Comic book fans like myself have a bittersweet relationship with Hollywood these days. On one hand, nothing is more exhilarating than watching the polychromatic heroes leap out of the pages of our childhoods onto the silver screen. On the other hand, that very nostalgia makes even the most miniscule of changes to each property’s respective mythos tantamount to blasphemy. (Case in point, the collective brick shat by the internet fanboys when Sony announced that Spider-man was to have organic web-shooters.) There is nothing worse than seeing Hollywood mangle your most beloved of superheroes. But despite the fickle nature of fans, Hollywood continues to produce comic book- based films. In light of the recent overwhelming box-office success of critically panned films like “Ghost Rider” and “Spider-Man 3,” perhaps an investigation as to why comic book movies are so popular with Hollywood is in order.

If the banality of the Hollywood product in recent years is any indication, things in Tinseltown run on equal parts formula and predictability. You see it in the preponderance of sequels that choke up the multiplexes during the summer months — “Pirates of the Caribbean 3,” “Rush Hour 3,” and “Harry Potter 5” are only the most recent of examples. Ever since the entertainment industry discovered that the superhero was a profitable blockbuster vehicle with “Superman: The Movie” over thirty years ago, tights have been the name of the game. However, it has only been in the last ten years or so that these superhero movies — particularly with heroes from the Marvel universe — have become super lucrative franchises, spawning merchandising and licensing opportunities galore.

The main reason? The stories. Comics as we know them arguably get their start with Superman’s first appearance in Action Comics #1 in 1938, and Hollywood is still using his origin story over seventy years later. Characters like Batman, Spider-man and the X-men have nearly a half century’s worth of stories ripe for exploitation. All any of the major studios need to do to cash in on the trend is to buy the creative license to the character and to hire a screenwriter (probably David Goyer) to translate it for the screen. This summer’s “Fantastic Four: The Rise of the Silver Surfer” is based on a story by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby done way back in 1966. If Hollywood is still doing stories from the 60s, we’ll be seeing many more comic based movies in the years to come. Why? Comics are movie-ready stories. They are full of the necessary ingredients for a successful movie — action, romance and memorable characters. There is such a ready pool of material, it is a veritable goldmine.

Comic book movies also tap into a cinema of spectacle. The concept of the superhero is particularly suited to the idea of “bigger is better” — especially from the technical standpoint. Special effects wizardry breathes life into these (literally) two-dimensional characters and in return, the characters allow for greater exploration into SFX technologies. For instance, though “Ghost Rider” was one of the worst movies ever to be produced, the effects that turned Nicolas Cage into a burning skulled spirit of vengeance were groundbreaking and a treat to watch. Audiences go to see these films to see what these characters would look like in the real world — the suspension of disbelief necessary for the films has been minimized by the imaginations of the special effects companies that make even the most fantastical things believable.

In a world where everything can be packaged and sold, the superhero movie is a marketing homerun. First off, these characters already have an established audience which is guaranteed to camp outside the local theater for opening day tickets. Comic book fans are some of the most rabid fans out there — only heroin addicts and Yankees fans are as fervent about their passions. Secondly, the characters’ likenesses can be plastered on everything from lunchboxes to Band-aids and because of the prevailing cultural awareness of these characters, the image on the box of ‘whatevers’ will boost both the sales of the product and, retroactively, ticket sales. Deals struck by the marketing departments from the studios disseminate their products into every conceivable purchasable item and niche market so that, before you know it, you have handed over your money, thereby feeding the machine and funding the further perpetuation of these products.

Marketability of a film isn’t just about corn flakes and Pop Tarts, though. It’s also about who you can sell. When you attach a recognized name like Edward Norton as the Incredible Hulk or Tobey Maguire as The Amazing Spider-Man, star power combines with super powers for surefire hits. Studios will often market a film based solely on the talent associated with it but because names like The Fantastic Four are already embedded in the cultural lexicon, it is like having an extra big name celebrity to place on the marquee.

Unlike the latest Spielberg or Tarantino flick, these movies appeal to an extremely wide demographic. Take “Spider-Man 3” as an example. It made $59 million opening day and $426 million worldwide in its first week alone. Why? Because the love story appeals to young women and the action sequences appeals to men (especially those aged 18-39). Kids want to go because Spider-Man is on their cereal box. Parents want to go because they grew up reading comics. Twenty-to thirty-year old virgins want to see it because they can’t get a girlfriend and want to sublimate their sexual repression into watching two hours of men in tights. Everyone wins. Especially Sony.

But this isn’t entirely a bad thing. The success of comic franchises like “Spider-Man” allows studios to tap lesser-known comic properties. The single frame of Alan Moore’s psychotic anti-hero Rorschach inserted into an internet-exclusive trailer for Zach Snyder’s “300” set the internet aflame with rumors about “Watchmen.” Though my own personal desire is to never see the “‘Citizen Kane’ of comics” turned into a film because it is untranslatable (it is a commentary on form), if there is even an inkling of interest, chances are it will be made. Who knows what countless comics, mainstream or underground, are out there waiting to be exploited by the Hollywood machine. How long will it be before we see the “Jimmy Corrigan” movie or “Persepolis?”

Though it pains me to watch a bad translation of a comic I love hobble its way onto the silver screen, I think that comic book movies are here to stay. The good ones make up for the bad ones. For every “Elektra” you have your “Batman Begins.” For every “The Punisher,” you have your “Spider-Man.” If it gets people excited about these characters and potentially gets them to go to their local comic shops, by Odin’s beard, I hope Hollywood keeps mining comics until every last cape has been flown and every super-villain has been jailed. Hopefully in twenty years’ time, we’ll finally get the pleasure of seeing that Fing Fang Foom movie all the kids have been clamoring for. Ah, one can only dream.