What would happen if no more superhero films were made for the foreseeable future?

Submitted by nayapapaya t3_11eico2 in movies

There's been lots of valid discussion about how superhero films have come to dominate the theatrical and cultural landscape due in large part to the success of the X-Men and the MCU.

So I ask you, let's imagine that Marvel Studios, DC and Sony, etc shut their doors tomorrow and they never make another superhero film. And the ones that are already made all get shelved. What would happen, both within the industry and theatrically? What films would the public gravitate to now that those are no longer available? Would people return to a more varied theatrical diet of films or just focus on the other types of blockbusters?

The point of this post is not to bash Marvel or DC or to talk about how superhero films are a scourge on society but to have an actual discussion about what would happen if that "monopoly" was gone.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SooperSte t1_jae7ogh wrote

People aren't choosing to not see that small indie darling because they are going to see a superhero movie instead, they just don't give a shit about it and wouldn't have watched it in the first place.

If superhero movies suddenly stopped, there would be another mass marketable genre immediately taking it's place. They haven't "changed the landscape", big budget action movies always have been, and always WILL be dominating box offices, the thing that has changed is that people who don't like them now just have more platforms to pretentiously proclaim about how "cinema is dead" because the next Spiderman isn't a black and white French language drama shot in 10:4 ratio

12

NGNSteveTheSamurai t1_jae7rf9 wrote

Blockbusters and people who only go see blockbusters existed well before the MCU. Not much would change.

17

MichaelMcCrudd t1_jae7zcp wrote

We'd just get more Blockbuster action movies that aren't comic book movies. More disaster films, more terminators, more Michael Bay stuff. I really don't see any other result other than maybe more comic book related tv shows (unless those are gone too, then you're just leaving a large untapped market and likely killing another industry).

5

MichaelMcCrudd t1_jae8cdi wrote

Replying to SooperSte (#2,122,296)

Also, small indie darlings weren't in multiplexes before the superhero craze, I don't see what would elevate them there now. I've always had to go to special theaters to see indie movies. Superhero movies didn't cause that.

4

papa_johnnys t1_jae8y21 wrote

I imagine the world would go on lol what's the point of this post

3

goatAlmighty t1_jae93vz wrote

The studios would probably just start to milk other cows / well known franchises.

4

theyusedthelamppost t1_jaeaf39 wrote

how nitpicky are you about the definition of superhero? Would Samus Aran count as a super hero if she was featured in a movie where her super suit could do cool things like drop bombs, fire lazers and shrink to a ball? Does Mario count as a super hero if he is going to do cool things like jump high and shoot fireballs?

It's impossible for to imagine a market devoid of character who use some type of cool power to do action. Within that framework, I guess it just depends what you mean by superhero. If all supernatural/sci-fi powers were banned, then Hollywood would just move one tier down to have more characters like James Bond, Ethan Hunt or John Wick who just perform unrealistic stunts that are presented as being within the laws of physics.

3

Intelligent-Age2786 t1_jaeafv4 wrote

Movies have always been able to coexist. Superhero movies aren’t the first genre of movies to rule over everything else. There’s always a new king. A new genre would just take its place. People act as if superhero movies are a plague even tho this cycle has been going on for decades. Something new will just take the crown. Nothing else will change. Except for some theatres losing a lot of business.

2

blowbyblowtrumpet t1_jaeapjn wrote

Many old fans of the comics like me would breathe a sigh of relief. When the first (Sam Raimee) Spiderman films came out I was so happy to see a part of my childhood faithfully brought to life on screen. Ditto the first Iron Man and Captain America. It was all going so well. I've come to hate the Marvel Franchise over time. I think it needs a long break followed by a re-imagining from a new team with a fresh take.

2

warrenmax12 t1_jaeblqd wrote

I would have to visit a doctor after 4 hours

0

apurpleglittergalaxy t1_jaecert wrote

I would not remotely care and maybe filmmakers could go back to doing decent movies with decent storylines like they used to? It's a hype thing it will eventually phase out

−3

FloridaFlamingoGirl t1_jaeeljn wrote

Replying to blowbyblowtrumpet (#2,123,467)

The Raimi Spider-Man films were clearly made with a true passion for comics. They echo the dynamic storytelling that makes comics fun. Most MCU movies just don't do this. Into The Spider-verse was a movie that felt immensely refreshing to me, because it quite simply felt like the immersive cinematic equivalent of a vividly-illustrated graphic novel.

