Why did it take so long for studios to realize Marvel and DC Universe were goldmines?

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not like Superman the Movie and Batman (89) were flops.

They were huge blockbusters in their day.

So why did studios wait till after TDK and Avengers to decide to fully exploit these huge libraries of superheroes?

 

[Shikamaru]

It was probably due to the stigma superheroes have had attached to them since the Silver Age of them being childish.

Despite Superman and Batman's successes, those two films almost don't count due to their characters' iconography having transcended the genre. Anything B-list and below still had to prove itself.

 

[Mr.T]

This is a question I've always asked myself. Not sure, but glad it finally happened.

 

[Mandon Knight]

A number of things...

A) the budgets & SFX required to bring the huge worlds & characters to life where not available

B) 'Comic books' were for a VERY long time seen as a 'niche' market for geeks, nerds and the ostrichised by society, investment by the studios beyond the well known charcters was a MAJOR risk. To have $$$ poured in to characters the mainstream would not know or have a history or even a handle on screamed failure to all the major film studios.

C) Geek culture shift, WE (you, I and everyone on this forum, become the mainstream), a shift accured. People state the first X-Men film as being the launching pad for this world that currently exists, I would argue from a studio recognition of 'We are onto something' came with Raimi's first Spiderman, the profits on that film gave the studio's the 'lightbulb' moment of seeing that these characters were popular and could expand to the general audience, beyond the comic book community.

D) Liking comics and Graphic Novels has lost it's social awarkdness, hell even TV has embraced it and built a 10 season strong ulogy to it in Big Bang, there is money 'in der hills'. The world is so vasty, expansive and criuically, IMPORTANT, that for every Batman, Superman there are opportunities for lesser well known, independent characters to be introduced.

In conclusion, it's gone from sub-division minority to being ultimate mainstream through film makers taking the genre seriously and having 'fans' at the core of the process & studios acknowledging that the love of the public's lore of the genre is worth more in the long term than a quick $$ & fix in the short term.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I agree with most of what you said but I noticed a cultural shift around 2012 with Avengers.

The months following Avengers release I would go to the mall and literally every other person was wearing a super hero T-shirt.

Sure many seeds were planted before then but that was when geeks officially took over pop culture IMO.

 

[Mandon Knight]

I agree with most of what you said but I noticed a cultural shift around 2012 with Avengers.

The months following Avengers release I would go to the mall and literally every other person was wearing a super hero T-shirt.

Sure many seeds were planted before then but that was when geeks officially took over pop culture IMO.

Sorry, I meant with studio recognition the first Spiderman film in answering your thread lead question, in terms of social 'acceptance', yes, Avengers was a key film in the General Audience 'climbing board'.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Spider-Man and Batman were goldmine movies before Mcu and Dcu start. DC try to do other movies and most fail to make much money including Superman in Superman returns.

 

[Erzengel]

I think for the longest time Studios thought that outside of Batman and Superman, CBM weren't viable properties.

I think
Superman
Batman
Blade
X-Men
Spider-Man
The Dark Knight
The Avengers

These were the ones that helped the genre.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I agree with most of what you said but I noticed a cultural shift around 2012 with Avengers.

The months following Avengers release I would go to the mall and literally every other person was wearing a super hero T-shirt.

Sure many seeds were planted before then but that was when geeks officially took over pop culture IMO.

I noticed the change in 2008 around here. That was the year of the one-two punch of Iron Man and The Dark Knight. They brought in a lot of new fans and gave the genre credibility. The Dark Knight, in particular, was the first CBM given real recognition as being more than just a fun summer blockbuster but true serious art for adults.

Even as late as 2007, CBMs were still very much viewed as something for kids and nerds around these parts.

 

[Rocketman]

Why did it take so long for studios to realize Marvel and DC Universe were goldmines?

In my opinion, they weren't goldmines until 2000 when X-Men truly planted the seeds.

Batman and Superman in the 80's and 90's were a given because they're two of the most iconic figures ever, transcending beyond comic books and just being pop culture americana, so they technically weren't even looked at as "comic book" movies or "superhero" movies but rather Action/Adventure movies.

Same with Blade in 1998. For an R-rated horror/vampire movie with blood and cursing, it wasn't particularly marketed as "This is a comic book movie! Bring the kids!" - so it was more of an Action/Thriller.

