Will there ever be non-trilogy/non-continuity superhero movies?

[toddly6666]

I like the whole continuity storylines with the Avengers movies, Spider-Man movies, Nolan Batmans, and X-Men films but will Marvel and DC ever just consider single-story superhero films without connecting sequels? There are certainly plenty of superhero storylines that need the depth and development to be told in a trilogy but there are many great comic book stories that would just work well as one film.

For example, one of my favorite Spider-Man stories is Kraven's Last Hunt - a very dark take on Spider-Man and his villains. I dont think the producers would ever financially risk trying to develop the characters of Kraven and Vermin spread out into a trilogy which is why this story would be great if it was done as one stylish film with a director like Robert Rodriguez and Viggo Mortenson or Josh Brolin as Kraven. We dont always need to see the origins of characters - good writers can express to the audience that Kraven is a villain that has had history fighting Spider-Man. While it would be nice to see previous movies of Spider-man fighting Kraven, it's not necessary. For example, the writing and direction was good in Star Wars: A New Hope that we accepted and believed that Darth Vader and Obi Wan had plenty of history together. The audiences did not need to see the history between the two (the prequels).

DC and Marvel seem to have taken more risks with their less-mainstream characters such as Ghost Rider, Jonah Hex, and Punisher but those movies did not follow any of their interesting comic book stories nor were any good. It might throw off the kids, parents, and toy marketing but it would be nice if the famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman) were still in other "single" movies even with different actors from their "continuity" films. The fan obsession with continuity and actors playing the same characters in each following movie seems to be a deterrent from the DC and Marvel movie producers getting more creative and doing some of the famous comic book storylines that don't need to be told in 3 to 4 films.

[blonde_devil]

Unlikely right now. Because of Star Wars, everyone seems fixed on a trilogy idea even if they have to stretch it or if was obviously never meant to be a trilogy (like The Hangover). Right now I doubt it as they seem to want to build an epic universe so that if one film fails, they have others to fall back on. It sucks as they could do a bunch of one-off films that would be great.

[ilovenola2]

I'm sure the determining factor on yet another "franchise" will be whether or not the first "entry" makes any money!
Fascinating how the Brits constantly remake Dickens and we in the US constantly remake Batman!

[JavaJulien]

Nope, everything is pretty much about creating a franchise. Even 300, which was based off of a single Graphic Novel, got a prequel movie.

[Lord Method Man]

I wish there was, but studios are more concerned with building a franchise product than they are crafting films with good storytelling and characters.

[mrr1]

Yes, because you obviously cannot have movies in a franchise that also have good storytelling and characters.

[ezanie]

There's Watchmen

[PocosuTheCamel]

Originally Posted by ezanie

There's Watchmen

I give it a few years before they try to adapt the Before Watchmen graphic novels as well.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by ezanie

There's Watchmen

which thankfully won't get a sequel. one godawful movie was enough.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

which thankfully won't get a sequel. one godawful movie was enough.

Ok...

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

which thankfully won't get a sequel. one godawful movie was enough.

Yet we're definitely getting more Zack Snyder Superman even though Man of Steel was so bad it made Superman IV look competent.

[blonde_devil]

I think the mentality is that as long as most are good, some can suck and still make money. I mean, even if you didn't like Man of Steel, chances are you went to see it because you liked Nolan's Batman films and you knew it was going to be the start of the DC universe. That puts it in an okay spot because as long as it doesn't totally suck, you can build on it. With Marvel and DC, they have enough stuff that they can do that - when you originally want to sign someone for 9 movies but settle for 6, you are obviously planning for a lot of films. It is going to bite them in the ass though, especially Marvel, because at some point you are going to run into an issue where doing what is best for one movie will screw over another and you need to decide what to do. Make the wrong choice and you could end up with a few movies in a row that are less successful and once a franchise starts to fall, it is pretty hard to revive it.

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

Yet we're definitely getting more Zack Snyder Superman even though Man of Steel was so bad it made Superman IV look competent.

Man of Steel, while not the epic masterpiece some think it is, is still one of the best Superman films. Better than at least Returns, Superman IV, Superman III, and possibly even Superman I.

Watchmen, meanwhile, was complete and utter shite.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Lord Method Man

Yet we're definitely getting more Zack Snyder Superman even though Man of Steel was so bad it made Superman IV look competent.

Seriously? Have you seen Superman IV recently?

I wouldn't say Man of Steel is the greatest Superman movie (I will say it's probably the best Dragon Ball Z movie we'll ever have), but really?

[RockzillaXD]

The way Hollywood is handling things right now almost everything is treated as a franchise first. What about when Hollywood decides to revive a movie/franchise that already ended? Live Free or Die Hard was a pretty good return, but the next one was horrid. Also was anyone really asking for a Wallstreet sequel?

For f#cks sake I've seen Beverly Hills cop mentioned for a possible return.

[disneywildcat]

Technically, Ang Lee's Hulk (2003) is regarded as a "one shot" comic book by Marvel (especially since it departed a lot from the comic and the TV series). Of course, if the 2003 film had been a success, we probably would have saw a sequel/trilogy.

When Marvel got the Hulk production rights back, they took the opportunity to reboot the story (with Universal as distributor) under Marvel Studios with 2008's The Incredible Hulk (which then placed Hulk into the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Although the film does start with Banner on the run, it's a film with a different origin story than the 2003 film.

[Kevin Holly]

Most of the legitimately good superhero movies are in fact, standalone.

Watchmen
Punisher '89
Punisher '04
Punisher '08

[cinemaphile]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

Most of the legitimately good superhero movies are in fact, standalone.

Watchmen
Punisher '89
Punisher '04
Punisher '08

if those 4 are your examples of "legitimately good", well....

you're telling me that Dolph Lundgren's Punisher is better than the current Marvel/DC flicks? yikes...
All four of those are mediocre at best IMO, but that 89 flick is especially laughable as "legitimately good"

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

if those 4 are your examples of "legitimately good", well....

you're telling me that Dolph Lundgren's Punisher is better than the current Marvel/DC flicks? yikes...
All four of those are mediocre at best IMO, but that 89 flick is especially laughable as "legitimately good"

guess it depends on your definition of good. At least Lundgren died his hair for the role - a bleach-blond Punisher would have been funny.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by cinemaphile

if those 4 are your examples of "legitimately good", well....

you're telling me that Dolph Lundgren's Punisher is better than the current Marvel/DC flicks? yikes...
All four of those are mediocre at best IMO, but that 89 flick is especially laughable as "legitimately good"

Also, while War Zone isn't as good as the current Marvel films, it's still pretty damn good.