The Avengers and the legacy of American Superhero Films

[aTOMiC]

What is The Avengers?
Of course anyone that clicked on this discussion thread in the first place undoubtedly already knows who the Avengers are but what about the film opening today across America? What is the significance? How does this genre film compare to what has come before?

I will run down the history of genre superhero films thus far to give some context.

There were superhero themed movies before 1978 but the original Superman feature film is pretty much the film that cemented the superhero genre film into the collective consciousness of the world.
The movie featured a very large budget for its time. An A-list director. Instantly recognizable and respected supporting actors that included the likes of Gene Hackman and Marlon Brando. And introduced the world to Christopher Reeve who seemed to effortlessly channel the Superman/Clark Kent persona and helped to make Superman the Movie generate a world wide gross of over 300 million dollars.
The superhero genre film was born and it changed pop culture forever.

In 1980 Superman II premiered and though the film didn't perform at the box office like its predecessor (108 million world wide), Superman II featured the first superhero/super powered villain on screen battle which seemed like a comic fan dream come true at the time. However Superman II also featured a trend toward over the top camp/humor that undermined some of the credibility built up with the first film and would eventually lead to the demise of the series.

In 1982 DC comics released Swamp Thing. The film featured a very different kind of hero and was not gifted with the budget or creative talents that were applied to the previous Superman movies. Though Swamp Thing was appealing enough to generate a cult following it wasn't enough to merit much universal interest and is often overlooked.

In 1983 Superman III was released and had the poorest box office performance yet for a Superman film at a mere 60 million world wide. The movie featured comedian Richard Pryor which amplified the camp factor to a new level, further damaging the reputation of the series.

In 1984 DC comics released Supergirl. The film's plot, acting, direction and budget were all far below par making Supergirl a huge disappointment bringing in only 14 million world wide and giving the superhero genre a nice punch in the face however the greatest indignity was yet to come.

In 1987 Superman IV: The Quest for Peace was unleashed on the world. The film was practically a vanity project for Christopher Reeve. The plot centered on the real world proliferation of nuclear weapons which Superman brings to an end however the film was painfully low budget and with a poorly written screenplay and clumsy direction Superman IV all but killed the superhero genre.

Superman and superheroes in general had become a bad joke and poison at the box office until...

In 1989 Tim Burton's Batman arrived to save the day. For superhero fans it couldn't have come at a better time. Batman was a revelation and began a revolution in the superhero genre (though the Batman series itself was fated to follow a similar path that the Superman series had traveled years earlier). In Batman a darker, more serious tone was adopted though the film had its unusual, quirky moments thanks to the director's style choices. All in all Batman reinvigorated the superhero genre and brought with it box office success to the tune of 411 million dollars world wide.

To this point DC comics characters had ruled the box office and competing Marvel characters could only be found, beyond the pages of their books, in the Incredible Hulk television series, the short lived Spider man live action show and a variety of cartoons.

Between 1989 and 1992 there were a few less successful entries into the superhero realm.
1989 - Return of the Swamp Thing
1989 - The Punisher (Marvel's first live action film ended up a direct to video disappointment)
1990 - Darkman (Sam Raimi's first superhero film)
1990 - Captain America (A forgettable, painfully low budget affair also essentially ending up in the video stores)
1991 - The Rocketeer (A personal favorite of mine though the film had very little impact in the genre at large)

Which brings us to the long awaited 1992 release of Batman Returns which (almost) faithfully duplicated the tone and success of the first Batman film though with diminished box office success. (Nearly 277 Million dollars world wide)

In 1994 Universal Studios made an attempt to bring The Shadow to the big screen with disappointing effect.
Then New Line Cinema had much more success with The Mask starring Jim Carrey though neither film represented an adaptation of a universally beloved contemporary superhero.

1995 brought us the third Batman film Batman Forever which saw the introduction of a campier, neon glow feel to the series that would again nearly destroy the superhero genre as we had seen with Superman. Batman Forever was a box office success at 336 million dollars world wide but it was clear the paint was beginning to peel off of the Batmobile thanks largely to the direction of new director Joel Schumacher who wasn't quite finished giving the genre a black eye.
1995 also saw a dismal Liam Neesonless sequel to Darkman shamefully end up direct to video.

1996 saw a lackluster attempt to bring The Phantom to the modern era but the film was largely ignored by the public and was a box office goof bringing in only 17 million dollars world wide. In addition there was yet another sequel to Darkman that also was released direct to video.

