Will an unfranchised superhero film work?

[FOBcareemo]

With the thought of Green Arrow completely skipping an origin story, and Hancock only being a moderate success that gained mixed reviews do you think that a superhero film that is not made without a beginning or one that is meant as a stand alone will work??



Personally, I don't think that the average movie fan is comfortable enough with comics to just accept something like this. With complete flops like Ghost rider in mind I think its a terrible idea.

[buysoap]

I don't think Green Arrow is popular enough to warrant a film at the level they want to give him a film.

[x0sosahley]

I don't think a stand alone superhero movie would ever work out properly.
It really depends on which superhero is in question.
The movie would either be overly advertised, or not advertised enough.
If the film did turn out to be a success, then the public would probably be left wanting a sequel.

[WakingTheMisery]

I don't think half of the super hero movies they have lined up will do well at all. No one outside comic book readers has even heard of Cloak and Dagger.

[FondestMemory]

they could definitely work as stand alone films, depending on the characters.

watchmen is gonna do fine, and it's a stand alone superhero film.

if the story's there, there's no reason for it not to work. something like cloak and dagger wouldn't need to be a franchise and could easily be confined to one film. and there's enough of a story there for it to be a pretty good one.

they're trying something different with green arrow, which i think is cool. a new way to introduce characters is never a good thing. there'll come a point where comic book films become to formulaic for people to still care, so they need to be mixed up a bit.

[Ailite]

It could work. Hancock's not so succes doesn't bode to well.

[niveK]

Hancock almost made 4x its budget in theaters. According to the industry, it is a success.

[Mirrorsandfevers]

Underdog?

[ThemChains]

It could work. Hancock's not so succes doesn't bode to well.

Hancock almost made 4x its budget in theaters. According to the industry, it is a success.

Unfortunately, Hancock showed that people WILL go see an unfranchised superhero movie. It also helped that they had Will Smith in the movie. Who knows about one with a smaller budget, with no name to relatively known actors.

[CatDiesel]

Of course it could work. If talented people making the movie, there's no reason for it not to work.

[drudo182]

Well Hancock didn't work because it became a sloppy, sloppy mess.

[Adeniz19]

Incredibles?

[ThemChains]

Well Hancock didn't work because it became a sloppy, sloppy mess.

It's true, that movie fell apart.

[drudo182]

Incredibles?

I still haven't seen that yet... I need to.

[Until The Bombs]

What part of Hancock making over $555,000,000 worldwide makes it just a moderate success?

[drudo182]

Hancock was a success. Think they'll do another one?

[WakingTheMisery]

What part of Hancock making over $555,000,000 worldwide makes it just a moderate success?

Hahaha... The only higher grossing one in the last ten years was I am Legend.

[Roboman]

I liked Hancock a lot, it was a good movie.

I also couldn't give a shit less about superhero comics (don't appeal to me at all), but superhero movies are fine.

[Until The Bombs]

Hancock was a success. Think they'll do another one?

I still haven't seen it, so I can't really guess. Assuming the storyline leads itself to a sequel, I imagine there will be studio interest. It will just be a matter of if Smith wants to come back.

Hahaha... The only higher grossing one in the last ten years was I am Legend.

People are now apparently suffering from TDK syndrome. Anything that doesn't cross $200 mil in 5 days or less is considered a box office failure.

[Ailite]

Hancock made tons of money, but did you see it? It was a wreck.

[Spooky]

ghost rider wasn't a flop either. it wasn't good or a massive hit, but made more than it's budget in theater run. Then add dvd