.jpg)
​
Can Superman and Fantastic Four: First Steps resurrect the superhero craze? Maybe, maybe not (But I kinda hope they do).
​
​​​​​​​
​It is hard to trace the beginning of the superhero craze that dominated American cinema for well over a decade. Though the Marvel Cinematic Universe (from here on referred to as the "MCU") was launched with 2008's Iron Man​, the movie going public's appetite for superhero films (and the industry's insatiable appetite for established audiences) is not new. The first superhero movie based on a comic book was 1941's The Adventures of Captain Marvel (not the one you know played by Brie Larson, this would be from Shazam). There's also a Batman serial from 1943 and a Superman TV series from the 1950s. While Iron Man introduced the movie going public to Marvel, and launched a franchise that changed cinema forever, I would actually trace the explosion of comic book films to 1989's Batman, directed by Tim Burton and starring Michael Keaton (I am NOT ignoring 1978's Superman, which in my opinion, is the greatest superhero movie ever made).
​
I choose Batman because it became a cultural sensation. Between Batman and Batman Returns, you saw people who probably had never so much as opened a Batman comic book wearing Batman t-shirts. Kids got Batman toys. Batman was everywhere. And why? It was directed by a young auteur who brought not only a unique vision but also stayed true to the source material (something many comic books films prior, incredibly, seemed to forget to do). It had both bold and no-brainer casting with Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne and Jack Nicholson as the Joker.
​
The second wave of superhero movies, which I believe to be a precursor to the MCU, was 2000's X Men. This film, like 89's Batman, stayed true to the source material, had incredible, no-duh casting, along with some bold choices, and launched a franchise. The stage was set for the MCU, which came on like a freight train and rolled over the rest of the industry.
​
What became known as the "Infinity War Saga," comprised of 23 films, was an unprecedented success, a box-office juggernaut and pop cultural phenomenon that took the world by storm. For a kid like me, who grew up reading all these comics, it was unbelievable. Those films did things fans of the 80s and 90s never thought possible. Much like with 89's Batman, you saw (and still see) people everywhere wearing Marvel gear. Again ... people who have never read a single comic book in their lives. And these are the people that made these films successful. It wasn't the comic book fans, as much as we'd like to believe it, for while there are a lot of us, there aren't enough to generate that much in box office and merchandise sales. No, it was John Q. Public who got swept up in Marvel Mania. And why? Because the Marvel Movies were good. Some of them great. The idea of an interconnected universe of films which featured mutual characters and storylines had never been done before. People ate it up.
But ... with the conclusion of the Infinity War Saga, people were ready to move on. At least a lot of them were, anyway.
So what has set in since has been what some are calling "Superhero Fatigue." A lot of that has to do with the fact that some of the stuff that Marvel and Disney have put out since the Infinity War films has been less than stellar. Thor: Love and Thunder was borderline awful. Doctor Strange: In the Multiverse of Madness was meh. Some of the TV shows have been great (Wandavision, She-Hulk, Daredevil) and some have been mid (Moon Knight). And in all cases, none of them have held a candle too nor captured the audiences attention like the Infinity Saga.
Notice I haven't said much about DC. Anyone who knows me well enough knows I love DC Comics. I won't go into their own foray into cinema much here, as their quality was like watching the stock market go up and down.
This summer, DC Films will release a Superman reboot helmed by anointed-savior James Gunn, and Marvel will release the long-awaited MCU version of the Fantastic Four. The hope is that both films will inject new life into the superhero genre. But will they?