1997 was a dark year for superhero films in general. The release of the fourth Batman film, Batman and Robin, wasn't as low and ebb as Superman IV however it did present the most negatively viewed Batman film to date and sealed the fate of Batman movies for nearly a decade.
In addition to Batman and Robin there was the poorly realized Spawn based on Todd McFarlane's popular anti hero and Steel an inconceivable superhero star vehicle for Shaquile O'neil. However good things were right around the corner and the dark shadow of gloom would begin to be raised the following year.

1998 marks the beginning of the Marvel Comics era in film and serves as the signpost for the new age of comic films that we enjoy today and its all thanks to a lesser known Marvel Comics character that originated in the gothic comic Tomb of Dracula, Blade. The film was the first genuine success for a Marvel Comics feature bringing in 131 million dollars world wide and giving the first real credibility to a Marvel character on film.

1999's only superhero genre film was Mystery Men which was a superhero comedy. Though the box office response didn't agree with me I thought Mystery Men was very entertaining.

If the first Blade film was a superhero genre spark then 2000s X-Men was like gasoline poured on a flame. This was the first time a top tier Marvel comic movie had blockbuster success at the theater pulling in nearly 300 million dollars world wide and further establishing the Marvel era in superhero films.

In 2002 Blade II was released which increased its predecessor's box office take however the film was completely eclipsed by the release of Spider-man. The anticipation that built up before Spider-man's premier was gargantuan and the film itself was a tremendous success pulling in a staggering 821 million dollars world wide. Marvel Comics hadn't just arrived on film it had figuratively lit the theater on fire.

2003 was owned by Marvel who released 3 films that year, X2: X-Men United, Hulk and Daredevil. However though all three films made the company money only X-Men 2 was a genuine critical and box office success earning 407 million dollars world wide. Daredevil suffered from poor direction and miscast actors for some of the leading roles. Hulk's failure rested mostly on an odd direction style and special effects that weren't able to convincingly render the Hulk to anyone's satisfaction. The only DC related title, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, also battled for the box office but was not only crushed by the competition, the film had difficulty connecting even with die hard genre fans.

2004 was another busy year for superhero films. Marvel released Spider-man 2, Blade III and The Punisher while DC returned with Catwoman and Dark Horse comics presented Hellboy. Spider-man 2 was another tremendous success and arguably better than the original. Blade Trinity was no less successful than it predecessor however fans of the series had mixed reviews. The Punisher was a genuine critical and box office flop proving that the character would be difficult to adapt to the big screen.
Catwoman was a nightmarishly bad film that confused and boggled the minds of genre fans. Virtually everything about the film was a misstep leading fans to wonder what DC would do to get back into the theater.
Hellboy, though entertaining and critically positive, didn't make much of an impact at the box office.

2005 was a down year for Marvel but saw the long awaited resurgence of DC. Marvel released Fantastic Four and Elektra while DC premiered a reboot of the Batman franchise with Batman Begins. Disney released the superhero comedy Sky High.
Batman Begins marked the beginning of a Batman trilogy conceived by director Christopher Nolan who took the Batman character to his roots but also set him in a very realistic world giving Batman a grounding that no other superhero had ever benefited from. Genre fans were absolutely thrilled with the results. Batman was back and literally better than ever.
Marvel's results were less than stellar. Fantastic Four on paper was a slam dunk but through the direction of Tim Story and some terrible casting choices Fantastic Four was a fantastic disappointment in almost every way except that the film made money. Elektra though a critical and box office failure had low expectations going in and did not damage the genre the way Fantastic Four did.

2006 saw Marvel and DC evenly matched for the very first time. Marvel released X-Men 3 X-Men: The Last Stand and DC finally rebooted Superman with Superman Returns. In addition there were two independent superhero comedies released as well with My Super Ex-Girlfriend and Zoom.
X-Men 3 was the highest grossing X-Men film of the series however fans were unhappy with the story and direction. Superman Returns was a box office success and a direct sequel to Superman II from 1980 but suffered from similar complaints that plagued its competition.

2007 was left primarily to Marvel who released Spider-man 3, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Ghost Rider.
Though Spider-Man 3 pulled in an amazing 890 million dollars world wide fans of the film series were less enchanted than with the previous two films. Fantastic Four 2 was a sequel that didn't improve much over it's predecessor though it too made a profit. Ghost Rider though profitable was another deep disappointment to fans of Marvel and the popular Ghost Rider character. It seemed Marvel superhero genre films were a hit and miss affair largely due to the characters films being released by different studios leaving Marvel's influence limited.

