Are there some comic book characters who shouldn't get their own movie?

[The Overlord]

Are there some comic book characters who shouldn't get their own movie?

The Black Adam movie sounds terrible, Morbius bombed and it seems ridiculous to me that Kraven is getting his own movie. Black Adam, Morbius, and Kraven would make for great villains in movies, but I don't think those characters should be the protagonists in their own movies.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

I think it depends whether or not there's enough depth to (and interest in!) the character in the source material. Provided that's there, I think the possibility exists to make a good movie about any character.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah there definitely didn’t need to be a Kraven movie.

 

[Erzengel]

I never understood why you would give Cyborg a solo movie. Titans movie sure.

 

[psylockolussus]

El Muerte

 

[Breogan]

Are there some comic book characters who shouldn't get their own movie?

They should get at least a trilogy.

 

[Herofan]

Morbius film sounded like a pretty bad idea, not necessary a bad film but very likely not better than a mediocre one, I think Kraven has at least a lot more potential (at least likely more enjoyable mediocre ).

I kind of like Nova but think he's better as part of a team, likewise with Gambit (or at least have other X-Men in big supporting roles and probably having the whole team just better).

 

[Babillygunn]

I have no problem with a Black Adam movie. But make him a villain and not an antihero.

 

[Flint Marko]

Aunt May Begins

 

[Babillygunn]

Terrible catchphrase: “While Solo lives, terror dies!”


Ghostmaker. Uggghh.


But, you know who DOES deserve to get their own film:

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Ranom Spidey villains like Morbius or Kraven.

Individual X-men characters outside of Wolverine and Deadpool.

Individual group members from GotG or Fantastic Four.

Character films that nobody asked for.

 

[Erzengel]

Ranom Spidey villains like Morbius or Kraven.

Individual X-men characters outside of Wolverine and Deadpool.

Individual group members from GotG or Fantastic Four.

Character films that nobody asked for.

I'd be okay with a Scott Summers as long as Alex, Jean, Sinister even Cable are part of the story.

 

[metaphysician]

I would say, no, there is no character who absolutely positively couldn't ever sustain their own movie. However, there are a vast swath of characters where the odds are sufficiently bad that you *shouldn't* try giving them their own movie, certainly not as a first move. You include them as a character in another movie, *then* see if they have enough audience interest and writers room "pop".

 

[Drizzle]

A lot of Sony's output just didn't/don't need to be movies. Morbius, Kraven, Madame Web, etc.

I don't think Black Adam needed his own movie either. He should've been the main villain in Shazam 2 or at least the movie could've been called Shazam vs. Black Adam to appease Dwayne Johnson.

 

[ObsidianFist]

I never understood why you would give Cyborg a solo movie. Titans movie sure.

Cyborg is badass, why would he NOT get his own movie?

 

[Erzengel]

Cyborg is badass, why would he NOT get his own movie?

In a cinemascape where we got an Ant-Man movie, that Snyder called "flavor of the week", why would Cyborg be considered a better option? One, it's not like BvS & JL didn't show his origin and his acceptance of his circumstance. Two, it's not like comics Cyborg has an extensive support cast (if you don't include the teams he was a part of) and adversary. Granted a good writer can come up with a stronger supporting cast than comics Cyborg doesn't have. However, Cyborg as a character has thrived more being part of the Titans and JL and a Cyborg movie feels like soomeone would really have to come up with a very original movie that can make Cyborg be special.

 

[Breogan]

Captain Marvel.



No, the other one.



No, the other, other one.

 

[Herofan]

His look reminds me, Green Lantern deserves a good movie (even yes after what he's already had) but Guy Gardner Green Lantern definitely doesn't, usually doesn't really work in the comics and likely much less in film.

 

[FunkMiller]

Robin.

*ducks for cover*

 

[Drizzle]

Robin.

*ducks for cover*

But seriously, I don't disagree with you. Making any Bat Family solo movie without Batman being front and center is a bit of a tough sell. Even so, I was still interested enough to watch Batgirl before it was scrapped entirely.

 

[Erzengel]

If they were able to do a 14 year old to actually be Robin in a Batman movie in say 2025 and do a sequel 2 years later with him at 16. Then you could even do a spinoff when he's 18 or older and he's already Nightwing.

 

[metaphysician]

Cyborg is badass, why would he NOT get his own movie?

One, because "badass" is a bad reason for giving someone a movie. A character needs a lot more than "is badass" to actually build a movie, they need compelling characterization and a solid story. *cough*

Two, the fundamental problem with "Cyborg, Solo Hero" is that, ultimately, he has almost never been intended or created as a solo hero. Almost all his characterization and interesting stories revolve around his relationship to a team, the Teen Titans. As such, its a really bad idea to start by distancing the character from that which defines him. It'd be like making a solo Cyclops movie before doing an X-Men movie.

( After you've introduced the team-oriented character in a team-oriented context, *then* you can consider doing a solo spinoff, once you've established that there is both audience demand and creative chemistry. )

 

[Erzengel]

One, because "badass" is a bad reason for giving someone a movie. A character needs a lot more than "is badass" to actually build a movie, they need compelling characterization and a solid story. *cough*

Two, the fundamental problem with "Cyborg, Solo Hero" is that, ultimately, he has almost never been intended or created as a solo hero. Almost all his characterization and interesting stories revolve around his relationship to a team, the Teen Titans. As such, its a really bad idea to start by distancing the character from that which defines him. It'd be like making a solo Cyclops movie before doing an X-Men movie.

( After you've introduced the team-oriented character in a team-oriented context, *then* you can consider doing a solo spinoff, once you've established that there is both audience demand and creative chemistry. )

I would argue doing a Cyclops movie that involved multiple members of the Summers family, not to mention Jean & Sinister gives him a leg up on Cyborg. Cyclops at the very least has a decent supporting group around him. Cyborg you would have to include the Titans or JL.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

If they give the Morlocks a movie, then I know Marvel has gone too far.

 

[BobJM]

If they give the Morlocks a movie, then I know Marvel has gone too far.

That’ll be a Disney+ series