Screenwriting : Can a Big IP’s Success Harm Original IP? by Leonardo Ramirez

I’ve been thinking about the difference between trend chasing and psychological forecasting. Because by the time most of us finish writing, polishing, and packaging a project, today’s trend is usually over.

What will audiences be hungry for by the time this project reaches them? Trends change quickly. Human nature doesn’t. The stories that last often aren’t the ones chasing the moment, but the ones arriving just as people realize they needed them.

What’s your gut telling you, Leonardo Ramirez?

Great take Adam J. Spencer and I think the point to hone in on is "human nature doesn't". I've been kindly encouraged to set aside my animated projects for a time when the trend changes to allow for original IP in animation. My gut says that there are plenty of matters of the heart that are in need of expression and they don't need to be expressed in one genre. My gut says to keep going, keep expressing and keep my eyes on that task. The rest will fall into place when it's supposed to.

I found myself doing something similar about six months ago. Not because anyone told me to, but because I felt I needed to strengthen my craft. I shifted my focus to live action, especially contained genre pieces, and they taught me lessons I don’t think I would’ve learned if I’d stayed exclusively in animation.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve returned to one of my animated screenplays, and it’s been rewarding to realize those lessons came back with me. The imagination is still free to roam, but now it’s guided by a stronger sense of story.

Your observation is spot on. It's so hard to keep up with Hollywood mandates. By the time you have something ready to fit the mandate of this month, it'll already be old news; they'll be looking for something completely different.

All of this to say, everyone is just chasing trends and taking their best educated guess based on numbers that don't necessarily translate from one project to the nest. Personally, I feel like execs at many of the large studios are terrified they'll get a flop, so they lean really hard on the data -- sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

What I feel it really boils down to is good story and good character. Keep writing what YOU want to write because eventually the trends will swing in your direction and you'll have something ready for that moment.

Adam J. Spencer - I feel like I was pulled into drama because of this. Still loved the process just the same, if not more. World building is fun but it also comes easy. Relying solely on dramatic elements is something I've come to enjoy. No regrets here.

You hit the nail on the head Delenn Kerkhof - write what we want to write. It's ready for the right person to come along. Until then, here's to the journey.

That's a sharp observation, and the implication that a massive IP win can derail conversations about original projects is a real concern because studios tend to chase whatever just worked, even if it's not sustainable. Do you think the success of a film like this actually harms original IP, or does it just shift the focus for a few months before the cycle moves on?

Stop obsessing about the winds. Every day's aa brand new day. Another chance to tap into your creativity.

Hey Samantha Rivera - chasing big IP is the only feedback I've received from managers in all honesty. But I'm not discouraged in the slightest. I've enjoyed the journey and the people here - I keep creating and enjoying the process and the lovely creatives that I get to engage with.

No trend can stop that. ;o)

I come at this not from someone in the industry, as I'm not, but someone with an interest in human behaviour and societal patterns. The two camps in favour of franchises tend to feel that either A. they are just giving people what they want, otherwise it wouldn't sell so well, or B. that people can be managed and told what they want, and we create the market, like in any form of advertising. Both are technically correct, but I still think it's part of a bigger issue.

My concern is that maybe our society as a whole has nothing left original to say? While artists and creative people are still making new work, the general public doesn't seem as keen on it. It can be seen with architecture, that is bland and soulless compared to previous works. It can be seen with music, that is made to be a hit for two weeks then easily forgotten. It can be seen with car design, when you can't tell any car apart in a parking lot any more. It can be seen in urban design. And when it comes to film, it seems the only two things making it huge are franchises or reboots. I have to think that is part of a bigger problem with our culture.

Maybe people are losing their ability to use their imaginations? To think outside the box? To emotionally connect with new characters they aren't already familiar with? Maybe they're so worried about money and stress and the state of the world, that it's just easier to tune out to something you're already familiar with?

When "Star Wars" was made it was considered a risk. Same with so many other films that changed our culture and how we see the world, or from my point of view that changed me and how I see the world. A lot of people are still willing to take risks with movie-making, but the general public doesn't seem as open to new things as they used to be. That, to me, is the real problem.

Because of this apathy and malaise from our culture, I try and write my scripts in a way that gets people thinking, feeling, or using their imagination again, while addressing a social concern and entertaining along the way. They are maybe more of a risk than following a set formula, but in the same way I was changed and saw the world a little differently due to certain films, I aim to do the same with my writing, and maybe wake the odd person up.

Interesting question, Leonardo.

I don't think the success of a major franchise hurts original IP by itself. What it does is remind studios that audiences love great stories they already know.

At the same time, every successful franchise was once an original idea. Without creators willing to take risks on new stories, there would be no future franchises to celebrate.

Perhaps the real challenge is finding the right balance between investing in proven worlds and giving original voices the opportunity to become the next generation of great IP.