​
DC has struggled to launch a cinematic Superman franchise since the late, great Christopher Reeve days (not counting various successes with TV versions, such as Lois & Clark, Smallville, and Superman and Lois). Don't get me wrong, Henry Cavill was a decent Superman in mostly disappointing movies. The Synder films were rightly criticized for being too dark and not learning the lessons of the aforementioned Batman and X Men: stay true to the source material. Superman as a character can't have a "bad day" because he's so powerful, if he loses his cool, he could level a skyscraper. Chris Hemsworth's portrayal of Thor in the MCU should be their guide. On the surface, Thor is a super-powered Viking warrior. Hemsworth portrayed the character not only true to the source material but light, and the audience got the joke. I hope David Corenswet has a successful run at Superman and hope that James Gunn gives the audience the Superman they've waited for. The idea seems to be that if anyone can do it, he can. This was the guy who made successes of The Guardians of the Galaxy and Peacemaker, characters only diehard comic book fans know. Those characters, however, aren't Superman, and in watching the trailer, there are some odd choices: they've included Krypto, the Superdog, an idea that will either work somehow in the way that James Gunn seems able to make weird ideas work, and then there's the inclusion of the rest of the Justice League, which is a trap so many superhero movies fall into, including every character possible. Some may say that the Superman character doesn't work, but people loved Chris Evans as Captain America. I think Superman as a character can work in today's world, now more than ever, perhaps, as superhero films and comic books have always enjoyed their greatest successes when the world is in peril. The future of the DC cinematic universe rests on Superman's success. It seems safe to say, if the movie bombs, that will put a lot of future projects on the shelf.
​
Marvel has struggled to bring the Fantastic Four to the screen almost as much as DC has struggled with Superman, which is funny, because like Superman, the FF is a flagship property. The key to the Fantastic Four is portraying them as a dysfunctional but close-knit family (which frankly seems like a dynamic more befitting James Gunn ...). From the trailer, the characters look great and seem true to form. Like Gunn's Superman, there are some strange choices here, mainly that this movie takes place in the 1960s, decades before the other films of the MCU and possibly even set in a different universe (I don't think I've ever typed that word so many times in my life). This choice, like the inclusion of Krypto and other things in Gunn's Superman, will either end up being a stroke of genius or an epic fail.
​
What has been missing from some of Marvel's other recent offerings is one of the things that people loved about the Infinity War Saga: the cohesion amongst films. Again, as these films' box office is dependent on non-comic book fan dollars, people may look at the talking rock guy, stretchy man, and floating robot, and say, "No thanks."
​
I don't think the success of the Fantastic Four: First Steps, is as high stakes as the success of Superman is, if for no other reason than the engine that powers Marvel, Disney, is loaded with cash and can shrug off a box office disappointment better than most studios. While Marvel has had a few missteps lately, they've had some successes, too, such as Daredevil: Born Again and Deadpool & Wolverine. If the Fantastic Four doesn't strike gold, the MCU will go on. It is harder to say the same about DC and Superman.
​
Superman and the Fantastic Four are two of my favorites and represent some of best, most fundamental things about comic books: family, loyalty, bravery, and an inherent goodness, even in the face of insurmountable odds. In this post-modern world, these are ideas that don't always resonant with the audience, or don't they? Given the success of the MCU and some DC offerings, I would say they do, especially in times of crisis. I think that people will turn to these two films and six characters as signs of hope, as modern-day myths to inspire them through dark times. At least I hope they do. I know I will, and dammit, I hope they're great.
​
Does Disney need to make a "live action" version of every one of their classics? No, probably not, but toxic fandom is the real problem.
In 2016, the Ghostbusters reboot, starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones, famously drew criticism from fans for its all-female cast. Worse yet, African-American comedian Leslie Jones was trolled mercilessly online for her appearance and for being black. A year later, Star Wars: The Last Jedi's Kelly Marie Tran grew so weary of the racist treatment she got online that she cancelled her social media accounts. When the first trailer for 2023's The Little Mermaid was released, I recall seeing comments on social media from people saying things like, "There's no way in hell I'm taking my kids to see this crap." And now, in 2025, Disney has announced that press won't be allowed at the premiere of Snow White after controversies surrounding stars Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot (Zegler has drawn ire from toxic fans for being Latina and making statements in support of Palestine while Gal Gadot, who is Jewish, has drawn fire for pro-Israel comments). Differing with celebrities about their political views is hardly new but like everything else along these lines in the modern world, we seem to take it to the extreme. I applaud people for staying true to their beliefs and if a celebrity espouses something you don't believe in, then by all means, don't pay to see their movies, buy their music, etc. The concept of outright banishment, often referred to in the modern world as "cancelling," however, character assassination, and online bullying and trolling goes much too far for my tastes.
