Amph Summer Box Office

You care.

 

Because in this brave new world, the A-lister from your childhood is now the C-lister. So much so that the box office impact made by the love letter to the Donner Superman and the newer, grittier version laced with needless ultra-violence and destruction was less than expected. One could argue that the quality of both films was subpar (rightly so), that Hollywood just doesn't "get" Superman (also correct) or that modern mainstream audiences simply don't care that much for the old fashioned demigod in red and blue. And when the competition's old-fashioned, non-superpowered champion of truth, justice and the 'Murkan way is far more successful in his sequel and as a member of an ensemble team, then I say DC/WB has a major problem with the way they market one of their flagship characters.

But of course, Batman IS their flagship character; Supes and the rest being his bitches and all...

 

Shorts fired!!! SHOTS FIRED!!!

 

Why would I do that?

I don't harp on Superman IV: The Quest for Peace or Batman and Robin. I just want good versions of the A-list heroes I like.

 

The larger context is that the building general audience boredom with comic book superhero movies is starting to show.

GOTG is the only comic book super hero movie of the year that has a shot at $300 million domestic - the rest have ranged from about $260 million for CA2 down to just over $200 million for S-M 5.

Last year it was $409 million for IM3 ranging down to $206 for Thor, with MOS being in the middle with nearly $300.

This coincides with a general downturn in summer box office - but I think you can easily argue that part of what is driving audiences away is this ceaseless drumbeat of mediocre comic book movies, each one exactly like the last one.

 

...except GOTG.

 

I don't see how you can argue that GOTG is noticeably different than any of the other recent mediocre comic book movies. Is it funnier/more irreverent than Iron Man? Is the villain more interesting than whatever/whoever the villain was in the CA movies? Is the plot less predictably revolving around some kind of supernaturally potent device?

It has a few cosmetic/superficial novelties that maybe boosted the box office by $50 million domestically relative to Thor and CA and Spider-Man - but those differences aren't helping at the global box office. It's a completely cookie cutter, sanitized disney-industrial experience. unremarkable in every respect.

 

Did you see it in 3D?

 

I think so. Did that make it better or worse?

 

No idea, I saw it in 2D only.

 

Mang, like, let go of your hatred, y'know?

 

What hatred? I never said I hated Guardians. It's a passable, average big budget movie, like most of the Disney Marvel movies. It's much better than the legitimately awful Man of Steel.

 

Of the genre. It is the now. It is the future. Embrace it!

 

I don't know that I agree that comic book burnout has set in just yet. Three of the top six grossing films of the year have been comic book/superhero based, and they weren't just products of the Hollywood hype machine. Critics and audiences genuinely loved them. In fact, three of the four of this year's big comic book releases were far better received than those of '13. TASM being the lone exception. If anything, I consider '14 a bit of a bounce-back year for the genre.

Now, is a burnout coming? For sure. It's inevitable, no matter how consistent the quality is. But as of right now I'd say it's still at its apex. Just my two cents.

 

I think it's more ASM2 being probably horrible?

 

Kidding aside, I agree. These things are cyclical after all. Comics books seem to be the last font of ideas for Tinseltown...but that spring is drying up fast and not all of those properties are lucrative enough or filmable (i.e., Watchmen). Once this bubble bursts, I honestly don't know what the studios will do to fill seats during the summer.

Regardless of the genre, the world has changed so much in the past few years that the summer blockbuster could now be deemed an endangered species. The ****** economy, the spread of piracy and the proliferation of cheaper entertainment both on tv, the internet and other outlets has definitely made many a former avid theater-goer to instead just stay home. After all, it's ridiculously cheaper to spend $8.00 a month to binge watch hundreds of tv shows and movies on Netflix than it it is to just buy one ticket to see one movie in a theater. And if streaming is not your thing, you can always wait a few months and just rent the summer blockbuster you skipped at a fraction of the cost of a ticket either at a Redbox booth or your online service of choice.

Really, when all is said and done, no man in tights will be able to save the blockbuster (and by consequence, the studio system that pushes it) from its inevitable demise.

 

Top five movies of the year so far in 2014 have earned $1.25 billion less than the top five movies of 2013. Hunger Games and Hobbit will make up some of the difference, but the clear underperformers this year relative to last year are the comic book superhero movies.

 

There are only so many YA novel properties worth mining. And it's too damn bad J.R.R. Tolkien didn't write a sequel to LOTR...since that means that, inevitably, someone will if only to make a three movie package out of every book in said sequel.

 

Sequels have a lot to do with the problem. That's why I've taken refuge in small movies to get at original content. Comic book movies are so formulaic however that every property is already a sequel even before the first movie gets made.

 

Um, you have read comics, right? "Formulaic" is par for the course there.

 

Wasn't 2014 already forecast to be a less than stellar box office year or at least summer, with lots of big movies anticipated for summer 2015 (before some of those got moved)?

 

I'd like to see a quote from the major movie studios where they explain how they'd planned for 2014 to be a poor year at the box office.