they’re the new “What is the fascination with fiery explosions in the movies?”. with better CGI, they make for a good, and safe, excuse to see imaginary, pretty stuff go Ka-Boom! on screen.
When was that, exactly?
I think they’re also helped by the fact that most comics are basically already in story-board form, so while adapting the latest popular psychological thriller novel to the screen might be difficult and might loose something in the translations, its a pretty small leap to go from a Superman comic to a Superman movie (obviously there are execptions, Watchmen springs to mind, and most superheroes still need a redisign so that costumes and the like look less tacky on real people). This is especially true now that CGI has made creating crazy effects relativley straight forwards.
The other big factor, I think, is that the “big name” comics like Spiderman and Batman have already had decades worth of product testing, the writers know what kind of stories work and what kind of superheroes and villians won’t (see the above example of Superweaving). Compare this with other movie crazies, where one big successful film is followed by a bunch of flops. Gladiator, for example, spawned a new wave of “sword and sandal” epics that flubbed. But when superhero movies took off, there were a bunch of tried and tested properties that producers already knew people liked, so while some of them still sucked, they had a much higher success-rate then other movie “trends”.
Yah, this. Green Lantern has always been my favorite superhero, and when CGI started getting good, my first thought was, “Green Lantern is a superhero just made for CGI!” His ring constructs just couldn’t have been done justice without it.
Bosstone and DrFidelius raised a good point. Advances in special effects has made it possible to make better superhero movies then were possible in the past.
Box-office poison? How do you figure? Early superhero movies like Superman (1978) and Batman (1989) were huge hits. The only reason they’re weren’t more was because the special effects weren’t there yet.
That’s OK; I cancel you out because I love them.
You haven’t seen one in nearly 20 years? It might be worth giving one a glance. It’s a genre just like “sci-fi” or “horror” or “romcom” - there are good ones, bad ones, interesting ones, dull ones, etc.
Keep in mind, too, that right now times are hard and escapist adventure is very appealing to people in hard times. It’s sort of like the extravagant musicals of the Depression Era, when people went to the movies for spectacle and to be dazzled. Sure, the genre is different, but don’t discount the value of escaping into fantasy for awhile. It’s not the only factor, of course - there have been comic book movies in good times, too - but it is yet another reason for their appeal.
You guys are kidding, right? In the quarter century before and after Superman, how many superhero movies were hits? Do you remember how many other superhero movies were released? Of course not. Nobody saw them. They were box-office poison despite the success of the two biggies.
In the quarter century before 1978 there was only one superhero movie: The Adam West Batman. It was reasonably but not spectacularly successful.
In the quarter century after there were:
Superman II - Very successful. 3rd highest gross in '81.
Superman III - Successful. But not spectacularly so.
Supergirl - Yep a bomb. Only $14 mil domestic, and on a budget of $35 mill even.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace - Another bomb. Barely beat out Supergirl, in total revenues. But only missed its budget by $1.5 mill.
Batman - Ridiculously successful. Set any number of records… although most of these were broken by Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade later that year.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Big success. #9 earner that year. Classic summer blockbuster sales pattern.
Darkman - Moderate success. $50 Mil on a budget of $15 mil.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze - Moderate success. $75 Mil on a budget of $20 mil.
The Rocketeer - Not quite a bomb. But certainly not a success. Made $6 mil profit.
Batman Returns - Big success. 3rd highest gross in '92.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III - I can’t find production figures. But if they are anything like the previous two, even this one made around a 200% over production costs.
There were also a couple of others that were never shown in theaters in the US (like Captain America so I have left them out). So leaving out Superman I there were 11 superhero movies in your period: Four were hugely successful. Five were solidly profitable. And only two were bombs (and of those only Supergirl missed breaking even by more than a Million). I’m not seeing any particularly poisonous box office results.
In the quarter-century after SUPERMAN? Well, there was X-MEN, which more than doubled its budget at the box office; SPAWN, which did likewise; SPIDER-MAN, likewise; BLADE and BLADE II, likewise; DAREDEVIL, likewise; DARKMAN, likewise; and a variety of other movies that turned a profit, like THE ROCKETEER and THE SHADOW and THE HULK. So if we leave aside Superman and Batman and their various sequels, and for some reason exempt UNBREAKABLE and MASK OF ZORRO and THE CROW, then, yes, we could make some argument about how studios often wanted to make movies like ROBOCOP and MEN IN BLACK instead of going the superhero route, but I think “poison” overstates the case.
Don’t know how inclusive the list linked in the OP is, but according to it there really weren’t an pre-1978 super-hero movies successful or not, and post-1978, they seemed to do pretty well, with some flops but a decent number of hits, even prior to the current boom. I don’t really think there’s much evidence that pre-2000 (when X-men came out, which I think started the current spate of similar movies) super-hero films were box-office poison.
This is 2010. 2010 - 50 = 1960. I was referring to Marvel’s ascendance in the 60’s with Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, Hulk, Avengers, etc. and a more realistic style of storytelling.
And yes, I would say the crappiest Superman story ever made is better than:
Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
From Justin to Kelly
Disaster Movie
Who’s your Caddy
etc. etc. etc.
No, no, what’s the facination with movies where a small group of people in their late teens to mid-twenties are picked off one by one by a family of crazy people/muntants/crazy mutants? 2/3rds of the After Dark Horrorfest movies follow this pattern too, and they’re supposed to be less mainstream than the movies “they can show in theaters.” :rolleyes:
At least superheroes have different powers…
For every franchise that hits paydirt, there are a couple that didn’t. I’m sure there’s a great Hulk, Punisher or Fantastic Four film to be made, but I haven’t seen it happen yet. Marvel practically begged studios to take their film rights, which is how the “Marvel Universe” got spread out over 8 or 9 studios, making decent crossovers of their top properties difficult and unlikely.
And DC has had some duds as well, like Steel, Constantine and Catwoman. There’s a reason they’re not in a hurry to make a Wonder Woman, Flash or JLA movie.
Well, nowadays I have a baby son, so I don’t go the movies at all.
I really enjoyed The Incredible Hulk from a few years ago. And for Exapno, it was decently successful at the box office as well.
Constantine was pretty OK as well. I never read the original comic, but as far as good guys versus demons movies go, it wasn’t half bad.
Almost all of these were in the post-2000 period, after super-hero movies had taken off. Expano claimed they were “box office poison” before that time.
Plus, almost all of those movies made at least double their original costs, some of them several times over, and Steel was the only one that was really a flop. Fantastic Four may have been a crappy movie, but it certainly hit pay dirt regardless.
Not to the degree it should have, with that cast and the special effects available. I’m too much of a gentleman to bring up the first FF movie, the one with Alex Hyde-White.
The first FF made $150 million in the US and another $175 million internationally. It was a huge hit by any measure.