0

nayapapaya OP t1_jaefov9 wrote

Replying to SooperSte (#2,122,296)

But I'm not talking just about indies. Even the average mid-budget movie made money pre-Covid. Look at Bohemian Rhapsody or The Greatest Showman. Bohemian Rhapsody made almost a billion dollars, The Greatest Showman 450 million, La La Land made almost 450 million and Little Women (2019) made 200 million. Those aren't action movies.

And that's ignoring that even into the 80s and 90s, you had films like Erin Brokovich, When Harry Met Sally, Big Daddy and The Sixth Sense in the highest grossing films of the year. It wasn't always just action films all the time making the most money.

−3

JJJSchmidt_etAl t1_jaeg5f4 wrote

Supply and demand would occur and one or two super hero films would show up.

3

SooperSte t1_jaeghp4 wrote

Replying to nayapapaya (#2,125,244)

> Look at Bohemian Rhapsody or The Greatest Showman. Bohemian Rhapsody made almost a billion dollars, The Greatest Showman 450 million, La La Land made almost 450 million and Little Women (2019) made 200 million. Those aren't action movies.

And all of these came out during the "superhero era" so....what exactly is it you are trying to say???

7

overtryer t1_jaehuge wrote

Peace… for 5 minutes… until we find another thing to hate

2

AlanMorlock t1_jaehyem wrote

Replying to Intelligent-Age2786 (#2,125,019)

What is different is them being not hyper concentrated into one genre but so few studios.

Bug movies used to be called Tentpoles because they provided revenue thst allowed a wider range of things to be made. The last decade there's been less and less tent.

The contrast between blockbusters and other types of films used to be far less drastic. Actually go back and loose a the top 10 box offices lists from before 2001. It wasn't all IP films from one studio. There was a much wider variety of viable genres.

0

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_jaeimun wrote

Replying to Thatoneasian9600 (#2,121,923)

They would just complain about whatever blockbusters take their place.

Some dude in the 90s: What would happen if Hollywood stopped making disaster movies? Some dude in the 80s: What would happen if they stopped making buddy cop movies. Some dude in the 70s: What would happen if Hollywood stopped making spy movies? Some dude in the 60s: What would happen if they stopped making WW2 movies? Some dude in the 50s: What would happen if they stopped making westerns?

7

AlanMorlock t1_jaeiwnl wrote

Replying to Intelligent-Age2786 (#2,123,359)

Honest question, how old are you?

There was a was a point in time when a far wider range of films genres and scales were viable. Movies "coexisting" didn't look like theaters canceling other movies to play Spider-man every 20 minutes for a month straight.

Go back and look at the top top 20 box office charts pre-2000.

−7

AlanMorlock t1_jaej6bn wrote

Replying to Intelligent-Age2786 (#2,126,127)

The hyper concentration of trntpoles without a tent is a pretty recent phenomenon. Comparisons to westerns or whatever just don't really include context fornehst else was in theaters and the budgets and resources committed.

−1

Intelligent-Age2786 t1_jaejd52 wrote

Replying to AlanMorlock (#2,126,451)

I’m not saying superhero movies aren’t the most guilty, I’m just saying they aren’t the only ones who are guilty. As the years go on there are more big names blockbusters that go on that keep making a shit ton of money, superhero movies obviously heavily included. I’m not saying superhero movies aren’t guilty of that cuz they definitely are, I’m just saying that they aren’t the only ones guilty.

1

Sonny_Crockett_1984 t1_jaejrdy wrote

Replying to nayapapaya (#2,125,244)

We only had like 4 channels back in the 90s and no streamers like Netflix. If you wanted to watch an Adam Sandler movie you had to go to the theater or wait 6 months for the VHS. The other films you mentioned were spectacles like superhero movies are and/or based on well-known and loved material (The Queen bio included).

Seems like you are looking for evidence to back up your conclusion rather than working the other way around.

