Superhero Fatigue

Alright! We're well into 2023 and, as per the norm, not many great movies have come out. The first few months are usually a dry season, but this year was particularly disappointing for cinema's biggest genre at the moment - that of the superhero. Both Marvel and DC have seen significant losses with Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Shazam! Fury of the Gods, and The Flash respectively. All are sequels to well-liked/legitimately underrated superhero movies and all received mixed/negative reviews and underperformed at the box office, which naturally begs the question: Is superhero fatigue finally setting in?

Now, anyone who's moderately familiar with the industry probably hit the hardest eye roll of all time - superhero fatigue is a phenomenon that's been allegedly happening since the early 2000s when the likes of X-Men, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, Batman Begins, Daredevil, and Catwoman were all happening simultaneously before the genre's full monetary potential had even been realized. Despite the creation of the MCU in 2008 and DC's middling successes with the DCEU and various one-offs, the fatigue idea has persisted - albeit most commonly as the kneejerk response to superhero flicks "underperforming" at the box office (Like Ant-Man and the Wasp making $622 million instead of one billion... oh the horror!). 

But after the past two years, I feel as if the fatigue notion has actually gained some merit - with the MCU's Phase Four pumping out two and a half phases of content in two years (17 projects), we've seen an unprecedented dive in critical reception as well as box office returns* (With an asterisk we'll get to later). The DCEU has seen likewise, with Black Adam, Shazam! Fury of the Gods, and The Flash whelming both critically and financially, and executives deciding it wasn't even worth the effort to release Batgirl at all. Superheroes have saturated every aspect of pop culture, transitioning from gimmicky movies for nerds to genuine blockbusters to Hollywood's too-big-to-fail golden child to the poster boy of a cinematic landscape increasingly reliant on franchises and a focus on IP above all else. 

So... fatigue much? On the surface, no. Black Adam and Shazam may have bombed, but DC has always been a risky bet outside of Batman. Venom: Let There Be Carnage, Thor: Love and Thunder, Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania all made less than their predecessors but still made considerable grosses, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Spider-Man: No Way Home hit pay dirt, and Shang-Chi and Eternals were box offices successes considering pandemic rules and the fact that they're D-list characters at best. Outside of Fox, Morbius is the only true box office bomb Marvel has had since Punisher: War Zone in 2008, and even then it swept the hearts of the people via internet memes. 

Commercially the genre is doing very well, although it will likely never match the 2012-2019 honeymoon period wherein it was blowout success after blowout success that turned the Guardians of the Galaxy and the Suicide Squad into household names, created the misnomer that sequels make more than their predecessors, and continually cracked Wikipedia's list of highest-grossing films. While the genre is noticeably doing poorer than previously, that is not due to the mythical superhero fatigue. Several factors contributed to the decline, including but not limited to the COVID-19 pandemic forever changing movie-going habits, unrealistic expectations from the genre's heyday, and satisfying endings to overarching stories that allowed people to get off the hype train  (The Infinity Saga and... sigh... the "Snyderverse"). 

Additionally, there is a perceived decline in quality that hovers around the genre, a slow transition from A- to B+ adventures, and that alleged decline is only aided by the objective increase in quantity that the genre has had. When once superhero universes were exclusively theatrical, the rush to streaming has pushed them to the forefront of television as well. The flagship streaming services of Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery, Disney+ and HBOMax, now Max, respectively, have now produced ten television shows and several one-off specials over the course of two years, with seventeen more in development. With most of the shows being disappointments that often feel like prolonged movies, this weekly splurge of content just adds more and more water to an already well-soaked ground. 

Interestingly enough, the oversaturation and unremarkableness of the modern superhero feature may be due to the superhero itself. You see, when a superhero movie failed in 2007, it failed as a distinctly 2007 movie. That's best seen through the first Fantastic Four and Daredevil flicks, which are undeniably early 2000s through and through. The early superhero movies had to live and die by the same standards everyone else had - when they failed, they did not fail as superhero movies, but rather as genuinely terrible movies (Steel, Ghost Rider, Elektra, Catwoman), and the same is true in reverse - when the movies did well, they became cinematic classics (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, The Dark Knight). 

