Kinda laughing that capefeather thinks Hollywood operates on anything remotely akin to capitalism. The Screen Actors Guild is literally communist in it's world outlook, and most of Hollywood's unions aren't that far removed. That's why you see major blockbuster budget stinkers like Gas Land, because the point isn't to market to audience tastes, it's to be an author avatar and Aesop to the rubes in the theater. It's cookie cutter plotlines with cookie cutter villains, and the bad guy is always religion/business/morality/individualism.
If Hollywood ran on a capitalistic model it would be like the iPhone: Constantly upgrading and updating to feed the needs of the market that exist - and the most valuable commodity in story telling is scarcity. Instead what Hollywood does, since it can't think in most instances think its way out of a paper bag, is try and reinvent already written content and fit it into an overarching author narrative.
Like I said, there are exceptions here and there (Disney / Pixar seems to be having a run). But by and large it's why movies have been going beyond trilogies into fourth and fifth iterations, and adapting written materials originally published several decades ago instead of generating new content. Even the more conservative leaning movies are either novel adaptations (Atlas Shrugged) or, as is to be expected, properly done renditions of superheroes (The Dark Knight, Man of Steel) because there just isn't a critical mass to appeal to the scarcity in the market of new compelling stories and characters.
As far as Superhero movies themselves, those are always a mixed bag. If you actually stay true to the character rather than making them an author avatar you end up with something closer to The Dark Knight and Man of Steel. If the character is just a device for a PC Aesop or there as a mindless face (older Hulk movies didn't utilize the character properly) it falls on its face.
The problem is industry-wide. There is not yet a critical mass of executives and staff willing to make changes in the big money culture that drives Hollywood, so you're going to see endless rehashes of Fast and Furious, Die Hard, Superhero Movies, and Aesop's (Politically Correct) Fables in the foreseeable future.
If Hollywood ran on a capitalistic model it would be like the iPhone: Constantly upgrading and updating to feed the needs of the market that exist - and the most valuable commodity in story telling is scarcity. Instead what Hollywood does, since it can't think in most instances think its way out of a paper bag, is try and reinvent already written content and fit it into an overarching author narrative.
Like I said, there are exceptions here and there (Disney / Pixar seems to be having a run). But by and large it's why movies have been going beyond trilogies into fourth and fifth iterations, and adapting written materials originally published several decades ago instead of generating new content. Even the more conservative leaning movies are either novel adaptations (Atlas Shrugged) or, as is to be expected, properly done renditions of superheroes (The Dark Knight, Man of Steel) because there just isn't a critical mass to appeal to the scarcity in the market of new compelling stories and characters.
As far as Superhero movies themselves, those are always a mixed bag. If you actually stay true to the character rather than making them an author avatar you end up with something closer to The Dark Knight and Man of Steel. If the character is just a device for a PC Aesop or there as a mindless face (older Hulk movies didn't utilize the character properly) it falls on its face.
The problem is industry-wide. There is not yet a critical mass of executives and staff willing to make changes in the big money culture that drives Hollywood, so you're going to see endless rehashes of Fast and Furious, Die Hard, Superhero Movies, and Aesop's (Politically Correct) Fables in the foreseeable future.
