In an interview with Quentin Tarantino comedian Bill Maher claimed that Hollywood only makes two types of movies now: vehicles for virtue signaling and superhero movies.
This conversation took place in 2019 and there were 9 feature length superhero films in theaters that year. The total amount of films released to theaters and streaming in that same calendar year was 786. I honestly don't know what he means with the virtue signaling comment but he's dead wrong in his latter assumption. 9 out of 786.
When a genre makes up under 2% of the total amount of movies available to watch how does it generate that level of false number spewing? Maher isn't alone in his distaste for the genre or in his spinning of the facts - when The Last Duel tanked Ben Affleck blamed superhero movies (in spite of the fact the no superhero movies were released in the same month as Last Duel. Halloween Kills outperformed the Ridley Scott film yet somehow horror films weren't called out). I'm often hearing people on movie podcasts bitching about the quantity of superhero content (I'm focusing on feature films here but even with the animated straight to video stuff and TV shows it's still a drop in the bucket)
There are regular statements from various filmmakers decrying comic book flicks and it's beyond tiresome because it shows a lack of understanding of the trajectory the film industry has taken in the last two decades and implies that the general state of cinema is shaped by the genre rather than the genre being a byproduct of a major shift in pop culture that began in the late 90's. What we're seeing can be traced back to a specific period, in particular the years between 1999 and 2002.
Here's what was happening in the world of entertainment at the time that got us where we are now:
- the broad accessibility of high-end home theater equipment. Bigger TV's and surround sound systems began to be priced at a level the average family could afford. In addition to this the advent of DVD players changed the nature of owning films for home viewing. It was easier and cheaper to amass a collection of films on discs and studios started to put back catalogs and new releases out hot and heavy at the turn of the century. I had a massive credit card debt that proves that. People were more inclined to stay at home to watch a movie than drive to a theater.
- high tech video game systems like the Playstation and XBox kept kids at home and out of the theaters. Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were sapping peoples' time, money and attention.
- cable programming advanced tremendously with HBO leading the way. Why would people go see a movie like Donnie Brasco when they can watch The Soprano's every Sunday? Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, The Wire, Oz...all these shows made long form, episodic story telling much more enticing than similarly themed features. This then prompted networks to follow suit with shows like Lost and 24. Again, why would you pay to see a Wolfgang Petersen action flick when you can get 24 every week for free?
- reality television took off in this period too. Survivor and American Idol debuted around that time and kept people home in the evenings. WWF/WWE really hit its stride at that point as well with RAW being a 3-hour program and Smackdown being added in 1999.
So, what happened in Hollywood then? Big budget, CGI heavy trilogies like Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars prequels proved that you can use the internet to make audiences feel like they HAVE to see every entry, and even when the films themselves are arguably garbage you can lock people in for a multi-year commitment. The Harry Potter movies cemented this practice. The template for the MCU was set by those films, along with The Matrix Trilogy and the Mission: Impossible films. Again, superhero film producing studios like Sony, Marvel and Warner Brothers did not invent this way of making and marketing films, they simply followed suit.
Sometime around 2002 I remember reading an article detailing how movie theater chains were being pressured by the studios to invest in stadium seating, THX certified sound systems, digital projection and IMAX screens. Hollywood had already sunk billions of dollars into CGI technology and the combined investment and efforts meant that in order to recoup those costs and bring back dwindling crowds they had to scramble for appropriate content that would fit well into this new, high-tech paradigm. Superhero comics, in particular those produced by Marvel, contained all the perfect ingredients for big screen, high energy blockbusters. They're marketed to death and the interlocking nature of the combined universe lends to the sense that they're omnipresent but that just is not the case. Oversaturated in terms of advertising and cross promotion, for sure, but they haven't taken over in terms of quantity. This is especially true when you compare it to other genres. For example, from 1935 to 1955 Hollywood produced over 2500 Westerns. Compare that to the quantity of superhero movies released since Raimi's Spider-Man in 2002. Dozens compared to thousands. There are under 100 superhero features in the last 20 years. That flies in the face of all these bellyachers. It's just not true to say Hollywood only makes superhero movies now.
I can understand someone not having a taste for the subject matter. If it's not your bag that's fine, but when people like Eric Reynolds from Fantagraphics Books say "Superheroes have hijacked cinema the way they're hijacked comic books" it's a falsehood created out of spite. People get upset because there's a new Batman movie. That makes 11 live action feature length movies if you count his appearance in Justice League. Compare that to 17 Philo Vance movies, over 40 Zorro movies, 45 Tarzan movies and 50 Sherlock Holmes flicks, not to mention Dracula, Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Zatoichi and Bulldog Drummond. These are just another form of source material and you can be uninterested in them or dislike the ones you've bothered to see but they're not to blame for the perceived decline of cinema and they certainly haven't over taken all other categories. Sick of the MCU? Blame Tony Soprano and Hironobu Sakaguchi, not the movies themselves.