​
There's no question that people are passionate about these films, but the not-so-quiet outrage when say, the gender of a character is changed or an actor of a different race is cast exposes an ugliness in our society, one that is not new and not a fluke, no matter what some people like to think, but one that has been given a platform with the internet and social media. There's another trend in films these days: the taking of a beloved character and injecting them into a horror film. As everyone knows, I'm a horror guy, but the fact that people are less outraged that Mickey Mouse is a serial killer in 2024's Mouse Trap, or that Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are homicidal monsters in Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey (which also has a sequel, by the way) than they are about an African American Ariel, a Latina Snow White, or an all-female Ghostbusters cast says a great deal about where we are as a culture today (Oh, and if those films sound interesting to you, then you'll be excited to know that Peter Pan and Bambi have their own blood-soaked adventures on the way thanks to all these properties entering the public domain).
​
This reminds me of what comedian Chris Rock called "selective outrage" in his 2023 comedy special of the same name. Recasting beloved children's cartoon characters as blood-thirsty monsters is harmless fun, recasting them with people of other races or with someone's whose political views don't match ours, now that's outrageous.
​
I am not the biggest Disney fan in the world, at least not compared to some, but I am a huge fan of a lot of popular franchises and as such, I can be a purist about stories and characterizations, too. But I also realize that endless sequels, requels, reboots, and recasts are inherently harmless. If the new Snow White film is bad, what exactly does that do to tarnish the original? As an avid reader, I've watched countless adaptations of beloved novels that are terrible movies, and if anything, they make the source material stand out even more, not less.
​
Art, in all its forms, reflects the world and culture from which it comes, and as we live in an increasingly diverse society, the casting of existing characters with actors of color is only a natural expression of that. And, NEWS FLASH, we were a diverse society in the 1930s when most of these movies came out. Watching an old movie with a class once, a Latino student asked me something like, "What, did they just pretend there weren't any Latinos back then?" Basically, yes. Leave it to Beaver would also have you believe that suburban life was pristine and perfect as well as yes, Lilly-White. The John Hughes movies of the 80s and 90s made a kid like me, who always lived in small ranch houses, that once you become an adult, you'll live in some palatial two story mansion with a dozen bedrooms, homes that even then, were likely far out of the price range of most families. Film and television have never been about reality, at least on a fundamental, commercial level, as most of our myths, legends, and stories are not. They represent ideals. Aspirations. Hopes, dreams, and fears. If we object to a black Ariel or Latina Snow White, what does that say about our hopes, dreams, aspirations, and worst yet, our fears?
Some people may feel uncomfortable with minority actors cast as originally white characters, perhaps feeling that they can't relate to them because they don't look like them? That was the case for millions and millions of black, Latino, Asian, Native American, Indian, and Arabic Americans for almost a century of Disney, Warner Brother's Looney Toons, comic books and action movies.
​
Perhaps we can turn our toxic fandom, our selective outrage and that discomfort at seeing a hero or heroine that doesn't look like ourselves into something productive, into dirty words like dialogue and understanding. Perhaps, if we don't agree with our neighbor, our favorite influencer, or the star of a movie we want to see, we can perhaps try and see where they are coming from and why they think they way they do? Crazy ideas, I know.
​
The fact is that no, Disney does not need to make live action versions of all their classics. Some of them rely so heavily on CGI that their "live action" iterations are almost indistinguishable from their animated versions. The first time I saw the trailer for the upcoming "live action" version of How to Train Your Dragon, I didn't even realize it featured real actors until more than half way through it. If they look silly to you, don't go see them. But those among us who attack others - I remember, after the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2015, online trolls tore into Carrie Fisher for how terrible she looked. I would LOVE to see a side-by-side photo of those people as they so bravely insulted a 59 year-old woman via social media post with a picture of what they looked like now compared to 40 years ago. Complaining about Asian actors in Star Wars, about Disney characters recast with minority actors is indefensible. It's wrong on every level. If these films are supposedly for children, what are we teaching them when we act like this?
​
​
​
​
Is it okay for self-published authors to use AI to create their covers?
​
​
I am old enough to remember when the internet came on the scene, but frankly, I don't remember too much about it. I remember hearing little things about it here and there, and I eventually had some friends that used it, upon which I was introduced to the amazing world of chatrooms and dial up internet speeds. At first, it was little more than a curiosity, a fun new computer tool that you could have a little fun on, not something that would eventually change how we live our lives.
