4 ms·

I have a theory that this obsession with superheros is part of a greater obsession with continuity. Whether it's TV shows or cinematic universes, people crave a

I have a theory that this obsession with superheros is part of a greater obsession with continuity. Whether it's TV shows or cinematic universes, people crave a sense of continuity in their narrative. Right now there's a lack of continuity, a lack of semantic cohesion within the world. Values have disintegrated. Stuff that would have been otherwise meaningful, whether that be working class life, or the institution of the presidency or the guarantees of a college degree, are now meaningless or less meaningful.

Izkata 7y ago
> I have a theory that this obsession with superheros is part of a greater obsession with continuity. Whether it's TV shows or cinematic universes, people crave a sense of continuity in their narrative. I have a strong suspicion this part is correct, but that most are unaware of it. Kind of a "you don't miss what you never had" situation. Not so sure about the rest. Aside from realizing it about myself several years ago, here's some evidence: * Up above, someone mentioned a couple of failed cinematic universes [0]: Warner/DC and Universal's Monster Universe. * No one has mentioned a second successful one: The Conjuring Universe. * The Conjuring Universe did one of the exact same things that the MCU did, that the failed ones did not: Separate films drawn together. * The MCU's first films were completely standalone, just sharing things like Coulson and Fury as easter eggs, and only later drawn together into the same universe. Until Avengers, it was entirely possible for the casual moviegoer to miss this, creating a low barrier to entry - you didn't have to know the previous film, as you would a sequel. Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America could each draw in a different audience. * The first "universe" film in the Conjuring, Annabelle, was designed to work standalone instead of as a sequel, same as the first MCU films. Like the MCU, they included callbacks that fans could catch, but nothing important that broke the movie's flow. Again, low barrier to entry for moviegoers who are used to standalone films and don't want to commit themselves to a longer series. * On the flipside, DC and Monster both announced up front they were creating a cinematic universe, before the first movies were even out. This created a high barrier to entry for casual moviegoers - they knew up front they'd have to see further movies to get the full story. I think that's the big key, capturing the casual moviegoers with seemingly standalone films, then holding their attention with extended continuity only after they're invested. It's really easy to go see a second movie if you'd already seen the first. Conjuring and MCU both did that well, without creating an initial commitment by announcing multiple films. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577536

Izkata 7y ago

> I have a theory that this obsession with superheros is part of a greater obsession with continuity. Whether it's TV shows or cinematic universes, people crave a sense of continuity in their narrative. I have a strong suspicion this part is correct, but that most are unaware of it. Kind of a "you don't miss what you never had" situation. Not so sure about the rest. Aside from realizing it about myself several years ago, here's some evidence: * Up above, someone mentioned a couple of failed cinematic universes [0]: Warner/DC and Universal's Monster Universe. * No one has mentioned a second successful one: The Conjuring Universe. * The Conjuring Universe did one of the exact same things that the MCU did, that the failed ones did not: Separate films drawn together. * The MCU's first films were completely standalone, just sharing things like Coulson and Fury as easter eggs, and only later drawn together into the same universe. Until Avengers, it was entirely possible for the casual moviegoer to miss this, creating a low barrier to entry - you didn't have to know the previous film, as you would a sequel. Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America could each draw in a different audience. * The first "universe" film in the Conjuring, Annabelle, was designed to work standalone instead of as a sequel, same as the first MCU films. Like the MCU, they included callbacks that fans could catch, but nothing important that broke the movie's flow. Again, low barrier to entry for moviegoers who are used to standalone films and don't want to commit themselves to a longer series. * On the flipside, DC and Monster both announced up front they were creating a cinematic universe, before the first movies were even out. This created a high barrier to entry for casual moviegoers - they knew up front they'd have to see further movies to get the full story. I think that's the big key, capturing the casual moviegoers with seemingly standalone films, then holding their attention with extended continuity only after they're invested. It's really easy to go see a second movie if you'd already seen the first. Conjuring and MCU both did that well, without creating an initial commitment by announcing multiple films. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577536