Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicComics & Animation · 9 months ago

If comic book films are so big now, why aren't MORE third-party publishers making films out of THEIR comics?

Hi. I am just a bit curious about this.

Comic book movies are big now and have been for the past two decades - the 2000's and 2010's.

I think the reason they are so big now is because the comic book publishers whose properties are being used are trying to stir up more interest in their comics and general interest in the movies, and because the filmmakers don't have to concern themselves with tech restraints.

That's a big reason why the Watchman movie took so many years to produce.

I think most comic book films made now are DC- or Marvel based. The only non-DC and non-Marvel comic book movies I can think of that have come out in the last two decades are the Sin City ones and Hellboy. These are both Dark Horse comic book movies.

Why aren't more third-party comic book publishers pushing to get films made on their properties, if the comic book movie market is profitable? Is it because they don't see the value in producing comic book movies, or because there's not enough of a demand for them, or for other reasons?

Image is a big third-party publisher- why hasn't a Savage Dragon movie been made yet, for example?

Why are DC and Marvel dominating the comic book movie market?

Please help- thank you.


That's a big reason why the Watchmen movie took so many years to produce. - FIXED.

Update 2:

I think most comic book films made now are DC- or Marvel-based. - FIXED.

Update 3:

These are big reasons why the Watchmen movie took so many years to produce. I think the main reason the film wasn't made sooner were the technology restraints. This is why the project was shelved for so long.

They've wanted to make a film since the '80s. - FIXED.

4 Answers

  • 9 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    They are. Dark Horse Comics character Hellboy is getting a new movie this April. Valiant Comics characters like Bloodshot and The Harbingers are getting movies starting in 2020, as is Image Comics character Spawn.

  • 9 months ago

    They honestly weren't big for most of the 2000s. Iron Man 1 was 2008, and before that, basically no comic book movies succeeded unless they were Batman or Superman (and even some of those bombed). The first Spiderman probably being the one exception. Other comic book movies were usually really expensive to make and barely made a profit if they were lucky. So movie studios see it as a *big* risk.

    Therefore, they aren't going to give a good financial deal to the comic book publisher. Just look at what Marvel was getting for their films before Iron Man. The first Thomas Jane Punisher movie got them a check for $9k. That's why Marvel started up Marvel Studios to make their own: Avi Arad eventually managed to convince them that they were leaving huge amounts of money on the table on these licensing deals, and that part of the problem of quality was that they were signing over creative control to the movie studio.

    So historically, the only way to make a comic book movie make any financial sense is for it to be something done in-house with a really well-known character. really don't have those characters or that kind of money outside of Marvel and DC. I'm into geek culture, but if it weren't for one guy I follow on Twitter, I'd think Savage Dragon was some cheesy-looking Saturday morning kids cartoon from like 15 years ago, and not even know it was based on a comic. There's also the fact that most of the comics from outside the Big 2 tend to have deep-dark psychology that doesn't tend to play well with the general public, a lot of sex, a lot of gore, or some combination thereof, which means gutting your potential audience with an R rating or completely watering it down to uselessness.

  • 9 months ago

    *DC and Marvel are owned by major film studios, so it is easier for them to produce films with a high budget. For third party publishers, they need to seek out a studio willing to finance the project.

    *Minor correction: specifically, Superhero films are profitable. They don't have to be based on comics (examples: The Incredibles, Chronicle). The vast majority of third party comics are not superhero comics, and may not have widewspread appeal. Which is why Warner Bros is having trouble adapting the high fantasy comic Sandman.

    *Unlike the productions of DC/Marvel films, the actual comic creators are involved in whether their works are adapted. For example, Frank Miller co-directed Sin City and Mike Mignola co-wrote the Hellboy films. Spawn creator Todd McFarlane is working in producing a new Spawn on a limited budget. All works under Image Comics are creator owned, so the creators would have to final say if they want their works are adapted.

    *It seems that creators are preferring their works as TV series than films, either for creative freedom or lower budgets. As of now, there is The Umbrella Academy, The Walking Dead, Preacher, Deadly Class, Happy!, The Tick, and several more in production.

    • Rebel With A Cause
      Lv 7
      9 months agoReport

      No. The one from the 1940s is a superhero, while the more popular version from the 90s is a cosmic entity known as Dream, the lord of all dreams . WB is having trouble adapting the comic due to the complex fantasy elements and the fact that Dream is not a fighter.

  • Anonymous
    9 months ago

    Marvel is owned by Disney. DC is owned by Warner Bros. Basically, each is owned by a movie company. They already have the rights to the comics, so there are no issues with splitting profits or dealing with licensing. It's pure profit for the parent company. Image and Dark Horse are not owned by media conglomerates.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.