>The reason why there weren't a ton of hero movies before 2000
>is the technology wasn't around, and thus they weren't proven
>box office commodities.

james cameron was going to make spiderman in the early '90s. obviously it wouldn't look as good as raimi's a decade later, but it's not completely true that the technology wasn't there because it was just being used for other genre flicks. of course technology improves all of the time, but as true as it is that improved technology is the main reason more are made today, i think there is also a (perhaps forced) demographic shift. if i were twice my age and grumpier, i would feel like my only choices at the box office were comic book movies, remakes of movies that came out when i was already an adult, frat house comedies, cartoons, tween flicks based on bestsellers, and the sequels to these movies and that my money wasn't green enough for hollywood most of the year. imagine if all of the grownup fare that comes out during oscar season were spread out across the year or if the movies playing in the arthouse ghetto returned to the multiplexes. there are audiences out there ready to spend, but they are shut out because hollywood gets fixated on formula. the studios might need to make every comic book movie before we get back to more maturity and variety within reach of every moviegoer, but that's probably wishful thinking.


>I actually think it'd be riskier for studios to NOT try to
>make new superhero movies, because franchise fatigue is far
>more real than genre fatigue. If they just churn out sequels,
>the profits will diminish. They have to roll the dice and bust
>out the new heroes in hopes of finding that next gold mine.

agreed, and it's a cool time for movies in a sense because the fad can die out as quickly as it came IMO. this may be the only opportunity for an ant-man or guardians movie, so i really don't mind the creative teams for seizing the opportunity.