How did superhero-movies become so popular?

They're easy to market You're not selling a new idea. You're generally tapping into cultural icons. The appeal of Batman isn't that you get diehard comic fans into the theatres, but rather that you also get anyone who's enjoyed Batman on prior TV shows, movies, cartoons and even comics to come as well. Not many franchises have the same built-in appeal to a wide range of movie-goers as superheros. They leverage copious amounts of creative material Most superheros have a huge archive of plots, characters and costumes to draw upon. It gives everyone involved in production, from concept artists, costumers and screenwriters both a starting point and a road map for development. It seems Hollywood has progressively lost courage over the past few decades for investing in original movies with blockbuster potential. As a result, we see a lot of reboots or films adapted from exceptionally popular content in other mediums (books, comics, folk stories). Superhero movies are exceptionally well-suited for being green-lit in such a risk-adverse environment.

There has been a long, slow cultural transformation in which it has become acceptable and even sometimes cool to be a geek about something. If we go back 25-30 years, we'll find that anything geek-like was reviled by popular culture.  Non-geeks could not see the value of the "geekery" and so instead of treating something with respect they had to see it as a joke. Take the original 1960's Batman TV series.  The producers of that said "okay - we'll make a Batman show - but that's silly kid stuff, so to be cool, we have to make it clear we're in on the joke - we'll go for camp!" But then Silicon Valley happened.  The geek that talked about Star Trek, in high school, now owned a mansion.  The jock that bullied him was broke.  Credit had to be given to people like Gates, Jobs, and Woz for what they'd accomplished. Then there came phenomena like Star Wars - where real money could be made by merchandizing to the geeks. The geek audience grew and their economic impact grew - until mainstream Hollywood suddenly wanted to be in on things like ComicCon. But still a lot of comic book movies failed because the producers were still uncomfortable with the "geekiness".  The Joel Schumacher Batman movies are the most egregious examples.  They couldn't take it seriously, they had to make it a joke - and they thus failed. The big transformation for comic book movies came when that stopped - and it was stopped by a few successful respected directors (that were also comic book fans) making comic book films. Brian Singer treated the X-Men property with the respect it deserved and Sam Raimi treated the Spider-man property with the respect it deserved and both were huge successes. Then came Chris Nolan - and he went a step further and made his Batman films into art. 5-6 years ago, Marvel understood this and they've made sure that every movie they've made (Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and now The Avengers) has been approached as a serious respectful film. Once a broad audience saw that these were real films, with real stories - and not just a joke - they got on board.

A/B testing. Most comic books made into movies have hundreds of stories, told by dozens of authors, visualized by dozens of artists. The mythos and characters are proven, tested by a market that pays money and ruthlessly critiques every element. Some are better than others and the feedback guides the evolution of the characters in print. This creates two kinds of value. First, producers are buying a portfolio of story ideas. Unlike adaptations from a book or novel, the source material shows a range of interpretations. You're not choosing just one take, you're betting on the bundle. Second, these trials-by-fire give producers confidence their investment has a better shot than even the best written script by proven screenwriters. Only the best flavors of the character, of plot, dialog, wardrobe, setting, prosper. Out of thousands of Batman comics you can see which telling of his origin story has the most visual or most emotional power. In both cases, adapting a comic book series provides better decision making information for investors than adapting a modern novel, essay, or song. Both types of information reduce some types of risk in a very risky business.

I've seen one line of argument that after 9/11, story lines with a clear sense of good and evil flourished, in parallel with the fight against Al Qaeda, fought by the U.S. armed forces and special forces. In general, there are often parallels, some of which are unconscious, between what's going on in the world and what's portrayed on film. Beyond that, yes, special effects technologies have evolved to a point where comic book stories can really showcase state of the art special effects which can be a draw beyond a good story line.