2008 was absolutely sick with superhero films releasing 8 in total and also arguably the best year for superhero films to date. Marvel released Iron man, The Incredible Hulk and Punisher: War Zone. DC presented The Dark Knight and The Spirit. Dark Horse produced Hellboy II: The Golden Army. Columbia Pictures released the Will Smith hit Hancock. MGM released the superhero comedy/spoof Superhero Movie.
The clear box office champ of 2008 was The Dark Knight grossing more than a billion dollars world wide. The sequel to Nolan's Batman Begins dives deep into the world setup in the first film and amps up the gritty reality with a superb performance by the late Heath Ledger as The Joker. Virtually everything about the film was spot on perfect and took the superhero genre film to stratospheric heights. Not to be undone Marvel's Iron man impressed fans and critics with a more lighthearted take that was energized by Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Tony Stark/Iron man. The Incredible Hulk reboot was profitable and benefited from the talents of Edward Norton as Bruce Banner but the film failed to present the Hulk character in an entertaining form. Punisher: War Zone was another failed attempt to adapt the character to film however it suffered from a very small budget and the lack of a charismatic lead actor. Both Iron man and The Incredible Hulk film began the formation of the Avengers Initiative that would culminate in today's release of the Avengers movie.
The Spirit was a critical and financial failure that is hard to describe so I won't bother.

2009 saw Marvel and DC battling it out however on a much smaller scale and with very limited success on both sides. Marvel released X-Men Origins: Wolverine and DC presented Watchmen. Wolverine, continuing the character as played by Hugh Jackman, the film was profitable but was disappointing to fans and critics alike as it seemed to suffer from a clumsy screen play and disjointed direction though there were few complaints about Jackman's portrayal. Marvel had apparently missed the mark again. Watchmen took a page from The Dark Knight and offered a similarly gritty alternate timeline of history featuring superheroes. I found Watchmen to be very entertaining and did not detect many obvious flaws however the film did poorly at the box office.

2010 was again mostly left to Marvel with Iron Man 2 and Kick Ass. There were other comics based films released such as Jonah Hex, RED and Scott Pilgrim vs the World but not strictly superhero genre in nature.
Iron Man 2 was the standout even though the film was viewed as less successful than it's predecessor. Iron Man 2 also featured more setup to the Avengers film including more appearances by S.H.E.I.L.D. agents including Nick Fury, Agent Coulsen and the Black Widow.

2011 saw another glut of superhero films with Marvel's Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, X-Men: First Class, DCs Green Lantern and Columbia Pictures The Green Hornet.
Green Lantern and The Green Hornet were both forgettable films with varying levels of disappointing results and box office success.
Thor was fairly successful with fans and critics as was Captain America. Both films furthered the continuity established for the Avengers feature with Thor giving us a quick look at Hawkeye and Captain America explaining how Cap would come to be alive in 2012. Each film also featured different elements and characters from S.H.E.I.L.D. but Thor introduced us the the all too important Avengers antagonist Loki.

So having said all of that what is the Avengers?

The Avengers is something special.
Look back at all of the superhero films listed above and imagine a number of those characters and actors, at the prime of their superhero stardom, and placing them all in the same film for us to enjoy. Its really unprecedented. Consider Christopher Reeve and Michael Keaton together as Superman and Batman let alone 5 or 6 actors and characters in the same scenario. Add to the Avengers the third and final Nolan/Bale Batman film, a reboot of The Amazing Spiderman and you have evidence that we're living through the greatest time for the superhero genre that's ever been and promises to be possibly even greater in the future.

Tom

[Hashi Lebwohl]

As I noted in the other thread, DC deserves to flounder in shame for not bringing some of their other main characters to the silver screen correctly, most notably Wonder Woman and Flash. Given the correct screenwriter, the right director, and the right actor both of those movies would be financial successes even if they aren't critical successes.

No, instead DC wants to give us Jonah Hex. erm...right. For starters, non-comic readers won't even know who he is so why would they care for this character?