This conversation took place in 2019 and there were 9 feature length superhero films in theaters that year. The total amount of films released to theaters and streaming in that same calendar year was 786. I honestly don't know what he means with the virtue signaling comment but he's dead wrong in his latter assumption. 9 out of 786.
When a genre makes up under 2% of the total amount of movies available to watch how does it generate that level of false number spewing? Maher isn't alone in his distaste for the genre or in his spinning of the facts - when The Last Duel tanked Ben Affleck blamed superhero movies (in spite of the fact the no superhero movies were released in the same month as Last Duel. Halloween Kills outperformed the Ridley Scott film yet somehow horror films weren't called out). I'm often hearing people on movie podcasts bitching about the quantity of superhero content (I'm focusing on feature films here but even with the animated straight to video stuff and TV shows it's still a drop in the bucket)
There are regular statements from various filmmakers decrying comic book flicks and it's beyond tiresome because it shows a lack of understanding of the trajectory the film industry has taken in the last two decades and implies that the general state of cinema is shaped by the genre rather than the genre being a byproduct of a major shift in pop culture that began in the late 90's. What we're seeing can be traced back to a specific period, in particular the years between 1999 and 2002.
Here's what was happening in the world of entertainment at the time that got us where we are now:
- the broad accessibility of high-end home theater equipment. Bigger TV's and surround sound systems began to be priced at a level the average family could afford. In addition to this the advent of DVD players changed the nature of owning films for home viewing. It was easier and cheaper to amass a collection of films on discs and studios started to put back catalogs and new releases out hot and heavy at the turn of the century. I had a massive credit card debt that proves that. People were more inclined to stay at home to watch a movie than drive to a theater.
- high tech video game systems like the Playstation and XBox kept kids at home and out of the theaters. Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater were sapping peoples' time, money and attention.
- cable programming advanced tremendously with HBO leading the way. Why would people go see a movie like Donnie Brasco when they can watch The Soprano's every Sunday? Six Feet Under, Sex and the City, The Wire, Oz...all these shows made long form, episodic story telling much more enticing than similarly themed features. This then prompted networks to follow suit with shows like Lost and 24. Again, why would you pay to see a Wolfgang Petersen action flick when you can get 24 every week for free?
- reality television took off in this period too. Survivor and American Idol debuted around that time and kept people home in the evenings. WWF/WWE really hit its stride at that point as well with RAW being a 3-hour program and Smackdown being added in 1999.
So, what happened in Hollywood then? Big budget, CGI heavy trilogies like Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars prequels proved that you can use the internet to make audiences feel like they HAVE to see every entry, and even when the films themselves are arguably garbage you can lock people in for a multi-year commitment. The Harry Potter movies cemented this practice. The template for the MCU was set by those films, along with The Matrix Trilogy and the Mission: Impossible films. Again, superhero film producing studios like Sony, Marvel and Warner Brothers did not invent this way of making and marketing films, they simply followed suit.
Sometime around 2002 I remember reading an article detailing how movie theater chains were being pressured by the studios to invest in stadium seating, THX certified sound systems, digital projection and IMAX screens. Hollywood had already sunk billions of dollars into CGI technology and the combined investment and efforts meant that in order to recoup those costs and bring back dwindling crowds they had to scramble for appropriate content that would fit well into this new, high-tech paradigm. Superhero comics, in particular those produced by Marvel, contained all the perfect ingredients for big screen, high energy blockbusters. They're marketed to death and the interlocking nature of the combined universe lends to the sense that they're omnipresent but that just is not the case. Oversaturated in terms of advertising and cross promotion, for sure, but they haven't taken over in terms of quantity. This is especially true when you compare it to other genres. For example, from 1935 to 1955 Hollywood produced over 2500 Westerns. Compare that to the quantity of superhero movies released since Raimi's Spider-Man in 2002. Dozens compared to thousands. There are under 100 superhero features in the last 20 years. That flies in the face of all these bellyachers. It's just not true to say Hollywood only makes superhero movies now.
I can understand someone not having a taste for the subject matter. If it's not your bag that's fine, but when people like Eric Reynolds from Fantagraphics Books say "Superheroes have hijacked cinema the way they're hijacked comic books" it's a falsehood created out of spite. People get upset because there's a new Batman movie. That makes 11 live action feature length movies if you count his appearance in Justice League. Compare that to 17 Philo Vance movies, over 40 Zorro movies, 45 Tarzan movies and 50 Sherlock Holmes flicks, not to mention Dracula, Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Zatoichi and Bulldog Drummond. These are just another form of source material and you can be uninterested in them or dislike the ones you've bothered to see but they're not to blame for the perceived decline of cinema and they certainly haven't over taken all other categories. Sick of the MCU? Blame Tony Soprano and Hironobu Sakaguchi, not the movies themselves.
Comment