X-Men in 2000 changed everything and spawned numerous movies to piggyback the success:

- Spider-Man
- Hulk
- Daredevil
- X2
- Spider-Man 2

It was these movies that led to Batman Begins being made, and BB was the next movie that changed the game again the way X-Men did. But the 5 Marvel movies above were CRUCIAL in making that happen.

 

[DA_Champion]

It took a long time to develop the skills necessary.

Moreover, there are plenty of great stories out there not being competently adapted, from the Greek myths to Margaret Atwood's novels.

 

[Lantern Venom]

It's not like Superman the Movie and Batman (89) were flops.

They were huge blockbusters in their day.

So why did studios wait till after TDK and Avengers to decide to fully exploit these huge libraries of superheroes?

I've heard various people from Marvel, including Stan Lee, say that the company didn't have much interest in adapting their stories into live action until the company began having financial problems in the mid-90s. Had the speculator bubble not burst in the 90s, it might have taken even longer for the Marvel universe to be translated into live action.

DC is owned by a studio that has struggled to exploit their characters in live action. There has been an awkward feeling-out process with the most prominent Justice Leaguers on both TV and film. The success of the X-men films should have been proof of the fertile ground that existed for the JLA/DC to cross into theaters, but it's taken WB a very long time to come up with a strategy for that.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Why did it take so long for studios to realize Marvel and DC Universe were goldmines?

In my opinion, they weren't goldmines until 2000 when X-Men truly planted the seeds.

Batman and Superman in the 80's and 90's were a given because they're two of the most iconic figures ever, transcending beyond comic books and just being pop culture americana, so they technically weren't even looked at as "comic book" movies or "superhero" movies but rather Action/Adventure movies.

Same with Blade in 1998. For an R-rated horror/vampire movie with blood and cursing, it wasn't particularly marketed as "This is a comic book movie! Bring the kids!" - so it was more of an Action/Thriller.

X-Men in 2000 changed everything and spawned numerous movies to piggyback the success:

- Spider-Man
- Hulk
- Daredevil
- X2
- Spider-Man 2

It was these movies that led to Batman Begins being made, and BB was the next movie that changed the game again the way X-Men did. But the 5 Marvel movies above were CRUCIAL in making that happen.

Exactly. The early 2000s had several Marvel superhero and some DC movies too.

The current climate and output is built upon that and didn't just start at TDK & Avengers and several a year, it increased gradually to the point we're at now

I agree with most of what you said but I noticed a cultural shift around 2012 with Avengers.

The months following Avengers release I would go to the mall and literally every other person was wearing a super hero T-shirt.

Sure many seeds were planted before then but that was when geeks officially took over pop culture IMO.

In a word; Disney.

It's marketing and merchandising that has superheroes everywhere these days.

Disney thrust them into the general public through mass awareness and the public hopped on board

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Double post

 

[Val_Zod]

A combination of stigma, and technology wasn't advanced enough to take advantage of the feats the characters are capable of. Now, the sky's the limit. It also helps that more people involved in the industry today grew up loving these characters.

 

[Micromind]

Good question.

Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man brought in new wave of superhero movies after Superman and Batman franchises ended.

But, apart from Spider-Man, other properties were not exactly big hits, movies like Hellboy, Fantastic Four, HULK found average success, which lead many Studios to look at comic book properties as gamble.

Since TDK, Iron Man and Avengers, things started to be viewed differently (due to huge profits), Studios started showing more interest.

I think that Hollywood is running out of ideas to make movies. Studios tried making remakes of Old classic movies, once the remakes failed, they looked at young adult novels, Graphic novels and comic book properties.

 

[2kt09]

...And now they're trying yet again to adapt video-games and animated shows/movies

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Never forget, many of the movies based on comic books before 2008 were deemed trash-mediocre quality.

 

[DACrowe]

Batman was also an uphill battle to get made. Don't forget Ulan was shopping that thing around for 10 years and getting the door slammed in his face. There is a perception that comic books are for children and not bankable to a mass audience.

But there were comic book movies in the '90s that people don't recall. Since many filmmakers were still boomers with nostalgia for their parents' generation and Golden Age comics, there was The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Phantom, Dick Tracy and more. Most of these sucked, but it's because they treated them as either shallow (because that's what they were in the 1940s) or they were made by hack filmmakers on the cheap that did not see the potential of making something better than disposable.

I think Donner, Burton, Singer, and Raimi deserve a lot of credit for proving that they can be viable, creative, and appealing to adults. They also treated the material like moviemaking, which is something I actually feel we're stepping away from now.