Current superhero movies, though, are starting to set the bar a little too high--future movies will all have to be studio-breaking budget monsters with mega-flashy action and snarky one-liners. In short, they will all have to be Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. The problem with that, of course, is that you can't bet $200 million on, say, a Power Man and Iron Fist movie--or even a Dr. Strange--and expect it to make money because the support simply isn't there. Marvel's really big titles X-Men, Iron Man, Captain America, Avengers, etc. have all been played and they will soon be played out.

This highlights the problem inherent with trying to do franchise superhero movies: how many Iron Man movies do you think Mr. Downey can do? Three? Five? No, at some point the "new" will wear off and he simply won't be able to convincingly portray the character anymore.

I saw an article where it is suspected that a New Mutants movie might be in the works. Again, the problem here is that most people will ask "who are they?" because the names Cannonball, Sunspot, Karma, etc. mean nothing to them.

I think we are at the zenith of superhero movies right now. This is not to say that it is all downhill from here, mind you, but for a few years it will be. Studios aren't going to bet the farm for anything less than an Avengers or a Justice League so we are going to see more small-budget movies features lesser-known characters but if the first few fail then you won't see many more.

Hollywood, of course, doesn't mind superhero movies at this time because it saves them from having to think of an original plot. All they have to do is thumb through some comic books and say "now put it on film". Sometimes this works (The Avengers) and sometimes it doesn't (Spawn).

[Cagliostro]

I'm with Hashi on this. I see the Avengers as the death knell. If a JLA movie comes out, then there might be a bright moment for that, but for the most part it is either dig through the lesser knowns without as solid a fanbase, or pound the big ones into the dirt. I already think there is starting to be superhero overload. As Hollywood likes to do, anything that makes some money will be copied until the niche market dries up. Kind of like what happened with the rhythm game market that Guitar Hero overloaded until interested died and they got the hell out.

Hashi does bring up a good point of Wonder Woman and the Flash. Wonder Woman does pose a bit of a problem as women superheroes haven't really proven themselves in the market, so studios are a bit more shy of taking a chance on them. But if the right cards are in place, Wonder Woman would be the lady to change this. Although I see a bit more success for her in a Justice League setting than a full film devoted to her, but I could be wrong. I don't know enough about the Flash, so I can't comment on his possibilities, but most everybody has at least heard of him.

[Rigel]

What is The Avengers?

It's the reason I won't ever see another comic book movie.

Strictly speaking, of course, that's not all due to this one film... it's also due to this film's influence on the genre over the last few years.

You begin to see the effect in X-Men: The Last Stand. I argued around the time of X2 that you would never see the Pheonix on film; that the whole success of the first two movies, was due to their more realistic portrayal of the characters, combined with the focus on the "mutant problem" (and it's analogy to other divisive topics, such as race and sexuality). Jean's end in X2 was, I thought, the closest Hollywood would come to portraying the Pheonix, and X3 would focus on a "cure for mutation."

I wish I had been right. The best parts of X3 were, of course, those which dealt with issues of inclusion and identity. The whole Pheonix thing seemed to be thrown in there merely as a "Wow, that'd be neat to see on screen!" idea, and nearly destroyed the series (incidentally, I never saw any following X-Men films, so I can't say if it did or not).

Then we move on to the Hulk. While Ang Lee's version has been criticized (rightfully so for the effects), his was a Hulk with heart. But the fanboys cried foul, a new movie was commissioned, and we got the thunderclap. What was the point of it? How did it make sense, either within the movie, as part of the plot, or just... make sense? It was merely a bone thrown to fans to "look cool." Because "that's his move." Because people who read the comic books thirty or forty years ago have fond memories of being impressed with his physical strength. Fine, that's not for me, let them have their movie.

Along came Iron Man, I was pleasantly surprised. Marvel was still capable of making a movie that was about a real character. A character who doesn't change a great deal throughout the movie, but at least he was explored and made interesting. Until the sequel came out... Nods to fans, money shots, and... that's really it. There was no point to the sequel except to suit up Iron Man's sidekick and introduce SHIELD.

Do you see where I'm going with this? With every movie, Marvel moves more and more toward the "ideal" of nostalgic references to a certain demographics' youth, coupled with big fiery explosions. How can that entertain someone like me, who was bored by comic books even when I was square in the middle of the target demographic? Someone who thinks Michael Bay's movies are inferior to the fireworks we see on the Fourth of July, as the fireworks actually exist in our real world?

I've explained my position to comic books fans before. These movies are made for them, not for me. I find them growing dull and pointless, but if other people can enjoy them then good for them. Surprisingly to me, the usual response is an impassioned rant about why I'm wrong, these movies are the "coolest things ever," and how I'm supposed to enjoy them (even though I don't anymore).