3

cbbuntz t1_jaejt2f wrote

Replying to Bjarki56 (#2,121,865)

Yeah. He compares them to theme parks, which seems fair to me. I just don't like the superhero aesthetic. I can't make myself interested in them. Probably the main exceptions being Joker (doesn't feel superhero) and Guardians of the Galaxy (focuses a lot on comedy)

4

Intelligent-Age2786 t1_jaeknae wrote

Replying to AlanMorlock (#2,126,831)

Some of the ones that have been guilty aren’t always franchise films but there have been some over the years that are, like Harry Potter, Avatar is gonna be a long running one, Fast and Furious as you said, Jurassic World, and if you’d consider it blockbusters the LOTR trilogy, obviously Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, James Bond still makes a shit ton, Transformers, Mission Impossible, and the Hunger Games. Obviously superhero movies make a bunch more than a lot of these, but all these still make MASSIVE amounts of money, and are also guilty. And then there’s obviously some stand-alone blockbusters that are also guilty.

2

laughinggas t1_jael4vo wrote

It would be time to wake up from your dream sir.

1

StreetMysticCosmic t1_jaelbws wrote

Replying to AlanMorlock (#2,126,052)

> so few studios.

Five major studios had the budgets to regularly make blockbusters. Four made lots of superhero movies over the last twenty years. Then one of those four bought one of the others. The other one still makes other blockbusters regularly and the three that make superhero movies still make other blockbusters.

2

nayapapaya OP t1_jaemzkf wrote

Replying to theyusedthelamppost (#2,123,347)

I'm only thinking of "traditional superheroes" like Batman and Captain America. Even someone like Constantine would be excluded because I saw that film as a teenager and had no idea it was based on a comic book.

−2

DabbinOnDemGoy t1_jaen0qj wrote

We'd merely get thread after thread of "Christ I wish they'd stop these Fast and Furious movies" and "DAE not interested in any more biopics these days?".

3

theyusedthelamppost t1_jaen7uj wrote

Replying to nayapapaya (#2,128,083)

well in that case the answer to your question is that studios would shift their content to fill the gap by replacing with non-traditional supes who still use supernatural/sci-fi powers to pull of cool action sequences

4

lucia-pacciola t1_jaenxg2 wrote

First thing that would happen is someone would make a superhero film.

3

Alert-Artichoke-2743 t1_jaep733 wrote

Probably more of that kind where Jason Statham glares at people and jizzes bullets everywhere. Male power fantasies, basically. Also the kind where women drink in groups and make dirty jokes.

3

Mother_Ad_7592 t1_jaes9je wrote

That would be great!

More movies like

Mad Max Fury Road

Top Gun

Avatar

1

DrRexMorman t1_jaev2ss wrote

>What would happen, both within the industry and theatrically?

Disney and WB Discovery’s stock prices would crater.

Financiers would pull money from Hollywood.

Life would go on.

−1

[deleted] t1_jaew90q wrote

It’s interesting to notice how many superhero movies that usually warrant more in-depth discussion in my circles are those who purposefully seem to steer away from some of the common tropes of the genre and/or just try to tell a cohesive story.

“The Dark Knight” movies aspire to be neo-noir thrillers that just happen to follow the POV of a man who dresses like a bat; one of the reasons why it can be enjoyed by people other than Batman fans. “The Joker” is a competent (if derivative) character study that coincidentally coexists with the whole Gotham mythos, and so on and so on.

I’m not trying to say superhero movies are not cinema (how would one begin to define cinema anyway), but I think an argument could be made to say Scorsese was not wrong to categorize them as “theme parks”, or to think they’re essentially a very refined delivery method of escapism.

1

ruat_caelum t1_jaeyf46 wrote

power abhors a vacuum, but profit doubly so.

There won't be a "Gap" in movies. There won't magically be money for 1,000 indy flicks, etc. Instead the next great mind-numb film that appeals to the masses and can print money will come out.

  • The industry isn't about film, it's about profits. The films and "Hollywood accounting" are just the means to that end.

  • This is not to say there are not individuals and studios who prioritize film for film over film for profit, only to say that the industry as a whole is focused on profits.

>but to have an actual discussion about what would happen if that "monopoly" was gone.

The monopoly is the point. It's the end goal for the people making decisions. If this one was gone they would be on the hunt for the next one. Period.

4