Slashdot Mirror
What Happens After the Super-Hero Movie Bubble?
mattnyc99 writes "In the wake of a not-that-exciting Comic-Con come some (perhaps premature) reports on the so-called "Death of Superheroes" — what one financial group calls "the top of the (comic book) character remonetization cycle." In response, Esquire.com's Paul Schrodt has an interesting look down Hollywood geek road. From the article: "What happens after The Avengers, or Christopher Nolan's third and final Batman movie — after we've seen all there is to see of the best comic-book blockbusters ever made?""
This is getting ridiculous. I have read comic books for 45 years, and hardly ever read an "origin" story. They are there, but THEN THEY MOVE ON!
The movies can't seem to get past origin stories, and their direct aftermath.
Why not do a Starwars? Just leap into the story, and let the audience figure it out? Maybe do a flash back here and there, and move on with the plot?
We have the technology to tell the stories now. But we can't get to the meat of what it means to be Spiderman when every time we have to switch out an actor, we are forced to see the one plot we (comic fans) really know well, over and over again. We know these heros had an origin. We know they have to come to terms with their power. We know they have to find balance between being a hero and being a person. There are so many possible stories to tell! Tell one of them already!
I would point out that if comic movies suffer the flaw of origin focus, fantasy suffers the flaw of world wide destruction. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, the Matrix (really, this is just a tech fantasy), The Mummy, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars (really, another tech fantasy), etc. are all driven by the idea that unless the unlikely hero beats some terrible foe, the world will end.
There are many films that escape the terrible gravity wells of these plot paths, so maybe I troll when I say "All we have are...", but I just wish sometimes there were more standout exceptions to the rule....