Why don't Movie Studios create Superheroes?

[chasmmi]

I am not a comic book reader (have literally never seen a Marvel or DC comic let alone read one), however I am a big fan of superhero films.

Therefore when I go to the cinema or buy a DVD and watch Hellboy, Constantine, Green Hornet etc I have no Idea that they are already comic characters until the inevitable Marvel or DC logo turns up in the credits.

Now I enjoyed all of the above films a lot (maybe even more so than some who are burdened with having to compare every scene, tshirt and haircut to the comic book equivalent) but I wonder why a studio will choose to spend millions on getting the rights to an obscure unknown to the mainstream character instead of just making up their own own.

I mean even Kickass turned out to be based on a book or something. DId that story plot really need to be attached to Marvel? Same with Green Hornet.

Now there are some great lesser known comic book characters out there it seems (judging solely by the films) like Hellboy and Yes I did like Constantine also despite the apparent heresy that Keanu Reeves isnt a blond Livepudlian, but why can't a studio just make a stand alone superhero movie?

Aside from Hancock and The Incredibles I cannot think of any original for cinema Superhero characters (and it wouldn't surprise be if either of those were also comic books to start with and I lookl like an idiot).

Why doesn't it happen?

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Why create supeheroes for films when you have THOUSANDS of your own characters to mine from?These characters are already owned by your company. You do not have to pay to copyright them or sell them. And when you consider that The Incredibles and Hancock are basically copies or re-envisions of current superheroes(Incredibles is essentially Fantastic Four but rewrapped with different powers, Hancock is like an anti-Superman, down to earth black man rather than an out of this world white man), they really aren't all that original. Just spoofs or satires.Marvel and DC have established characters that have built in audiences. It makes zero sense to create heroes just for film when the whole reason they are even thinking of making the film is to take advantage of that fact.

[Rudolf]

yes the success of a black SH (Hancock) should encourage them to try their own creativityMegamind was unlikable, but they could have a character with powers specially designed to shine in a movie: shapeshifting (like Mystique), fast moving (like Flash)

[A Marvel Fanboy]

1. No more superheroes can be created. what can be created all have been created.

2. Just no need to creat new superheroes when tons of well received superheroes already on the shelves.

3. Did not the Hollywood have kept creating super heroes on big screens in the past decades ? Indiana Jones, lambo, John McLean ... just to name a few.

[Rudolf]

With your definition almost every larger than life character is a SH.I am no SH fan, but I would prefer a new character to a 3rd reboot.

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

yes the success of a black SH (Hancock) should encourage them to try their own creativity

Megamind was unlikable, but they could have a character with powers specially designed to shine in a movie: shapeshifting (like Mystique), fast moving (like Flash)

Oh yeah....Megamind. Another spoof/satire.

Metro Man = You Know Who.

Megamind = Combination of Lex Luthor and The Leader.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Accursed Arachnid!™

[chasmmi]

I am not saying, never make a comic book superhero movie, but why are there not more Hancock's being made.Yes by now everything becomes a satire/homage to something else, but part of the reason I liked the concepts of Green Hornet and Kickass was that they were set in a world aware of the invented characters of Batman etc and were inspired from it.But surely both of those concepts could have been done originally without being constrained by the backstory of a pre-existing story. I wanted The Green Hornet to be about a rich guy essentially trying to be Batman in the Real World, but due to the comic (I assume) this couldn't happen. Still liked the film but would have preferred something different.The reason I like Hancock was because it was Superman in the real World, not Metropolis.

[Totem]

Originality from Hollywood? I'll believe it when I see it.

[grey ghost]

Because it's much harder to invent a successful superhero franchise than it looks.

[Rudolf]

Because it's much harder to invent a successful superhero franchise than it looks.

agreebut so many established properties failed, that they could at least try

[grey ghost]

As a comic book fan I don't want the market overcrowded by hack job superhero concepts.

[ecstasy]

I think you have a good point. But studios will be skeptical because they will have to build a fanbase. Sure Hancock was successful but it was because Will Smith was in the lead. Had it been a lesser known actor like Michael Jai White it wouldn't have been as successful.Superheroes from comics come with a built in fanbase.

[ecstasy]

As a comic book fan I don't want the market overcrowded by hack job superhero concepts.

I can't see that being a problem. There are more than enough comic book films already. 1 or 2 non comic SH movie won't hurt anything.