I feel vaguely like I did ten years ago, when I realized I had outgrown the Star Wars moves... even the ones from my youth. It's very likely I'll never watch another comic book movie... at least, not until something unique comes along, something that doesn't have a forty year story run (I like my stories to have endings, thank you), or something with real emotional impact. Watchmen and The Dark Knight were great; Super was deliciously ironic. I'm wavering on whether or not to see Dark Knight Rises this year... if I do, it'll be more because of Nolan than because of Batman.

Other than that, I'm done with them. I'm also done with "spectacle" movies in general, though... the tent-pole budget busters just don't reach me anymore.

Wow, I sound like a crotchety old man, don't I?

[I'm Murrin]

I watched Thor yesterday, and spent the first half hour wondering how the hell that film ever got made.

It wasn't a particularly good film, just adequate - the plot while Thor was on earth was kinda flimsy. When the meat of the film is in the parts that are high-concept fantasy with bare minimum exposition something doesn't seem right.

It was such a strange concept, so much fast moving exposition of something very far removed from familiarity for the audience, that it's exactly the kind of film that studios would have avoided a few years back.

Right now the Marvel name can sell anything, but eventually they're going to put out something that kills it. Sooner rather than later, I think. Iron Man 3 could start that - it has to overcome the problem that the last couple of franchises (X-Men and Spider-Man) had, which was the creators putting more ideas than they could effectively handle into the third film in an effort to up the stakes.

[aTOMiC]

I get the cry for quality cinema when these discussions pop up about comic book adaptations, more specifically superheroes.
There are different POVs on the subject and there should be. I'm one of the lucky ones who can appreciate it all.
I really enjoyed and enjoy the Nolan Batman films because of not only the realistic portrayal of an admittedly fanciful character but Nolan directs very good cinema in general. Compelling drama.
AND I geek out for more direct adaptations that embrace as many aspects of the superhero as he/she exists in the comic books they were spawned from.
In the past superhero adaptations that were truer to the comic source generally came off as campy and unwatchable by most people.
Somehow Marvel has created a universe specific to their brand that will allow a certain amount of over the top aspects and still entertain a large number of people.
Its not always good cinema and its not always good movie making even for die hard geeks but this is what, in my opinion, a comic book company should be doing since this is their business.
In the end if they can't make money making these films they will be forced to stop. In the mean time I'm pretty happy.

[Cagliostro]

By the way, Tom, I wanted to say what a good write-up you had on all of this. The only criticism would be leaving out the movie Unbreakable (2000) from the mix. As big of a hack as Shamalamadingdong has been since, it really was his best movie.

And I'm very happy you included Mystery Men.

[aTOMiC]

By the way, Tom, I wanted to say what a good write-up you had on all of this. The only criticism would be leaving out the movie Unbreakable (2000) from the mix. As big of a hack as Shamalamadingdong has been since, it really was his best movie.

And I'm very happy you included Mystery Men.

Thanks Cags. Actually I toyed with the idea of including Unbreakable, which is a favorite of mine, but ended up deleting it. I guess I felt I was trying to focus on the Marvel vs DC battle. At one point I was about to delete the references to The Shadow and The Mask.

As to the article itself it seemed to me to be full of bad punctuation and run on sentences but I thought I'd gotten it out okay.
I've been working from home for the past couple of months and I had some time on my hands that day so I figured what hell.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It's the reason I won't ever see another comic book movie.

Most comic books cannot be made into movies, either because the fan base isn't there (I doubt a Dr. Fate movie would sell too many tickets) or because it simply wouldn't translate well onto the screen without looking either ridiculous or stupid (a solo Silver Surfer movie). Some comic books shouldn't be made into movies--like Deadpool, even though they are going to do that anyway--because the character is just plain stupid.

I still think that in the near future we will see superhero movies fade in popularity as the big titles play out. Enough people are willing to go along with Spiderman being rebooted but I doubt anyone will go for an Iron Man reboot featuring a new actor. The novelty will wear out and we'll go back to having a superhero movie about once per year, starting in about, oh, 2017.

