Anyone know how many movies Universal released in total during that period? My guess, given that this was the ‘Golden Age’ of cinema - far more than studios are currently cranking out - so there would have been more choice.
I have to admit I’ve decided ‘that’s enough’ of the MCU - it’s like one of those exhausting video games which never ends. As soon as one movie is in the cinema, the trailers and advertising for the next are everywhere, the teasers for the one after that start being dropped - and don’t forget the TV shows, all of which you need to at least be au-fait with to understand what is coming down the road - help!
Not taking it away from anyone, I just admire your stamina in trying to keep up with the onslaught and hope it remains rewarding.
I highly doubt that the average person had more viewing choices available in the 1930s and 1940s than they have today. The advent of television alone brought an exponential increase for on screen entertainment, not to mention the dozens of competing streaming platforms available now.
I will say one thing in slight opposition to myself above- as someone who does not live in a major city and hates superhero crap, I haven’t been to a movie in about ten years. Unless you have access to indie, art, and short run theatres, you are watching at home or you are watching superheroes.
<rant>I fucking could not care less about superheroes or Star Wars. <\rant>
Phew, feels good to say that out loud. I’ll go back in my cave now.
I don’t think that’s accurate either. A typical movie theater in the 1930s had one screen, a modern multiplex might have a dozen or more. Any way you look at it there are more choices available for watching movies today than there ever were in the “Golden Age” of cinema.
I’m curious what examples you’re thinking of. Batman, Superman, the Raimi Spiderman? Obviously YMMV, but I wouldn’t consider one or two decent films a sustained attempt. Or is there something else obvious I’m forgetting?
If you’re referring to the Lord of the Rings trilogy as your image might imply, I don’t disagree but I’m talking specifically about the comic book superhero genre.
I’d argue that superhero films are part of the larger fantasy genre, and that it was Peter Jackson that made the MCU possible. It a well-made, big budget film that took the subject of fantasy seriously. That, I’d argue, makes those films the real dividing line, despite not being exactly the same as superhero films.
You know, that’s a great argument. Thanks, I’d never really thought of it that way but you may be right. It is hard to imagine the MCU happening without Peter Jackson paving the way for a traditionally “nerdy” genre to be taken seriously.
I’m trying to think of a film prior to that which has that more serious edge to it… Although, I guess you could argue that it was Spielberg and Lucas who brought the B-film to the big screen more generally (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, ET, etc)… But those seem more… one off to me?
Any explanation for the rise of the pop oligopoly has to answer two questions:
I disagree. I think the only answer is a lack of competition. The record companies and movie production companies have been merging since the 1970’s and they are now vertically integrated which means that the content they produce is what gets promoted for consumption.
Break them all up.
Yeah looking at last weekend’s top ten box office movies there were several franchise installments and sequels but quite a decent showing of original movies too (bolded titles are movies that were not part of an established film or pop culture franchise):
1. The Bad Guys
2. Sonic the Hedgehog 2
3. Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore 4. The Northman 5. Everything Everywhere All At Once 6. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent 7. The Lost City 8. Memory 9. Father Stu
10. Morbius
I would definitely see those two as part of that lineage, but I think it is important that Lord of the Rings and the MCU are adaptations. Adaptations of prominent source material that shaped the perception of the movies, that is. For example, Jaws is an adaptation, too, but by and large that has only minimal impact on how the film is seen. Lord of the Rings on the other hand had source material with a quite firmly established nerdy reputation and all the baggage that comes with that. Of course in many ways Jackson stood on the shoulders of Tolkien, but in other ways he had to overcome the source material. That could have gone horribly wrong but he was successful. That proved that not only can you make blockbusters that happen to appeal to nerds, but you can take the nerdiest things in the world and turn them into mainstream juggernauts.
Whether it’s an adaptation is immaterial to my point. My point was that the LOTR opened the door for that sort of long form film-based story telling being taken seriously.
I know, but not to mine. I don’t think I disagree with anything you said. It’s just that I think that its status as an adaptation is part of what makes it such an important milestone and more directly relevant to the MCU than earlier things by Lucas or Spielberg.
Universal was definitely one of the originators of the whole “cinematic universe” concept with the “Universal Monsters” series of films.
It’s a delicious irony that their recent attempt to reboot that cinematic universe starting with the 2017 Mummy film was such a money-losing bust that they ended up scrapping the whole thing.
