Why do people take Spielberg's comments on the direction of entertainment seriously?

[Zontar]

So with the end of the winter finale of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., winter finale of The Flash, of The Arrow and the release of Ant-Man all being this week (or just about) it's time again when people talk about the impeding collapse of the superhero entertainment market.

Now that's a topic for another thread, how this relates to the title is the fact many use as a defence the fact that director and producer Steven Spielberg has stated that the superhero non-genre (it's not a genre, why do people keep using that word wrong? It's not even an archetype anymore) will collapse as evidence.

But here's the problem: he doesn't know jack about the places the industry is going. Spielberg is a man who thought that blockbusters in general would collapse and movies would become something even more expensive then it is now that would become something socially akin to dressing up fancy and going to an opera. This was in the mid 2000s, when China, India, South Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe had made the blockbuster model sustainable at the spending levels that where being used at the time (blockbusters survived the greatest recession since the Great Depression, I think that tells you something about our willingness to see expensive crap). A few years before that, he was using his influence to prevent his movies from being released on DVD because he didn't think it would catch on. Keep in mind this wasn't a situation like VHS vs Betamax where it could be anyone who won, DVDs had a fight so one-sided even the Blu Ray vs HDDVD fight seem fair by comparison. And here we now stand, 9 years after DVDs where made obsolete it's still the only format some movies and television series are being released in due to the fact so many people continue to refuse to update to Blu Ray (granted some movies today can only have DVDs bought as part of a Blu Ray/DVD bundle, but that's another story).

So with such great failures of predictions the way the industry is going to go, why is he being taken seriously on yet another prediction?

 

[Zontar]

We have like 20 coming out in these next 7 years alone.

You know, that's true and all, but people seem to love comparing superhero movies to Westerns in this regard. Always forgetting that (appart from the fact superhero movies are not a genre) Western at their peak where getting over 50 movies a year (I think the most was 57) and there are whole genre and sub-genre such as police procedurals that are still more numerous.

 

[The Madman]

Because he's kinda a big deal after having been personally responsible for a number of the most influential movies of all time? I think that's why most people take him seriously. Even if he's not always right the mans still got enough clout to his words to ensure everyone listens when he speaks.

Also he's kinda right I'd say, these trends always tend to come and go in waves and I don't think this current super-hero one is any different. I don't think for a second either Marvel or DC plan to stop making movies anytime soon, but I do kinda expect the pace to slow down a bit as they risk reaching market saturation.

Mind you it hasn't reached 90's level 'Steel', 'The Phantom', or 'Batman and Robin' bad, but it could be if the big companies aren't careful.

 

[Albino Boo]

Well if you have made $3.6 billion out of directing and producing movies, it's a fair bet that you know something about how the movie industry works.

Western at their peak where getting over 50 movies a year

While not untrue but you have to remember that was an era before television and people went to the movies far more often. In the US 520 million less tickets were sold in 1960 than 1950.

 

[happyninja42]

We have like 20 coming out in these next 7 years alone.

You know, that's true and all, but people seem to love comparing superhero movies to Westerns in this regard. Always forgetting that (appart from the fact superhero movies are not a genre) Western at their peak where getting over 50 movies a year (I think the most was 57) and there are whole genre and sub-genre such as police procedurals that are still more numerous.

And yet, the western genre did indeed collapse eventually. You said it yourself, it's peak, which by definition, implies times when it's not so popular. Yes it had it's peak, and then it didn't. People got tired of them, and now, very few are made, and the ones that are, are usually homage films, trying to capture the "good old days" of spaghetti westerns at their height. So yes, it's still an accurate thing to say, or at least theorize, that eventually superhero movies will wane in popularity and be replaced with something else.

As to why anyone should listen to him, well, perhaps having spent decades working in the very industry he's talking about, and having made many of the most popular, and critically acclaimed films of the past several decades, and winning numerous awards for those movies, just miiiiight give him a bit of an expert insight on the way the industry works. I mean he's only been neck deep in this industry for most of his life, and pretty much the entirety of his professional movie making career.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Well if you have made $3.6 billion out of directing and producing movies, it's a fair bet that you know something about how the movie industry works.

^THIS.

I didn't realize it was that baffling that a man who's enjoyed repeated record-setting success over decades is being seen as a reliable source of information in his very specialized field. It's not exactly like Stephen Hawking telling us how cook after all, more like him telling you that the ball is indeed going to fall eventually, inevitably, to Earth.

 

[pookie101]

i can see the ass falling out of the superhero genre eventually. really depends on how chinese audiences go with it really

 

[Fox12]

Well, I don't really keep up with what Spielberg says. He's right, though, the superhero fad will eventually fall, then level off. We'll still get movies, but not on the marvel level scale we see now. There's no special reason for it, that's just how fads work. Nothing's lasts forever.

I'm not sure why your seeking validation against spielbergs words. He didn't say superhero films were bad, he just said that they'll eventually fade off (which they will).

 

[Pseudonym]

(it's not a genre, why do people keep using that word wrong? It's not even an archetype anymore)

Why isn't it a genre? I wasn't aware there were any kind strict conventions on what does and does not count as a genre.

To answer your question, Spielberg is a big name amongst people who make movies. That doesn't necessarily mean he knows what he is talking about but people will assume he does anyway.