Thank you for raising such an important discussion.

I don't even believe in following mandates because no matter what I write for myself first. I don't think I can possibly keep up with mandates especially when they get more and more specific and continually shift, and my stuff naturally runs weird so my rejection rate is high.

That being said, I know full well thanks to YouTubers like The Real Life Fake Wizard that audiences are hungry for original stories that aren't big IPs and reflect true human emotion and that's what encourages me to share my work.

From the audience's perspective, I don't think most moviegoers choose a film because they know who wrote the screenplay or whether it's based on existing IP. Most people simply want a great story. However, from the business side, I do believe major franchises influence the market. Studios naturally prefer recognizable brands because they reduce financial risk. That can make it more difficult for original screenplays—especially those from emerging writers—to get attention. Original stories still have the potential to become the next great franchise, but they often have fewer opportunities to prove themselves.

I'm a HUGE superhero movies/television/anything fan. For years, the "bad" industry people have been saying that the superhero movies and IP movies are dead. As a screenwriter, it would make me wante to PUKE. BAD STORYTELLING IS DEAD; GOOD STORYTELLING IS ALIVE. A well told story will always captivate audiences and win at the box office. Throw in great CGI and a killer score/soundtrack...BAM! You got a great movie (that's big IP, of course). the Spider Man franchise has always brought the audiences to the theaters. As a screenwriter of big budget movies (Movie Studios, I'm here for ya') telling great stories is always priority over anything superficial like prose, grammar or even "art". Entertainment is key. That's all I got about that...

Franchise success does not harm original IP. It harms original IP that is small, generic, or not world‑driven. The industry is not looking for “another Spider‑Man.” It is looking for new worlds that can stand beside the big franchises. Strong original IP is not threatened by billion‑dollar films. It is validated by them.

I'm from a different world of computer architecture but the road to success is fairly universal. In Movieland they would translate to these rules:

1. Unless you are an established screen writer make sure you have another source of income.

2. Each success ups your score by 4 or 5. Wide distribution can raise this to a 10.

3. Each failure knocks your score down by 2 or 3.. Spectacular failures can knock your score by 10 or more. Spectacular failures sometimes can be more eroding than great successes can be building

4. Find mentors, friends in the business, and friends in general, wherever you can get them. Business is positive two-way contact, sharing knowledge and be inquisitive.

If you're a multi-hydra, like Disney, you're looking at the box office 'Brand New Day,' 'Lilo and Stich', and 'Zootopia 2' and 'Inside Out 2' versus the box office of something like 'Wish' or 'Hoppers' and you're thinking that what the public really wants are more regurgitations of comfortable products, like baby birds in a nest. But numbers don't tell the whole story. For every 'Zootopia 2', they release a 'Moana' and 'Snow White' live action; failures of the nuclear bomb variety that don't seem to harm the company at all. There's no originality at Disney because they don't see the money and marketing potential outside of comfortable nostalgia. Pixar may be different, but recent disappointments like 'Elio' and even 'Hoppers' may make them think twice about future original offerings.

To them, it's all a business.

To us as writers, yes, this is something we should notice or keep in mind. None of this, however, should stop any of us from pursuing our own original work and or try to stop telling original stories. That's partially because the most original, bleeding edge stories are not happening on the big screen right now; or at least their not getting the marketing budgets that let us know they exist. They most original content is happening on the streaming services and YouTube, like 'The Backrooms' or 'Possession' for example. Both of those movies were hits two.

In short, I hate statements like the one in this article because it's incredibly short sighted. I have stories I want to tell; and that's all I really want to do. Spiderman can't stop that.

As a comic book fan and writer, I’m thrilled to see Spider-Man's huge success, but as someone trying to make a way in this industry, it definitely gives you food for thought.

I get that when a blockbuster hits like this, executives naturally stick to what's safe—there’s a lot of money at stake. But the irony is that all these giant franchises started as an original, risky idea that someone was brave enough to back.

Sequels keep the theaters full, but original stories are what keep the industry from running out of ideas down the road. I really hope the business finds a way to keep a balance between both.

I like some of the superhero movies but would like to see new adaptations, including from comics generally. I tried for years to get the rights permission for the General Jumbo character from the Beano comic but the owners would not grant it. Jumbo is a ten year old boy with a remote control army six inches tall, helicopters, tanks, the full nine yards.

Just write - and they will come.