Part of that shift is due to the prevalence of the superhero. Every decade has a definitive action movie that everyone tries to copy for the next decade (Think of the increase of time-stop action scenes that happened after The Matrix's release in 1999), and the beginning MCU and DCEU films are greatly inspired by Michael Bay's Transformers movies - CGI heavy PG-13 action spectaculars that revamped a childrens' property into a smart and sexy summer flick for all four quadrants. The shades of Transformers are especially evident in the metal brashness of Iron Man.

However, what was the most important action movie of the 2010s? The Avengers. The Avengers completely flipped the board in the summer of 2012 by making $1.5 billion, successfully pulling off a brand new cinematic universe hat trick and becoming the third highest-grossing film of all time. Studios became universe crazy, trying (And failing) to make cinematic universes out of DC, The Conjuring, The Amazing Spider-Man, Godzilla, LEGO, Star Wars, The Mummy, Unbreakable, Call of Duty, Warhammer, Jump Street, Mortal Kombat, G.I. Joe, Hasbro, and Transformers. Spin-offs and interconnectivity became all the craze, and the potential expansion of an I.P. was marketed more than the quality of said I.P. (Hence why most failed). However, this means that superhero movies that once reminded us of Transformers-era action are now reminiscent of their own genre (Think "giant sky beam with CGI lasers where the hero fights a villain with similar powers but evil"). 

Black Adam, Quantumania, and Fury of the Gods are not regular movies - they are superhero movies. They aren't trying to be action movies, heist movies, comedies, or anything other than superhero movies, and hence they live and die by superhero movie standards. Black Adam isn't an okay movie, it's an okay superhero movie. They're about muscular men and women in tight costumes saving the world with references to other movies sprinkled in. Perhaps it is the natural evolution of the action genre - is Captain America any less unrealistic than one-man armies like Rambo or John Wick? Or is he just more open to a colorful wardrobe? 

It seems that for every new superhero film or television show the main critical reaction is a comparison to prior superhero movies - Don't be surprised to see a million "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 Is the Best Marvel Movie Since No Way Home" articles come May 5th. Every MCU show contains "your new favorite Avenger." Every Rotten Tomatoes consensus, IMDb review, and YouTube review focuses on how the new movies change things for, compare to, or have implications for that cinematic universe rather than the genuine quality of the film. It's good... for a superhero movie. It's better... than Quantumania. It does things new... for the MCU. I cite Ms. Marvel's stylistic doodles that were drawn on screen throughout the show - it's not a new concept by any means, but when Ms. Marvel did it minds were blown. It's new! It's fresh! A true highlight!... if all you're comparing it to is prior MCU products. Otherwise, Scott Pilgrim beat it to the punch a decade ago. 

Instead of being cinema-changing like Batman, Spider-Man, or The Dark Knight, new superhero products are being confined to the superhero genre because of the sheer output of said genre. It's the definition of diminishing returns. When once a superhero movie could be a good movie movie, it can now be good... but only when compared to other superhero movies. Think about it this way - if you had a friend who recommended you watch Spider-Man in the early 2000s, you'd probably go to your local BlockBuster, rent it, and have a jolly old time with one of the best action movies you'd seen in a while. But is anyone out there recommending Wakanda Forever? Black Adam? Quantumania? Fury of the Gods? You have to completely change the game (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse) if you want to be treated as anything other than a fun B+ adventure of the week. And that's not to say those B+ adventures aren't fun, they're just not particularly special when fifteen come out a year. Likable, while not the opposite of great, isn't a synonym either. 