 

[CeeBod]

I didn't realize it was that baffling that a man who's enjoyed repeated record-setting success over decades is being seen as a reliable source of information in his very specialized field. It's not exactly like Stephen Hawking telling us how cook after all, more like him telling you that the ball is indeed going to fall eventually, inevitably, to Earth.

I would so buy a Stephen Hawking cook book - extra points if every recipe is described as an equation! p

OT: I hope superhero films do go the way of the Western - currently they're completely formulaic, and you could fall asleep during one film, wake up during another, and not actually notice that isn't the same film any more. Whilst some of them aren't complete crap, most of them are. I'd also love to see the Superhero version of the Spaghetti Western - not sure what it'd look like, but it could be pretty sweet!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

To answer your titular question, Zontar: because he invented Summer Blockbusters.

(Which is what these movies are)

 

[DefunctTheory]

I'd also love to see the Superhero version of the Spaghetti Western - not sure what it'd look like, but it could be pretty sweet!

Like that, probably.

 

[twistedmic]

He's right, though, the superhero fad will eventually fall, then level off. We'll still get movies, but not on the marvel level scale we see now.

Personally, I think that the MCU is going to be the driving force behind the fall of the Superhero movie fad, mostly due to over saturation and complexity. There have been twelve MCU movies in the last seven years with another eleven planned in the next five years (twenty-three in twelve years), and that's not counting the t.v. shows, all of which are interconnected to varying degrees.
The MCU movies are starting to feel lie the flood of WW@ shooters we got in the early 2000's and the current crop of modern-to-neear-future shooters we're getting nowadays.
It won't be long until people start getting burnt-out on all the superhero movies and then we'll get the down-turn of superhero movies

 

[Erttheking]

Because he's got a point. This stuff has happened before. Too much of a product, the market becomes saturated and people move on. I'm already getting a little tired of Avengers, partially because it's getting a little "Second verse same as the first."

 

[Zontar]

Because he's got a point. This stuff has happened before. Too much of a product, the market becomes saturated and people move on. I'm already getting a little tired of Avengers, partially because it's getting a little "Second verse same as the first."

It's not nearly as saturated as people like to pretend it is. Hell just looking at other high budget movies, spy movies outnumbered superhero movies this year, and there have been plenty in recent years and plenty announced for the coming years, yet no one is complaining about those movies being equally prolific in the same budgetary range. And those are movies filling an actual genre, while superhero movies have evolved into being an element at best due to the fact the superhero movies of the past 5 years wouldn't even be considered the same genre had the characters not been wearing colourful suits, they'd just be considered more entries in the continuous stream of action movies that have been produced over the past 35 years.

The only thing that has changed is that 1) the source material is now comic books instead of regular books, and 2) that the two main companies making most of these movies are having them share a setting.

 

[Albino Boo]

Because he's got a point. This stuff has happened before. Too much of a product, the market becomes saturated and people move on. I'm already getting a little tired of Avengers, partially because it's getting a little "Second verse same as the first."

It's not nearly as saturated as people like to pretend it is. Hell just looking at other high budget movies, spy movies outnumbered superhero movies this year, and there have been plenty in recent years and plenty announced for the coming years, yet no one is complaining about those movies being equally prolific in the same budgetary range. And those are movies filling an actual genre, while superhero movies have evolved into being an element at best due to the fact the superhero movies of the past 5 years wouldn't even be considered the same genre had the characters not been wearing colourful suits, they'd just be considered more entries in the continuous stream of action movies that have been produced over the past 35 years.

The only thing that has changed is that 1) the source material is now comic books instead of regular books, and 2) that the two main companies making most of these movies are having them share a setting.

Thats your view to which you are perfectly entitled too, however you have not made $3.6 billion dollars from the film industry. So your opinion does not carry the same weight as Spielberg's when people come to consider the issue. Its inevitable the opinion of an industry veteran carries more weight than some guy on the internet.

 

[Zontar]

Thats your view to which you are perfectly entitled too, however you have not made $3.6 billion dollars from the film industry. So your opinion does not carry the same weight as Spielberg's when people come to consider the issue. Its inevitable the opinion of an industry veteran carries more weight than some guy on the internet.

Speilburg's fortune wasn't exactly made by predicting trends though, it was made making and financing movies and television series, very few of which one could call "risky" after his work in the 70s and early 80s. I can understand why initially people would take his predictions on industry trends seriously, but after dropping the ball pretty much every time he had it when it comes to predicting how entertainment will evolve, you'd think people would get that he isn't good at guessing what will happen with the industry.

 

[Albino Boo]

Thats your view to which you are perfectly entitled too, however you have not made $3.6 billion dollars from the film industry. So your opinion does not carry the same weight as Spielberg's when people come to consider the issue. Its inevitable the opinion of an industry veteran carries more weight than some guy on the internet.

Speilburg's fortune wasn't exactly made by predicting trends though, it was made making and financing movies and television series, very few of which one could call "risky" after his work in the 70s and early 80s. I can understand why initially people would take his predictions on industry trends seriously, but after dropping the ball pretty much every time he had it when it comes to predicting how entertainment will evolve, you'd think people would get that he isn't good at guessing what will happen with the industry.

One quick question have you made $3.6 billion out of movies? I would suggest that $3.6 billion is a good indicator that he is good at guessing what people want to watch.