Can Hollywood Invent A Super Hero?

Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
23,012
Reaction score
27,727
Like a Thor or superman? Instead of a comic book adaption, why can't someone create a super hero saga on film? Would it even work? Would you go see an Ivory Man, if done right? I feel like comic book super heroes can't get as dark as adult audience want with violence and language. I have no problem with the current run, just a thought that popped in my head.
 
they're already working on it..

The+Rock+Dwayne+Johnson+steroids.jpg
 
Welll first off it'd have to have a better name than "Ivory Man" :lol I don't even want to think about the lame powers that would entail

Secondly, Hollywood has done it before it's just that the first movie wasn't successful enough to warrant a trilogy or saga. Might as well save that for the action hero movies. Gotta keep in mind superhero movies weren't always the cash cow they have been this past decade +.

I can recall Hancock not being based on a comic or an adaption of anything and neither was Meteor Man but those were two black superheroes so that's probably not gonna be the best example since certain things will prevent success. As far as getting dark, there's plenty comicbook superheroes that if adapted and they stayed true to the story would be rated R or MA or NC-17 but Hollywood for the longest has this idea (that is supported) that a rated R superhero movie won't be as successful if it wasn't rated R.

I'd watch it if it was good. I mean Star Wars became a thing and that's all it really takes. One writer with a vision that knows how to tell a story and then has the money backing to make it in to a good film.
 
Last edited:
Hitchcock wasn't a " super hero" movie IMO. You can't make a franchise off that ****. I mean its 2013, nothing's on paper. Why do super heros have to be born on paper?
 
clearly Hollywood cant come up with new idea, they are doing the same stuff over and over .
 
Hitchcock wasn't a " super hero" movie IMO. You can't make a franchise off that ****. I mean its 2013, nothing's on paper. Why do super heros have to be born on paper?
To me it was, again I'm talking about Hancock. There was definitely stuff you could mine from the story provided that could've led to much better sequels.

They don't have to be born on paper. It's just the most popular ones are, cuz you know before movies became a big thing for everybody, comics were for kids and radio was for adults. The big 2 comic publishers nutured their products and made them cash cows.

There can be non comics superheroes, we had them in The Incredibles but that was animated and that's probably the best you'll get. Live-action though? Better be going for something from Marvel or Batman and the 3rd best choice is a cult classic independent comic based hero.
clearly Hollywood cant come up with new idea, they are doing the same stuff over and over .
Also this, Hollywood comes up with original ideas less and less every year.
 
Last edited:
lil b should collab with hollywood

THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BASED MAN

summer 2015

tybg
 
There's so much material already there to adapt into a movie. Writing a completely new world would be too much work.
 
the XMEN movies are a Hollywood product.. they stay butchering the hell out of the characters and storylines :|
 
It seems to me that financially is not a smart move. Why not buy the rights to a character with an established fan base? Chronicle was a super hero movie but wasn't a big budget film like traditional super heroes. It had a $12 million dollar budget and made ten times that so it was a reasonably safe film to make. The new Spiderman had a budget of $230 million. If you're going to make a film that costs that much you want to make sure people will come see it.
 
This dude said Ivory Man :lol

Even if Hollywood did invent some superhero it's not going to have that large following like these established comics book have. These Batmen, X-Men, Avenger men already have backstories and history. Some Hollywood superhero would have no credibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom