[…] He levels many popular arguments against superhero movies, ranging from valid critique of some action cinematography to easy comparisons with junk food. But the fact that there are real criticisms to be made of the movies …read more […]

You can't fairly or accurately compare filmmaking today with that of the 1940, '50s, '60s or '70s. Back in the days of the studio system they used to churn out westerns like Henry Ford's assembly line. Yes, some classics did emerge, but there were hundreds of B-westerns that were produced as pure entertainment and I don't think that anyone responsible for them had any delusion that they were going to be great. There was an audience hunger for westerns back then that needed to be fed and the more that were made the better to fill that void. In the 1950s and '60s sci-fi was hot. For every "Forbidden Planet" or "The Day The Earth Stood Still" there were scores of shlock pictures, but even those shlock pictures had an audience. A less sophisticated audience. One of the differences with sci-fi today is that it costs tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to make the sci-fi world look believable, due to the big blockbusters spoiling audiences now for what the standard is for CGI quality. You really can't put an actor in a ridiculous-looking giant insect head today and not be laughed out of the theater. Also, studios used to be privately owned decades ago, whether it was the Warners, Louis B. Mayer, or other film despots who didn't have to answer to a board of directors or a corporate bean counter. When the studios began getting sold to giant corporations whose main business wasn't making movies it took the heart out of the studios' business. Now we have focus groups and demographic studies, and satisfying four- quadrant fears, because it's all about selling widgets now for them. That, coupled with the fact that a lot, if not most, big action movies often make more money internationally than domestically, means that studios now tailor their product accordingly. Case in point, not wanting to offend the Japanese audience with the movie, "Pearl Harbor". It's why I support independent films whenever I can. I'd much rather pay my money for a James Gray film than a Roberto Orci movie where the most you take away from it is ear damage.

Ambrose, I concur and offered a similar line of reasoning in the OP. Your observations really drive home the point: It's just a fundamentally different business today than it was 50 years ago. I like big popcorn movies, I like to be entertained. But I have to have some points of emotional resonance with the story, or else it's just a bunch of noise. That said, I do love indie movies which is why my favorite movie in 2013 was Short Term 12 and for 2012 it was Moonrise Kingdom. I'll take great characters in a compelling plot any day over meaningless special effects. Then again, I'm not Hollywood's target audience. We need more folks like you and me, Ambrose, to boost box office for worthy indie films. Which is why I say: Declare Your Independents!

The problem is not genre, but film-makers lack of imagination. I'm a proponent of the notion that live action films should follow the Pixar model of movie development more closely. Everything starts & ends with the script, and imho that process is where one reduces risk for failure. Furthermore, films like Chronicle, Dredd or District 9 show that it is very possible to make full blown sci-fi action movies on a lean budget. Moreover, in TV there are plenty of examples, such as 2003's Galactica reboot mini-series that cost somewhere in the region of $14 Million. The real question is whether Hollywood is a true ecosystem, the way it and the music business were in the 70s. In that case more popcorn/blockbuster movies with almost guaranteed levels of box-office success are beneficial because of the way back in the 70s those kinds of movies used to help financially subsidize smaller ones. In any event, it's certainly true that Inception would not have happened without Nolan's Batman success, and I suspect Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing and Cabin in the Woods would have had a much harder time without his Avengers work.

The problem is, the studios don't seem, for the most part, to be supporting the more character driven, non-CGI superhero films with the bounty they receive from all of their big-budget hits. Yes, it would be faantastic if the, for want of a better description, "mid-budget" character-driven films in the $20-$50 million dollar range were being produced by the studios as often as they used to be, but I don't think that's the case. Now, it's either a $200 million dollar (before marketing costs) superhero movie, or a $5 million dollar horror or found footage film because the cost is so low and people will see a low-budget horror film with no stars in it, as long as the trailer looks like it has a few scares. Even Kevin Bacon is now doing a low-budget horror film (with undoubtedly a nice slice of the backend) to try to capitalize on the trend. But for the adult viewer who isn't smitten with superheroes and CGI, good luck trying to find a decent movie geared to the over-30 crowd, unless it's an independent film or a foreign film. Studios just don't seem to care about them because they just aren't as profitable as when a superhero movie hits big. Plus, add in all the potential merchandising millions that you get with a comic book movie vs. a Nancy Myers movie (not too many Alec Baldwin action figures out there).