Due to the quantity of them, the novelty of both superheroes and cinematic universes has worn off, and everyone is asking: Now what? Truth be told, the superhero craze likely would have been killed by the pandemic if Hollywood knew what to replace it with. Remakes of animated movies can only go so far, reboots can only happen so often, and there are only a few 80s classics that don't have sequels - Sometimes it feels like the only thing that is truly safe is Back to the Future, and even then it's only because Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's disease. Unfortunately, the theatrical and streaming demands are perfectly aligned with a cynical corporate reboot/remake/exploit era of Hollywood, an era the superhero is perfectly situated for. With vast mythos to draw from, large fanbases, and extensive character rosters, the worlds of DC and Marvel are prime meat for this content feast. 

The Marvel Cinematic Universe gave itself and its fans an easy out via Avengers: Endgame. While it's cool they're now adapting some of the 2010s comic arcs like Sam Wilson becoming Captain America and introducing Ms. Marvel, the average fan could have paid for eleven years of unprecedented ambitious storytelling, walked away satisfied, and seen the two Spider-Man flicks and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 as an epilogue. The Infinity Saga was truly masterful in its interconnectivity via the Infinity Stones that weaved throughout different films and franchises and a clear endgame villain in the form of Thanos. Phases Four and Five have been all over the place - Kang is the new big bad, but who's fighting him? Will Werewolf by Night take him down? The Eternals? Moon Knight? Echo? She-Hulk? Ms. Marvel? Agatha? How would they even meet? We haven't seen Shang-Chi in like fourteen projects, does Marvel remember that he exists? Does the audience? Everything is a sequel or introductory television show, making the entire thing feel like a prolonged band-aid being pulled off. How will a Skrull Invasion impact things? Can it even impact things? And how would one even write all of these different plot threads into Avengers: The Kang Dynasty? It seems the most buzz they get is from Office cameos and the promise of the Fantastic Four and X-Men. We hit the apex... now what? The answer isn't fourteen Disney+ series, we know that much. 

A fun parallel I'd like to make is to DC's Animated Movie Universe (DCAMU), a series of direct-to-DVD movies that came out over the course of seven years from 2013-2020. While primarily based on the New 52 run of comics, it also adapted iconic comic arcs such as Flashpoint, The Death of Superman, and Batman: Hush, all leading up to a war on Apokalips, the big showstopping finale where every hero meets their violent destiny. But the important thing about the DCAMU, the thing that made it special, was that it ended. Direct-to-DVD DC movies didn't end - in fact, the entire thing rebooted with the "Tomorrowverse" - but the DCAMU is special because it had a definitive starting and stopping point, and even if you didn't like it, you had to respect the showstopper finale. So too goes the MCU - we don't need or want Marvel to stop making movies. However, the lore of a cinematic universe that could last for 80 years can easily become unmanageable, and aging actors mean that nothing lasts forever. It's cool that it's all connected, but at what price? We'll never see the Punisher interacting with Steve Rogers or Hulk throwing Wolverine. It would probably be best if, following Secret Wars, the MCU hits the reboot button and starts with a blank page with an all-new, all-different Marvel where the Fantastic Four, X-Men, and Avengers can all be in their prime and coexist without massive retcons (Somehow... the X-Gene returned). 

While that was a somewhat long sidebar, the extensive lore we've covered is part of the alleged superhero fatigue. The longer the universe goes on, the more convoluted it gets; there's a reason James Bond reboots every so often - it's so that the audience watching No Time to Die doesn't have to watch Octopussy to understand what's going on. So too is the MCU. I'm genuinely scared of a future where Avengers: Red Zone, headlined by a middle-aged Ms. Marvel, releases in 2050 and requires 42 years of context to understand. I haven't talked as much about the DCEU in this regard, and that's because "extensive lore" doesn't really apply to it outside of backstage drama. However, I will say that, in regards to DC, the future of the cinematic universe does appear to have an effect on the box office response to the movies, with the announcement of James Gunn's 2025 reboot certainly doing Shazam! and The Flash no favors.

