Help me understand the constant Superhero movie reboots.

[DarkHelmet]

I just don’t get it. A new Superman movie, several different Spider-Man movies, Batman, etc etc etc. it’s beyond ridiculous. I’m trying to wrap my head around the studios agreeing to all of them. Are they trying to get it right with each one? Is it a marketing tool? It makes absolutely no sense from a creative and financial point of view.

I’m at the point that I’m repulsed by the whole superhero genre and those who make them. Can someone take the camera away from James Gunn please.

 

[Astyanax]

It's two factors, really: money and rights.

When one superhero movie (or any type of genre film really) does well, copycats ensue for the next several years in an attempt to recapture that magic. So it's mostly just about the money. Studios usually don't take the time to understand why a particular film did well, they just try to repeat it as quickly as possible.

Most of the rebooting happens because rights tend to fall off if a particular property is not used after a period of time. So properties like the Amazing Spider-Man movies happened because Sony wanted to keep the Spider-Man rights.

 

[Cephus]

Have you read comics? They reboot constantly.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

And there are different comics in different genres of the heroes too. Some for kids, some more serious and some completely heartbreakingly adult.

Studios have to make the movies to keep the licenses, so they let different writers and directors do their thing. DC really should stay away from doing a dcu kinda thing, like Marvel does. Their stuff usually works best as singles because they go about it wrong doing the universe thing, giving the reigns to the wrong people. Do singles and then later do crossovers, like Marvel started... but DC fails by jumping into the deep end before learning to swim.

 

[batguy]

- The studios have no creative instincts or respect for their properties to keep guardrails on their ideas. If they thought the public would pay to see Lando Calrissian turning into the Incredible Hulk and fighting a giant robotic shark, then they would do that movie.

- The target audience is 14yo. Today those kids have almost no memory of the ancient past when Obama was president and 'The Force Awakens' came out. They don't remember more than 1-2 eras (in terms of rebooting) no matter how many there have been.

The importance of these two factors cannot be overstated.

 

[cboath]

It's two factors, really: money and rights.

When one superhero movie (or any type of genre film really) does well, copycats ensue for the next several years in an attempt to recapture that magic. So it's mostly just about the money. Studios usually don't take the time to understand why a particular film did well, they just try to repeat it as quickly as possible.

Most of the rebooting happens because rights tend to fall off if a particular property is not used after a period of time. So properties like the Amazing Spider-Man movies happened because Sony wanted to keep the Spider-Man rights.

Avengers blew expectations out of the water, dcs response was literally "we gotta cash in on this now!"...the plans for building up a dcu went poof and we got a super rushed dc version of avengwrs in bcs and everything that followed as a result. Just crank it out to cash in.

Sony will crank out spiderman movies for eternity to avoid losing the license. They are completely incapable of doing anything with it without royally screwing it up, but they will try and force a spiderverse because they think they should have a universe bestowed on them so, theres dumb reasons, petty reasons, and financial reasons.

You could write a book on this with the various reasons why things were rebooted. I mean, what sane person casrs nick cage as superman? A studio suit, no one else is that dumb...

 

[DarkHelmet]

Have you read comics? They reboot constantly.

Not since the 70’s for that same reason.

Back then I mainly only read Superman and The Hulk. Not much into Batman or Spider-Man. Even then I grew tired of all the different origin stories of Superman. I’m one for consistency. Going into the 1980’s, I stopped readying all together.

 

[batguy]

I mean, what sane person casrs nick cage as superman? A studio suit, no one else is that dumb...

Warner Bros execs: "We wanna reboot Superman like we did Batman. Are you on board?"

Tim Burton: "I'm not remotely interested in doing Superman. But I would be happy to take the money and derail the movie into a weirder project. It worked out so well with Batman Returns."

WB execs: "Whatever. You're the creative one. We didn't like the outcome with Batman Returns, so our plan is to do the same thing again and expect a different result this time. BTW who is gonna star in it?"

Burton: "I'm thinking Nic Cage. He loves the character and he's suitably wrong for the role."

WB execs: "Brilliant! He's hot right now!"

 

[cboath]

Not since the 70’s for that same reason.

Back then I mainly only read Superman and The Hulk. Not much into Batman or Spider-Man. Even then I grew tired of all the different origin stories of Superman. I’m one for consistency. Going into the 1980’s, I stopped readying all together.

Once corporations get in on it, it stops becoming about what made it good in the first place and becomes crank it out like there is no tomorrow because if it made a million before, if we crank out 10x more, it will clearly make 10m!

 

[Bloop]

It's all about money. Simply put, these characters are recognizable and have a built-in audience. More people will see a reboot of an existing character than an original character or one that hasn't been done onscreen before (because their popularity level is lower). Studios don't like gambling. They hire actors that have established themselves in other projects rather than use unknowns not because the known actors are better, they're just more likely to make the studios more money. Same with known directors. They often go with up-and-coming creatives because they can get them at a lower price and lock them into longer deals.

 

[jkno]

 

[Halliwax]

To sell more toys

 

[Cephus]

Not since the 70’s for that same reason.

Back then I mainly only read Superman and The Hulk. Not much into Batman or Spider-Man. Even then I grew tired of all the different origin stories of Superman. I’m one for consistency. Going into the 1980’s, I stopped readying all together.

They are doing what the comics have been doing for decades. When they write themselves into a corner, they reboot. If they think they can get a readership boost, they reboot. That's just how it goes, even though it sucks.

 

[blewis17]

To sell more toys

...that's why George Lucas made more Star Wars. And he sold that plan to Disney, when they purchased Lucasfilm.

 

[Cephus]

...that's why George Lucas made more Star Wars. And he sold that plan to Disney, when they purchased Lucasfilm.

And Disney screwed it up completely.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

To sell more toys

I don't know if that's true anymore. It sounds like, other than collectors, action figures aren't selling. I think the only toys that really sell now are LEGO.

 

[13doctorwho]

For the most part those properties MAKE MONEY... creatively bankrupt or not. The Dark Knight movies made money, The Batman made money, Man Of Steel made money. If the new Superman movie flops they may rest it for a while, but while they turn a profit there will be more.

Look at the Jurassic Park movies... they have been bad since the first sequel, BUT THEY MAKE MONEY. Call it art all you want, it's a business.

 

[batguy]

Look at the Jurassic Park movies... they have been bad since the first sequel, BUT THEY MAKE MONEY. Call it art all you want, it's a business.

Only some bad movies make money. And it's surprisingly hard to predict which ones will.

 

[ZeroSum]

 

[DarkHelmet]

So basically moviegoers are mindless drones who will watch any superhero movie they put out. Lol

Hollywood is truly dead.