[sgt.null]

if a film is good then people will see it.

if we insist that a superhero film has a built in audience, the film then caters only to those fans.

the Mission Impossible films weren't made as a films only for fans of techno-thrillers. but the films were enjoyable popcorn movies and they worked.

the reason comic books in general and their movies as well exist in a ghetto is because of the unreasonable demands of a small group - the fanboys.

you can throw them some bones but still make an enjoyable, fun movie. Captain America managed that.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

the reason comic books in general and their movies as well exist in a ghetto is because of the unreasonable demands of a small group - the fanboys.

It is a well-known fact that fanboys ruin the very things they love because they are fanatically devoted to it and have a very narrow definition of what is "acceptable".

[aTOMiC]

the reason comic books in general and their movies as well exist in a ghetto is because of the unreasonable demands of a small group - the fanboys.

It is a well-known fact that fanboys ruin the very things they love because they are fanatically devoted to it and have a very narrow definition of what is "acceptable".

I couldn't agree more and I count myself as a fanboy and proud of it, except when we ruin films. I don't like that. But everything else is very cool.

[sgt.null]

Hashi - that is why when making a super hero movie you have to ignore them.

tom -fanboys also ruin comic books. and i am afraid their bitching will ruin the Young Justice cartoon.

[Orlion]

the reason comic books in general and their movies as well exist in a ghetto is because of the unreasonable demands of a small group - the fanboys.

It is a well-known fact that fanboys ruin the very things they love because they are fanatically devoted to it and have a very narrow definition of what is "acceptable".

Yep. In my experience, they tend to lack the creativity necessary to make any sort of good suggestion, either in how to adapt the stories, or what makes a good comic book story. Just reading what they think Avengers 2 should be about and how Thanos should be involved makes my head hurt.

There are some exceptions (Joss Whedon is, after, a comic book fan) but on the whole, null's suggestion that they be ignored is a good one.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Just reading what they think Avengers 2 should be about and how Thanos should be involved makes my head hurt.

I shudder to think. They probably want it to be The Infinity Gauntlet, or Infinity Crisis, or whatever crap they came up with after that. *sheesh* Thanos is like Wolverine--completely overrated and a fanboy wet dream. The only character I can think of that gets them going more would be Harley Quinn, whom I can hardly stand--she is so annoying.

Want to beat Wolverine quickly? Spray him down with a quick-hardening or a really sticky foam--if he can't use his arms he can't use his claws. If you have a telekinetic, though, you could just lift him off the ground--no leverage means no ability to do anything except flail around in mid-air--and put him in a room lined with a sufficiently-thick layer of adamantium, including an adamantium door heavier than he can lift. No more Wolverine--problem solved, because regeneration won't save you from starving to death.

As I noted in the other thread, give me a small team with the right abilities and I can beat anyone.

[sgt.null]

Wolverine - how much does he way anyway? drown the little bastard, teleport him into the middle of any ocean.

Thanos - his biggest legacy is complete and utter failure. he has lost every scheme he has ever tried.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Wolverine - how much does he way anyway? drown the little bastard, teleport him into the middle of any ocean.

Probably not more than 100 kg (220 lbs). As noted, a moderate telekinetic can lift him into orbit.

I wonder how Thanos ever managed to get that collection of starships and followers he had when he was first introduced? It's like he succeeded at everything then all of a sudden began failing to attain his desired goals, as you state.

[finn]

Braniac, Luthor, the Riddler, the Joker.....

They've all been stiffed by DC, even when they seem totally destined to win they still lose by some freak event or some hereto forgotten piece of technology or celestial event or something...I feel sorry for them!

Still they only have themselves to blame, if they'd just shoot Batman in the face or hang around till the Green Kryptonite finished the job, they'd be free and clear.

I've always felt that the quality of the villan is what elevates the stature of the hero, I think DC should give the guys the occasional win!

EDIT: Oops wrong thread ...but the principle translates!

[Vraith]

Wolverine - how much does he way anyway? drown the little bastard, teleport him into the middle of any ocean.

Probably not more than 100 kg (220 lbs). As noted, a moderate telekinetic can lift him into orbit.

Not to be picky [ok, to be picky...but still all in fun]...but Hugh Jackman weighs almost that and he doesn't have any metal in him.
But your point stands even if he weighs 300..which would be a whole lot of metal, so it can't be that much.
My biggest problem with superheroes is the unkillable/nearly unkillable ones. I liked Wolverine before that aspect existed. Now...boring.

And, I agree with Finn on bad guys.

[sgt.null]

why would any bad guy want the hassle. Superman could stop all crime within a week. less if he treated criminals the way i would.