So we once again ask the question: Are people, after 45 years of superhero movies and fifteen years of cinematic universes, finally getting tired of superheroes? The answer is yes... but only if you're the people making them. Audiences will never get tired of seeing ripped attractive people in skintight costumes with unapologetically gee-whiz morals fighting bad guys. The people behind the camera, however, and the people writing them, have long tired of the genre. When everyone's tired of it, there's no real incentive to try and do anything other than set up a big crossover that will hopefully make more money than the thing they're currently making. As long as they know it will make money or look good on a streaming service's homepage, there isn't much incentive to do anything other than a banal common denominator. "We booked Dwayne Johnson for a superhero movie? Doesn't matter what we do, it'll make bank!" Until they find the next cash cow to milk or superheroes start failing at an unreasonable rate, there will be no incentive to do anything differently. 

James Gunn, co-head of DC Studios, put it very well in a recent interview with Rolling Stone: "I get fatigued by most spectacle films, by the grind of not having an emotionally grounded story... If you don’t have a story at the base of it, just watching things bash each other, no matter how clever those bashing moments are, no matter how clever the designs and the VFX are, it just gets fatiguing, and I think that’s very, very real." Gunn's definition of fatigue is spot-on, and his clear understanding of it is undoubtedly why Guardians of the Galaxy is Marvel's crowning achievement. Each one of them has a beating heart and emotional climax that underscores the physical threats of the movie, and not in a way that feels cheap - compare Billy hesitating to call his foster mom "mom" in Fury of the Gods to Peter Quill running away from his cancer-ridden mother in the first Guardians movie, leading to his alien abduction, and then overcoming his childhood trauma and defeat the villain by finally taking her hand in the finale. It doesn't matter how absurd the concept, hero, or quantity is as long as they have a genuine heart to them, a soul that makes them more than corporate streaming fodder. Were there themes and messages in Quantumania other than "Avengers: The Kang Dynasty hits theaters 2026?" 

Now, if you're worried that superhero movies will go the way of the Western and disappear wholly, be not afraid. There will always be an animated toon about a green chameleon to light the path once again. The appropriate question isn't if audiences have superhero fatigue; it's if they have cinematic universe fatigue. The films coming out that don't have the baggage of interconnectivity (The Batman, Joker, Spider-Verse) have found critical and commercial acclaim that surpasses their cinematic universe counterparts. The cinematic universes may fall and rise like any other franchise, but superheroes, no matter how poorly they open or how bad they become, will literally never go away. Aside from the fact that Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man are due for a reboot every ten years or so, the core idea behind superheroes is that of heroic tales of good versus evil, and as long as audiences still show up for that, the superhero is here to stay - It's like saying that people will get tired of movies adapted from books. With so many characters, comic runs, and styles to draw from, superheroes are one of the most sustainable I.P.s to ever hit the big screen. It's a genre that can go from high schoolers with alien exoskeletons to animated family dramas to raccoon/otter love stories in a single year. It's an idea that can and should have a bit of everything for everyone. 

Additionally, 2022 more than proved that superheroes can peacefully coexist and make bank while the audience falls in love with more conventional blockbusters and Oscar-winning setpieces about pilots past their prime, nine-foot-tall aliens, tired laundromat owners, and boot-wearing cats. As long as they can consistently make them fresh, innovative, and, above all else, good, the audience will never grow tired of superhero movies. James Gunn certainly seems to know what he's doing with DC and reports of reassessing and reducing Marvel Studios' output point to a brighter tomorrow. Here's to the long and healthy future of the superhero, and the implications it has had for the rest of cinema - for better or for worse. 

Funny enough, the future of the cinematic universe seems to be resting upon DC's shoulders at the moment. We know Marvel works, we know they'll do well, they'll always keep chugging along, but for other would-be franchises? Well, all eyes are pointed to how the new DC Reboot turns out... one might even say it seems like it's a job for Superman.