So here's a fun fact: Every film in the top 10 of the box office so far in 2016 is either a.) about talking animals, or b.) a comic book adaptation. Check it out:
Obviously, this is likely to change by the end of the year. Star Wars: Rogue One will crack the top ten, easily, and there's always a surprise or two along the way (Pete's Dragon will appeal to families; maybe Sully nabs disaffected adults; Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them could recapture the old Harry Potter Magic). Of course, we'll also have to factor in Dr. Strange, which would currently make the top ten if it did Thor-style numbers.
Anyway, yes, it's kind of a weird statistical fluke that the top ten is entirely taken up by talking animal movies and comic book movies. But it's not a terribly shocking one. Let's be honest: the movie industry is not in a great place right now, at least when it comes to tentpole-style features. Consider, first, the fact that more films have grossed more than $300 million domestically this year than ever have before in history in a single year—and we're only in August. Consider, second, the fact that there are no movies that have grossed in the $200 million range. Indeed, let's take a moment to look at the next-five-highest-grossing pictures:
In order, that's one disappointing sequel (production budget: $185M), one big hit (production budget: $50M), one flopped reboot that is doing okay overseas (production budget: $185M), one utterly disastrous reboot (production budget: $144M), and one disappointing sequel (production budget: $120M).
Now, again, I'm sure this is just a weird statistical fluke and that by the end of the year we'll have something that grosses more than $200M but less than $300M (Suicide Squad might get stuck there, actually, if its weekend-to-weekend drop is as bad as Batman v Superman's). My point is simply to highlight what's working and what isn't.
For all the grumbling you hear about people being "tired of superhero movies"—and I hear this a lot, not just from critics but from normal folks with souls who go to flicks for fun—the numbers don't really bear that out. "Superhero fatigue," as a concept, is simply overblown: There will be two big DC movies this year, two Marvel Cinematic Universe movies this year, and two X-Men universe movies. Six flicks over 52 weeks and around 150 wide releases isn't exactly a glut. Audiences clearly don't think so, since they keep showing up for them (and the talking-animal flicks).
So no, it's not comic book flicks that are hurting Hollywood. And it's not family-friendly features. It's the mid-tier reboots, the years-delayed sequels, the grasping-at-straws franchises flooding the marketplace that people have become bored by. If you're looking for someone to blame for the dearth of mid-budget flicks that appeal to adult sensibilities on the release schedule, don't focus your ire on Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark and Charles Xavier. Set your sights on mediocrities like Jason Bourne and Lord Greystoke and Jillian Holtzmann.
Or, better yet, take comfort in the fact that all this has happened before and will happen again. Here's a passage that appears near the end of Steven Bach's Final Cut, his epic tale about the epic box office and budgetary disaster that was Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate:
[New York Timescritic] Vincent Canby's overview may have been Olympian, but it was well informed. "Heaven's Gate—the phenomenon not the movie—has been a long time coming, but to blame it on any one director or corporate management is vastly to oversimplify what's been happening to commercial American movies over the last several decades ... the cost of making a movie, even a modest one, has soared even faster than the cost of making everything else in the economy," he wrote, pointing out that "the hits make more money than ever, while people won't go to see a flop even if it's free. The pressure to find movies with some kind of built-in appeal grows greater day by day. Thus the emphasis on sequels, or 'properties' that have been pre-sold as best-selling books or hit plays, by name writers, by casts with great film or television celebrity, or by the reputations of those directors who have become 'bankable.'"
That's a passage from an essay written in 1980 that was reprinted in a book published in 1985 that could have been written about The Biz in a blog post composed in 2016.
Why are the movies so bad? The numbers. It's been that way for 40 years. Longer, really. Eventually, we'll get used to it. And even if we don't, we'll still find plenty to like at the multiplex. We always do.