briskhound2 said:Besides, there was no specific definition given regarding what kind of science fiction films are invading the market. SF is a constant genre, but right now superheroes are just the trend. It isn't concerning. In the 90s, Scream came out, followed by a massive wave of copies, and nobody worried that kids would start swinging kitchen knives at each other. Superheroes make money right now, which is why they dominate, but there are plenty of other titles within the genre (Star Trek, Interstellar, The Martian...) so it’s no different than the 90s.
So-called superhero SF movies aren't actually SF. They are nothing more than visually "slick" action flicks wrapped in SF cellophane, designed for a shallow audience—to put it politely, the less demanding crowd.
In those films, action reigns supreme. Visual impact is mandatory; everything revolves around it. Substance, plot depth, narrative, even the soul a film should possess for a more sophisticated audience becomes secondary in these works.
Shallow tropes dominate this action-heavy SF. Superficiality is the rule in superhero movies. Everything centers on obligatory stunts, explosions, flying objects, and various other gimmicks used to create maximum visual impact for the consumer, forcing them to drop cash on a movie ticket whenever a new installment in a franchise hits theaters.
I am not talking about that.
I am talking about films like The Martian. Films that deal with fantasies completely detached from life—from reality—yet manage to thrill audiences, sometimes to a level bordering on fanaticism, as we see here. That is what concerns me: having no connection to reality while building a massive, dedicated following.