my comment I wish you would had mentioned Blade. It all started with Blade, as Stan Lee said, a not well known comic book , that did great for a Black Thespian. And from that the industry jumped in, but it was fresh. The reality is no film genre dies. People say Westerns are dead, but they are not dead. No COntry For Old Men is a western. The film industry can't rely on westerns as a genre to support the whole industry. People say Musicals are dead, but they are not dead, Lala Land is a musical. The film industry can't rely on musicals as a genre to support the whole industry. Superhero films for a time was relied on by the film industry in the usa but now that is over. But no film genre is ever dead. From Film Noir to Slasher to Romance all film genres continue, with fewer entries but infinite possibilities. And the USA film genre isn't alone. Wuxia films and Gun fight films no longer are crutches for Hong Kong cinema but are still being made. So all film industries have these ebb and flows.
The challenge in my eyes is the role of the theater. When television first came on the scene it meant a cheaper more private alternative to theaters for an ever growing number. But, theaters were not allowed to be owned by Film studios. I think with streaming/cable/tv the theater is in trouble but it will allow the theaters to go back into the hands of film makers, which it should never had been forced from by the government. I comprehend that film studios owning theaters meant independent films didn't have a place to show but independent films were not blockaded from owning theaters nor were theaters blockaded from not being owned by film makers. But, nothing beats seeing a film on the big screen it is another experience and really changes the interpretation of the craft for film viewers. so while I wish you had mentioned blade for the superhero genre, I concur that the life of films and the industry will be fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3KaHmnXJuo&lc=Ugy8H6hVKZl6ZAZPrtR4AaABAgbanner image
my comment I have heard or read many since Avengers endgame say that casting originally male characters as female is a negative factor in every single marvel film made that did it. I know you have never said casting alone is the reason for any of the weakenend receptions to any marvel film, but do you really feel that the decision to cast non white males, in comic book worlds mostly filled with white male characters in popular roles, would garner bigger audiences from non white males. I admit, I can see it , but I am not sure. How are you so certain?
Your final point is that the Superhero Movie era is over, not superhero movies but their position as the industrial which was bound to happen. Westerns/Musicals went through this and Hollywood survived and thrived eventually.
I wish you had mentioned Sinner , in my opinion the biggest winner this summer, and what does it have different than Superman or Fantastic Four, 2025.
It isn't a reboot. So audiences can't be tired of the reboots to the film.
It is a relatively small budget film, well done. So while it doesn't have all the wow moments only possible with a larger budget, it can get greater return on people who simply like it. And the special effects are done well even if they are not grandiose.
It has an original story, so no one can argue about characters being changed as every character is original.
It is naturally multiracial so many different humans based on various racial categories: age/phenotype/gender/language/body size/financial level are present in the story naturally, not forced, so various people can see representations of their community in the film within the storytelling.
It doesn't have to gather the largest audience to make a profit or be lauded. Large budget films demand a large audience to make a profit or be lauded, that gets complicated. Small budget films absent total global fandom can win.