​
I know, having done some research, that along with the proliferation of the internet, there was conversation happening that forecasted nothing short of the end of learning and perhaps humanity itself as a result of this new technology (and who knows, maybe they were right!). If you read those articles now, they sound a lot like the things people are saying about AI.
​
I follow a lot of writing groups on Facebook and get a lot of articles forwarded my way, and there seems to be a split in how people view AI. Some think it will destroy creativity as we know it and some think that opposite, that it will even enhance it.
​
There are some writers out there in the self-publishing world that seem vehemently opposed to the usage of AI in the publication of books, even using it to create cover art. When you read the comments on these blogs, Facebook pages, etc., they often read something like, "I am sick of this AI crap" or "The rest of us out here are doing it ourselves!" or stating flatly, "I wouldn't touch this crap based on the AI cover."
​
So ... should writers use AI in the production of their self-published books?
​
There are passionate arguments on both sides of the issue and I tend to respect both camps. New technology, especially one with the enormous potential and implications of AI, always causes a great deal of anxiety in a culture. Change is always hard and we seem to regard every new technology as the death of an older one. Television was going to kill radio, streaming was going to kill TV, streaming music was going to kill records, and so on. Today, radio is still big business, television, while changed, is still here, and people still buy vinyl records. Without question, new technology has changed the way we interact with our entertainment, but it hasn't destroyed it. While the emergence of these new technologies has impacted these industries - and every industry in our society, said industries, if they are to survive, must adapt, which I wonder if that is not the bigger problem. It is hard for people, from corporations on down to individuals, to think outside the box and adapt their thinking. But if we don't adapt, we don't survive (see: Blockbuster Video).
​
Don't get me wrong ... I have a great deal of concerns with the proliferation of AI technology and worry what it will do to creativity, learning, business, human interaction, any number of things, for while my generation was here for the emergence of the internet, AI is the internet on steroids. As an educator, I don't advocate for using AI to write your essays and do your homework, nor do I think writers should use it to write their stories or novels. Is it possible though, over the next decade or so, our concepts of what it means to "write" and "do our own work" might change? These are some of the conversations we are having in education and are wondering what that will look like, and if AI continues to advance - and it will - keep that in mind, this is just the beginning, AI will only get more and more advanced, so whether I like it or not, and yes, we might have to change some of our ideas about creativity, and that is scary. However, I can't deny the amazing potential for AI as a tool.
​
I have been an avid user of AI for the past year or so. I often go to AI first to ask a question before I go to a search engine, because I often get a more concise answer. I have had it explain concepts I don't understand. I have used it in my work to generate ideas for teaching lessons. And while I have not used it to write text for any of my books and short stories, I have used it to create my covers.
​
I would love it it I could afford a professional editor to proofread my books and a professional graphic designer to make my covers. But I am a divorced single dad and a public educator, so I am not exactly rolling in dough. I consider myself fortunate to live in an era in which self-publishing is so easy and I have the capability of creating decent covers. Just a decade or so ago, I saw some of the covers that self-published authors creating with the web services of the time and believe me, the technology has come a LONG way. If my circumstances change, I would be happy to pay an artist to design my covers, and editor to comb my manuscripts, and someone else to do all the promotion, but that is not where I am.
​
I am cautiously in the camp of people who believe that we should use AI as a tool to help make what we already have even better. While the potential for AI technology is different than many things of generations past, who among us would turn off our spell-checkers on our computers? How many of us refuse to use a calculator to do math? Take a modern medication to manage some ailment? Do we turn off our heaters or air-conditioners in order to "tough it out" like our forefathers? The next time we go buy a new car, do we tell the salesperson we don't want power windows, Sirius XM enabled radios, or heated seats because "that's cheating?" That's pretty unlikely and if you do, my hat is off to you.
​
I think it is fine with writers to use AI to create their covers and I encourage it. It involves them even more in the creative process of the design and marketing of their book. I respect the opposition to usage of AI and respect anyone's decision NOT to, but I think it is a tool that is here to stay and we might as well learn how to use it sooner rather than later.
​
Oh, and full disclosure, I totally used AI for that picture. When I do use AI, I always cite it:
​
Image created with OpenAI's DALL-E, prompted by Jason Parker on 2/21/2025.
​