A new superhero: possible?

[RoJoHen]

Superhero movies an cartoons seem to be pretty popular, but they're all remakes/reboots of established, popular comic book characters. It seems every few years we've got a new version of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, or the X-Men coming out.

Do you think it's even possible at this point to create a new superhero franchise? It doesn't have to start as comic series. It could either be a cartoon or live-action TV show or movie.

We've seen a couple attempts in recent years with shows like No Ordinary Family and Heroes, but I don't think anyone ever planned for those character to become iconic like Batman or Spiderman. Would the world even give a new character a chance?

 

[Captaindemotion]

I think that there are several problems with trying to start an all-new superhero.

Firstly, comics aren't selling awfully well, outside a select few.

Secondly, most of the main powers have been covered. Flying, super-strength, ability to fly, elasticity, invisibility, etc etc. What can a new hero do that hasn't been already done?

Thirdly, the most successful comic strips or superheroes of recent years have been deconstructions of the genre. Dredd, Watchmen, Marshall Law etc. The most successful original movie or tv ones such as Heroes, Misfits or Chronicle have eschewed costumes, capes etc. And they were ensembles rather than single-hero movies, so no one character was ever going to become iconic.

So unless someone comes up with a really original and compelling character, I don't think that the status of Batman, Superman or Spider-man is likely to be threatened.

 

[sojourner]

Ben10. 'Nuff said.

 

[xortex]

The seventies had the Powers of Mathiew Starr and Shazam and things like that for kids so an adult version of some new weird super hero should work even though it might have to cross over into several genres to get comfortable as it were and also to find it's audience.

 

[RJDiogenes]

A new iconic superhero is definitely possible, but unlikely under the current Zeitgeist; I think we have to get society past the postmodern deconstruction phase before anything really new can happen. It's inevitable that a new creative era will come along, but it's impossible to know when. Culture generally goes around in 40-year cycles, which puts the latest renaissance about ten years overdue. So it could really happen at any time.

 

[Ethros]

The Crimson Bolt

Nuff said

 

[sojourner]

The seventies had the Powers of Mathiew Starr and Shazam and things like that for kids so an adult version of some new weird super hero should work even though it might have to cross over into several genres to get comfortable as it were and also to find it's audience.

The Powers of Mathew Star lasted barely a season. Hardly a success in creating a new superhero.

Shazam (Captain Marvel) dates back nearly as far as Superman and in the 40's/50's actually out sold Superman comics. Hardly an example of a new superhero.

 

[xortex]

Well my point is there's a million ways you could define a superheroes powers and even the Swamp thing might be considered a superhero or the Tic or an alien, zombie like the toxic avenger, etc.. Powers can be explained science fictionally or supernaturally so that could be a wide range or one and the same thing.

 

[Snick27]

Spawn. Enough said.

 

[Gaith]

Voila:


​

​

No, but seriously...

Flying, super-strength, ability to fly, elasticity, invisibility, etc etc. What can a new hero do that hasn't been already done?

This. We have lots of superheroes that are already great, and introducing a new one therefore faces all sorts of creative hurdles on top of budgetary ones, if we're talking movie adaptations. Hancock was probably the biggest effort to create a "new superhero" in recent memory, it cost a ton, and its hook (a generic superhero, except he starts off a drunkard!) just wasn't enough to grab people.

Though you could make a pretty good case for Harry Potter being a "new superhero": he's got powers, a grandiose origin story, distinctive clothes, an archnemesis, sidekicks, etc. Can a brand-new new cape-wearer capture the public imagination? Not too likely, IMO, but that doesn't mean one can't tweak the formula and try elsewhere.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What about Buffy? That was a fairly recent and original franchise that was pretty successful, though no longer current. Doesn't she count as a superhero?

 

[RandyS]

I don't see why not. All that's needed is a new idea.

What that is, I don't know, but I'm sure somebody will come up with something some time.

 

[xortex]

Tank Girl was an interesting archetype. No powers but pretty super.

 

[Gaith]

What about Buffy? That was a fairly recent and original franchise that was pretty successful, though no longer current. Doesn't she count as a superhero?

If Potter does, than yes, absolutely.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Hancock was probably the biggest effort to create a "new superhero" in recent memory, it cost a ton, and its hook (a generic superhero, except he starts off a drunkard!) just wasn't enough to grab people.

Hancock made $624.3 million worldwide and was the fourth highest grossing film of 2008. It grabbed people just fine.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

Marvel tried it with The Sentry, and failed miserably. Part of that could have been just how uninteresting the character was, though.

 

[the G-man]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Incredibles
Or the Power Puff girls

 

[Dream]

NBC tried with The Cape. It flopped pretty badly.

 

[pork3]

NBC tried with The Cape. It flopped pretty badly.

And rightfully so. Horrible show on all counts.

-Jamman

 

[Gaith]

Hancock was probably the biggest effort to create a "new superhero" in recent memory, it cost a ton, and its hook (a generic superhero, except he starts off a drunkard!) just wasn't enough to grab people.

Hancock made $624.3 million worldwide and was the fourth highest grossing film of 2008. It grabbed people just fine.

D'oh! That's more than I thought. Still, just because they saw it doesn't necessarily mean they liked it, or ever remember it one bit.