top ranks) we saw her flight from Hoth more than her setup and command.

That said Luke is very much the main focus of all 3 films and whilst other characters are very well developed; the central story is Luke's as we see his discovery, training and development as the Last Jedi.

I don't think you should lose that, its central to the story; however giving more time for other characters would be neat.

Now THAT I would enjoy a great deal.

**H.B.M.C.**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know this is going to upset some Dakkanauts? But Leia, like Ripley and Sarah Connor was, is, and will forever be, a feminist icon on account at the time the relevant movies were released.

You'd be surprised at the amount of people who go "They don't count!" when you use them examples of how strong women used to be written and why modern no-weakness girlbosses are so exhaustingly awful.

**Vulcan**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure we even need that.

The early scenes show Leia to have cajones the size of a small moon.

Shoots someone dead, after doing what she can to reach Kenobi. Gets captured, and promptly stands up to Vader and Tarkin, taking precisely none of their intimidation.

She doesn’t even break when her home planet is threatened with utter annihilation, because she lies.

Granted Tarkin is smart enough to predict a bluff and knack Alderran anyways.

Resists a mind probe. Gets Luke, Han and Chewie out their Not Very Good Plan, whilst also taking exactly none of their nonsense.

Gets the plan to Yavin, and then not being a qualified fighter pilot can only look on.

ESB? Yeah there she’s massively underutilised. She’s still in possession of cajones the size of small moons like.

ROTJ? Still a central, leading figure within the Rebel Alliance. Very, very nearly succeeds with a one person plan to get her crush out the hands of a space slug. A space slug she never submits to and promptly strangles to death with the very chains meant to enslaver her.

I know this is going to upset some Dakkanauts? But Leia, like Ripley and Sarah Connor was, is, and will forever be, a feminist icon on account at the time the relevant movies were released.

Agreed. Leia was one of the main characters of the trilogy. Criminally underused by modern standards at points, but for the time she - along with Ripley and Sarah Connor - were literally groundbreaking.

I do not relish seeing Luke reduced to something even MORE underused in the remake than Leia was in the original. If not simply edited out entirely.