Superhero Overload?

Since the box office success of the first X-Men movie back in 2000 (which was in turn made possible by The Matrix), we have been treated to an unparalleled smorgasbord of superhero cinema. Like most smorgasbords, some offerings have been incredible, some have been mere filler, and some have made us want to run to the restroom to relieve ourselves of their weight. With Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight slated for next summer, more helpings are on the way. One of my fellow Extralife Forum-ites recently posted the following gripe:

“Ok, we get it. You can shoot a movie about a comic book hero and make almost a billion dollars. Now stop. In the past decade, there have been TWO "good" superhero movies, and only one I enjoyed (Batman Begins). Everything else is complete crap that is obviously a marketing decision rather than an artistic choice.”

Now, you must realize, I have been a comic book fan since I was old enough to read. Throughout the eighties and nineties, I endured through the obvious disparity between the rich, utter coolness of the comic books and their embarrassingly campy TV and movie counterparts. Then, finally, after keeping the faith, we came to a window in history where unprecedented interest in comic book material converged with advances in special effects. Finally, superhero movies could be produced that actually did justice to their source material from both a F/X standpoint and a dramatic standpoint.

Since 2000, there have been some bombs (i.e. Punisher, Elektra, Catwoman). There has been a lot of filler (i.e. Daredevil, X3, Spiderman 3, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Fantastic Four). These have had some great moments in and of themselves; more importantly, though, they have advanced filmmakers’ superhero instincts, helped them to see what works and what doesn’t. For instance, it’s obvious that filmmakers are moving away from mindless action and explosions and delving instead into their characters core struggles; dramatic substance is moving up the priority list.

Most importantly, this rush to produce superhero films has given birth to arguably the greatest films of the genre, films that not only master the source material, but also the medium. I speak of films like Spiderman 2, Batman Begins, Hellboy, and even X-Men 2 that have been successful critically, commercially, and in regards to their contribution to their source material. I would argue that these films would not have been possible without the other lukewarm eighty percent of superhero films, that it was the trial and error- the synergies of all of these projects, if you will- that created the right environment for these films to be produced so well.

So, with so many superhero films in theaters and on the way are we suffering from superhero overload? No. I think we could stand to do away with some crap (Please don’t ever allow another Zoom: Academy for Superheroes to ever be made… e-v-e-r). But for the most part, superhero fans are finally getting what we have waited for. We are seeing justice done to our most beloved characters. True, we have to expect that not every filmmaker will get it right. But with each Ghostrider and every overly metaphysical outing with the Hulk, Hollywood gets better at bringing our heroes to life. Suffering through these experiments is worth it when we get to see Batman or Spidey done right.

Stop making superhero films? Not on your life. Bring them on, I say!

What do you say? Too many superhero movies got you crying, “UNCLE”? Or are you loving this downpour of super-movies? Chime in and put in your two cents!

Is Stan still the Man?

The headline caught my attention: “STAN LEE SIGNS DEAL WITH DISNEY.” After all, this is Stan Lee, father of Spiderman, X-Men, Hulk, and countless other iconic Marvel comic superheroes. Superheroes, I should mention, that have ultimately defined modern comics and summer blockbusters, making a lot of sweet moola in the process. Indeed, aside from Bob Kane, Joe Shuster, and Jerry Siegel, nobody has left their footprint on the superhero world like Stan Lee. But then I wonder, If Stan’s most notable characters are owned by Marvel and the media companies, what is he bringing to Disney (I’m also asking, Disney, of all places?). So, by this point very curious, I read the article (see link below).

Turns out Stan won’t be bringing any of his Marvel characters to Disney, but a bunch of new characters he has been concocting at his company Pow! Entertainment. Obviously, Disney is trying to compensate for the foolish mistake they made when they let billion-dollar money machine Spiderman go to Sony Pictures, or blockbusting X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises to Fox, or even the Hulk to Universal. A little slow on the uptake (“Hey, maybe there is something to this comic-book-superhero-movie thing?”), Disney is willing to settle for characters that have not been tested and, therefore, have no core fan base. They’re probably saying something like, “Well, they’re superheroes, aren’t they? Made by that same Stanley guy, right? Well, just throw ‘em out there. The money will come rolling in, right?” Wrong, Disney.

Not all of Marvel’s superheroes have turned into successful franchises. Even those with sizeable fan bases (i.e. Daredevil, Captain America, Punisher), have had a tough go at it. Those that have been successful had a few ingredients in common: massive (and I mean, massive) fan bases, competent directors who respected the material and the fans, and a genuinely solid end product, from script to acting to FX to marketing. Apparently, when it comes to superhero films, fans fuel the movie; the larger majority will buy in if it has the best quality. So, this then begs the question: will Stan’s relatively obscure characters make bank without the necessary fan base?

I stopped by Stan’s Pow! Entertainment website to check out some of his new characters. One character is a warrior with a Cable-like cybernetic arm from the future named “The Drifter.” Another called “Stripperella” (“stripper by night, superhero by later at night”) will probably not make the Disney cut but already has her own show on Spike TV. One superhero named Lightspeed, an agent with superpowers, apparently has a Sci-Fi Channel movie in development. I recommend going to the Pow! website to take a look at some of the others. Most of them are still in development and don’t have much information provided.

If you couldn’t tell, I am skeptical that these characters will reap any real rewards for Disney. I doubt they will result in anything more than a few straight-to-DVD features or Sci-Fi miniseries, maybe a Disney Channel original movie. You’ve gotta admire Stan’s creativity, the gifts he gave us in the X-Men, Hulk, and Spiderman. But let’s face it: these franchises have grown beyond him, fueled by a long legacy of gifted writers and artists and loyal fans. You can’t just toss a product into the market with the Stan Lee name on it and expect the same return. Not going to happen.

What do you think? Anyone think that this is just the most spectacularly brilliant strategy Disney has ever devised? How will Stan’s new characters fare in the marketplace? Chime in.