I appreciate the hard working pre production production and post production crew, actors and actresses vfx artists of ILM no matter how good or bad the project is, but I personally have no respect for the MCU Spiderman Universe because of the script writing. Tobey Mcguire version was like Christopher Reeve legacy, Andrew Garfield version though unnecessary to reboot, the reboot was good, served like Brandon Routh Superman. MCU version scrapped it off completely. When I saw Spidey in civil war I was looking forward but, the post credit itself killed it. I expected some dignity to the original and expected Ben Parker to be saved after the shot. Eventhough his accident served a realization saving him will also mske Spidey realize more like value of cherishing what we got. Gratitude stuffs. Because Spidey needs that kind of figure to navigate find his parents and their experiments. Since it's a screenwriter discussion i openly spoke. Otherwise I wouldn't. Since talking as layman won't change the way MCU is going.

Also... The Odyssey, an adaptation, is also chasing a billion box office bucks. If they tell a new story or provide a serious new angle then it's all good. And if it turns bad... well, in the case of Spiderman, comics are famous (or infamous) for retcons.

On that note, James Bond took a dip with the poorly received Die Another Day, but recovered with a reboot in Casino Royale. And that's one key thing with established IPs, they can sleep for a bit and start anew.

Big IP will always be Big IP. But there's plenty of room for quality original IP as well. Not everything has to be a home run, but it does need to resonate with audiences and be profitable.

Wow...great discussion. Keep 'em coming. All that being said, it feels like the common thread is that franchise success and original IP aren't enemies. But I can also relate to Adam's comment about the culture being used to big IP. I remember feeling that way when my first graphic novel released and I was sitting in a comic store watching customers come in for my favorite comics. That is by no means, a rant. I will always love comics big IPs. And I also embrace the fact that at one time, every big IP was an original idea. The original post was never meant to be a complaint but instead, an observation with a thread of hope attached to it. So what's the answer?

I think the answer lies in paying attention to the market, which we should be doing anyway, but never let it dictate what we write and where our heart takes us. We are, after all, supposed to enjoy the journey. In the meantime, I'll be watching Spider-Man: Brand New Day with much excitement.

Michael Dzurak Ray Fontenault It's not just IP. Why Supergirl Failed — Twice. Some ideas are just wrong to begin with..

It wasn't the script. It wasn't the actors. It wasn't the imagery. It was the idea itself — and Hollywood has now proven that twice, forty-two years apart.

Action Comics introduced Superman in 1938 — a nondescript man of extraordinary strength who walked anonymously among us, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Americans of all ages embraced him. The initial print run of 200,000 sold out almost immediately; another 500,000 followed and vanished from shelves just as fast. By the time the original series ended in 2011, more than 600 million copies had sold.

Thirty-four years after Superman first appeared, in 1972, DC gave Supergirl her own standalone title. The initial print run was in the low thousands. Within two years, the book was gone — and even DC didn't advertise how sparse the sales had been.

Hollywood didn't read the room, let alone the map on its way to failure. The idea didn't connect with the audience.

In 1984, the first Supergirl film bombed at the box office. Forty-two years, a full studio rebrand, and a completely different creative regime later, DC Studios tried again — Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow, June 2026, with an acclaimed director, a rising star lead, and the full weight of the newly relaunched DC Universe behind it. It opened soft and then collapsed, one of the worst second-weekend drops in the genre's history, on track to cost the studio well over $100 million. Two attempts, two different eras, one answer: audiences do not want a female-flavored copy of an existing male hero. They want something built for them from the ground up.

Superman and Supergirl are make-believe — powers, capes, planets. The audience knows that, and it's part of the appeal for the audience that shows up for it. But that's not the same audience Hollywood is chasing when it looks for the next female-led thriller. That audience isn't buying fantasy. They're buying a woman they believe could be real — flawed, cornered, dangerous — and watching her win. They want catharsis over a cape.

Ideas are what get people to hand over their money and sit in a dark room with strangers. Box office isn't just measured in dollars, even if that's the language producers speak in — it's measured in the fists people clench, the way they recoil at a shock cut, the sound of scotch tape being pulled off a wall when E.T. leaves. Parents and children alike couldn't help but cry at that scene. That's the real currency. Spiderman: #81 (or whatever number) is all about the IP connecting with the target audience.

Robert Zwerneman, that's a very interesting and well-reasoned take. Made me think of other DC IPs such as the successful Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, yet at the same, the less successful Justice League film, yet with solo films from that, such as Wonder Woman, being actually very successful. It's a crazy toss up, it seems.

With your eye for deeper metrics, what do you see there?

Michael Dzurak Wonder Woman wasn't a knock-off like Supergirl. She was created out of whole cloth and didn't really have superpowers, just cool toys, kinda like Batman. Nolan made Batman standout. Well, that and Heath Ledger was a phenomenally better Joker than anyone - ever..

The Justice League was a mishmash of big names and that's about where it ended. For lack of a better word, the choreography of the ensemble was the challenge to begin with. Marvel pulled it off, DC Comics didn't. Not their first or last mistake. Other than that, I think someone needs to write a feature where the Teletubbies threaten to blow-up Toon Town and Sesame Street. Okay, maybe not.