Nolan then elevated to an artistic status, which supposedly we're still living in. But I do not see many trying and even fewer at succeeding at matching that benchmark anytime soon.

 

[DA_Champion]

Batman was also an uphill battle to get made. Don't forget Ulan was shopping that thing around for 10 years and getting the door slammed in his face. There is a perception that comic books are for children and not bankable to a mass audience.

But there were comic book movies in the '90s that people don't recall. Since many filmmakers were still boomers with nostalgia for their parents' generation and Golden Age comics, there was The Rocketeer, The Shadow, The Phantom, Dick Tracy and more. Most of these sucked, but it's because they treated them as either shallow (because that's what they were in the 1940s) or they were made by hack filmmakers on the cheap that did not see the potential of making something better than disposable.

I think Donner, Burton, Singer, and Raimi deserve a lot of credit for proving that they can be viable, creative, and appealing to adults. They also treated the material like moviemaking, which is something I actually feel we're stepping away from now.

Nolan then elevated to an artistic status, which supposedly we're still living in. But I do not see many trying and even fewer at succeeding at matching that benchmark anytime soon.

What do you mean?

Anyway Singer gets less and less credit from me as time goes on. I agree on the other three.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

^ All of his Marvel movies have been highly received, morso than some of those others.

I think Donner, Burton, Singer, and Raimi deserve a lot of credit for proving that they can be viable, creative, and appealing to adults. They also treated the material like moviemaking, which is something I actually feel we're stepping away from now.

Nolan then elevated to an artistic status, which supposedly we're still living in. But I do not see many trying and even fewer at succeeding at matching that benchmark anytime soon.

Most are just safe now, sticking to formula and built to facilitate sequels and spin-offs rather than be individual movies telling a unique story

...And now they're trying yet again to adapt video-games and animated shows/movies

And TV shows into movies

 

[DA_Champion]

All of Singer's CBMs have been well received in the moment, that's true.

They just don't stand up long.

For example Superman Returns had a higher box office gross and maybe a bigher top critics score than Batman Begins. One got rebooted and one got a sequel.

We'll see if Apocalypse breaks the trend.

ETA: Just checked. For an Australian IP address, Superman Returns had a higher top critics score than Batman Begins.

 

[The Joker]

All of Singer's CBMs have been well received in the moment, that's true.

They just don't stand up long.

Since when? X2 and DOFP are still plenty popular. SR is his only real flop with CBMs in any regard.

For example Superman Returns had a higher box office gross and maybe a bigher top critics score than Batman Begins. One got rebooted and one got a sequel.

Although Batman Begins is undeniably more popular and successful as a movie, getting a sequel doesn't make a movie better or stand up better. If the likes of Ghost Rider and 2005's Fantastic Four can do it, then pretty much anything can.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Good question.

Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man brought in new wave of superhero movies after Superman and Batman franchises ended.

.

Stephen Norrington and David Goyer were key players in the influx of CBMs. New Line originally wanted Blade to be comedic and light (and a white actor to play Blade ), but Norrington and Goyer convinced the studio otherwise.

 

[DACrowe]

What do you mean?

Anyway Singer gets less and less credit from me as time goes on. I agree on the other three.

Those were the filmmakers who proved superhero movies were viable. There actually were quite a few over the years that people overlook. Whether other directors taking the worlds they built and running them into the ground -- like Richard Lester (who is a good director in his own right with plenty of classics to his name) and Joel Schumacher -- to ill-advised other attempts like whatever Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy was supposed to be.

Donner and Burton, with diametrically opposed approaches, proved that superhero movies could be spectacular entertainments for adults that could even reach them somewhat intellectually and artistically in Burton's case. And then after the whole thing went to pot in the 1990s, Singer took it a step further and proved a comic book world could be taken deadly seriously. Nolan would do that better a few years later, but Singer's X-Men was the antidote to 1990s superhero movies and really was the very beginning of the superhero craze in Hollywood we are still going through.

And the one to cement it was Raimi who kept one foot grounded like Singer but also embraced the pulpy and comic book colors of the material, and the sense of joy that is inherent in the Marvel universe. I think in many respects if we could see X-Men as a forebearer to the realism craze that would come later, Ramie's Spider-Man trilogy is a precursor to the MCU, except I think he has a more visceral and cinematic language than really of the MCU directors (which is fine, but it is noticeable).

And if X-Men began the superhero craze, Spider-Man (2002) coming out in the shadow of 9/11 popularized it as the most desirable fantasy for the U.S. It really is an achievement.