Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:24 pmI think it has more to do with the quality of work put into adapting the characters. Though there is probably a percentage of the audience that goes to see a Superman or Batman film because the characters are better known.
For example, there have been two Swamp Thing movies and in the early 90s there was a live action TV series (as I recall it was actually pretty good). As far as average Joe on the street goes, Swamp Thing is one of the least known comic book characters.
Other heroes can do well, but the bane of superhero movies has long been an attitude of embarrassment by the people adapting them.
For example, WB forced George Pal to make the mid-70s Doc Savage movie campy, unsurprisingly the movie did not do well in theaters. When the Salkinds went on to make Superman just a couple years later they wanted to do an honest adaptation, but the execs at WB wanted a campy movie (because superhero movies could only be done this way). The Salkinds cut a deal with WB where the Salkinds footed the majority of the production costs so they could have creative control (and long term movie rights and TV rights) -- the end result was the highly regarded movie we all know today.
Nowadays, the "make it campy" doesn't crop up to often but superhero movies still suffer from an attitude of director's with a mindset of "having to improve the character" and "putting their stamp" on the the character. And that leaves us with such "gems" as Frank Miller's adaptation of The Spirit and Seth Rogen's adaptation of The Green Hornet.
The Green Lantern suffered from this "gotta fix it" mentality. The live action movie spent more time following a wishy-washy Hal Jordan (who acted more like Kyle Rayner), and very little time of Hal as the Green Lantern; it didn't help any that it took half the movie before Hal actually received the ring. The GL Corps was wasted in the live action movie as well, as the Corps didn't really do anything but stand around in a couple scenes. The Guardians of the Universe were lackluster they looked like blue tinted versions of the "Greys" -- they movie should have stuck with their classic David Ben-Gurion inspired Silver Age look. Oa was wasted too, what little we saw looked like a Mad Maxian rock quarry in the middle of the night.
Combine all that with too little ring slinging, and you end up with a movie that's not nearly as interesting as it should have been.
It's why I think the animated movie GL: First Flight made for a much better origin tale than the live action movie. Not that I think the live action GL movie was terrible, it was an okay movie, just not what it should have been.
Hollywood has another problem with superhero movies, they hate masks. It seems like Hollywood actively creates superhero movies so that the hero is unmaskede or identity revealed.
Just a few examples:
Batman -- Batman reveals his identity towards the end of the movie. The reporter learns it, and I believe the Joker does as well.
Batman Returns -- end of the movie, Batman unmasks in his final confrontation with the Penguin and Catwoman
Batman Begins -- Batman reveals his identity to Rachel Dawes, and of course, Ra's al Ghul figures it out early on.
Spider-Man -- Spidey's mask is conveniently destroyed in his final confrontation with the Green Goblin.
Spider-Man 2 -- Spidey is unmasked durning his stopping of the train, and unmasked again when stopping Doc Ock.
Thor -- less of an issue since Thor doesn't wear a mask, but he didn't wear his distinctive winged helmet as much as he might have when in full gear.