"Graphic novels" have been with us for a very long time. In its heyday, Heavy Metal magazine published some immensely beautiful and thought-provoking artwork (along with considerable buckeye and schlock), often serialized over a long span. The first Heavy Metal movie was very successful precisely because it focused on story line and artwork. Published by the National Lampoon people, HM enjoyed considerable success for decades after its 1977 intro. Movies like The Matrix probably owe as much to groundbreaking HM material as anything. Superman and his literary progeny were the 30's version of American Exceptionalism: a can-do response to the Depression and heir to the nickel pulp novels of preceding decades, where Eliot Ness walked tall and brooked no evil. Every comic hero is a variation of the ancient Herakleian heroic myth although most modern heroes are much less dimensional. All face some version of the Twelve Labors, are massively powerful, generally supernaturally endowed and possessed of amazing (though unstated) virility. And, historically, these characters enjoyed tremendous runs on radio (think The Shadow), newsprint (Flash Gordon, Prince Valiant, Dick Tracy), and TV (Super- and Batman, the Hulk) along with action heroes from Walter Scott (Ivanhoe), Mallory (King Arthur, Galahad and Lancelot all had TV runs). Robin Hood has never been long absent. Perhaps in the shadow of Vietnam, Watergate and Tricky Dick the country was not ready for a Masked Avenger. But by the 80's a new mood gripped the country and a Reaganesque hero -- flat, bigger-than-life, attractive, single-minded yet well-spoken -- could make its movie mark. The 1989 Batman vs Joker was not greatly different from the propagandized Cold War Reagan vs. the Soviet Union. From the beginning of the 80's to the close of the Bush era America has been gripped in a jingoistic vision of itself. Strauss and Howe's The Fourth Turning tells us that we're due for a social re-evaluation. Perhaps the next decade will see the emergence of a more complex American, grappling with a rapidly evolving world.

What is occurring now is actually the echo from a wave of serious comic book writing that swelled a generation ago.  Back then, non-comic book people generally regarded the medium as targeting kids and adolescents.  As children innocently picked up comic books off the wire racks at their local convenient stores, parents knew little of the quiet storms brewing through the minds of young readers, nor of the passion for storytelling driving the creators of this modest medium.  This inspiration seeded years back, along with the visual technology to finally catch up to the limitless bounds of pencil and ink on humble newspaper print, has permitted those children (now adults) to finally translate their internal experiences to the more accessible medium of film and enable a broader audience to finally understand what itch of the human psyche was being so satisfactorily scratched through this genre.  Given the success of The Lord of the Rings movie adaptations, another staple of bygone youth, it was only a matter of time that comic book stories would also become mainstream. Although Walter White from Breaking Bad is not a superhero, his character study is of the same mold of what a superhero/supervillain is supposed to be: the embodiment of power, if not an implement of justice, in the face of cruelty and helplessness.  Almost all superheroes are heroes in the sense that they have all undergone some tragedy and somehow use "powers" to compensate or rectify what had been inflicted on them.  A reader cannot help but ask why this embodiment necessarily involves spandex and powers.  This is because drawing is essentially a cathartic mode of expression.  A graphic novel consisting of regular people simply walking, sitting, and standing for the majority of the time would be akin to driving a Lamborghini under 55 mph.  Drawing must exceed the capacity of storytelling conveyed through the written word, and a universe of superheroes provides the framework that justifies the need for these stories to be necessarily drawn.

It is a combination of three things : - need for heroes post 9/11. - the siloing of Hollywood spectacle power - advancements in CG permitting costumes to not look ridiculous, and large spectacle, kinetically bizarre action sequences with impossible camera-work. The CG is necessary to impart the sense of swashbuckling heroism from comic books. And it is what failed to come across in superhero movies before adequate CG. Batman miraculously succeeded without it in 1988. Batman 2 (Penguin) did not.

These are big budget films with the potential to make millions for the companies that produce them. But what sets them apart from in the investors eyes, when you compare for example, The Avengers and John Carter? The Avengers comes built in with its fanbase and brand recognition. Less work will have to be done by the studio and marketing to make you want to see this film and the studio feels safer putting money down for household names. The audience gets to see the characters they've followed throughout their lives (in comic books and on TV) come to life on the big screen using the latest special effects technology and under the supervision of a hot new director. However, the audience has little or no variation of sumer treats to choose from that AREN'T comic book movies, sequels or adaptations. Which lends to the success of comic book movies. And yes I know John Carter is based on a popular sci-fi series of novels. I just couldn't think of one original big budget Holywood movie from this year.

After the Twin Towers fell, Americans lost interest in subtlety. The black and white, hero vs. villian structure is a lot easier to digest than what the real world had suddenly become.