Ok_Magazine_1569
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedj8tg wrote
Reply to comment by Orange-Turtle-Power in Why do people say the superhero genre is "dead"? by CboyC95
Yes. This bothers you so much that you have to set a remind me. I don’t care.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedfbuq wrote
Reply to comment by _Meece_ in Why do people say the superhero genre is "dead"? by CboyC95
I’m not sure you know what “lowest form of cinema” means.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedf536 wrote
Because their prominence in the culture is fading. People are moving on. We’ve seen most of what the genre has to offer. It’ll keep the die hard fans, but the chances of anything like what Marvel did previously happening again are pretty nil. That’s part of the reason Marvel is cutting back and restructuring.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedemga wrote
Reply to comment by BlakRainbow1991 in No franchise movies to get excited about anymore by Thedobby22
Deeper and more developed is not exclusive to TV. Movies could be far better than they are today.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedeg5e wrote
That’s what happens when Hollywood decides to pump out repetitive IP blockbusters instead of developing both real talent and the medium itself. Things become stagnant, tired, and stale.
When money is all it’s about, then the only things we’ll see in the culture are things that make massive amounts of money.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedjglo wrote
Reply to comment by _Meece_ in Why do people say the superhero genre is "dead"? by CboyC95
That’s what I’m saying, man — if you think that’s what all comedies are, then you haven’t seen very many, not to mention good ones. And there’s nothing wrong with improvisational skills. To me, that’s actually more impressive in a way than copious amounts of CGI.
But, beyond that — you still don’t seem to understand what “lowest form of cinema” is. It means dumb, awful, worthless trash.