Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by RAMA, Apr 26, 2013.
In the former case, led to move movies, whereas the last two Batman flicks resulted in zero. And in the latter case, everybody laughed at them. Franchises that are poorly regarded by people, not critics, become financial failures. Besides, even in the heyday of Supes and Batman, they were pretty much the only two around. What X-Men showed is that the genre was commercially viable again.
EDIT: and the last movie of each franchise, Superman and Batman, lost money.
Box office is short-term success, sure. Viability, the long-term success, is trickier.
Wow, what a "failure" this movie is. A "complete flop". lol
Batman Forever still had other studios wanting to chase that kind of box office. Marvel was pushing to get films made at that point precisely because of how much money Batman was still making circa 1995. Thereafter Batman faltered and the Marvel films stepped in as the impetus of the next wave of films.
Batman led to a fair number of comic book movies in the 1990s, far more than had been made in the 1980s. The wave from the 2000s that continues through to the present is again that much larger. Each wave has gotten bigger in succession.
The original "Batman" and "Superman" film series each lasted for four films, and five of the eight were extremely successfull. A four-film series is a huge success by any measure. Just looking at the last film of each series to prove that they eventually wound down is an unfair comparison.
By that standard, the failures of "daredevil," "catwoman," "hulk," and "elektra" prove that the 2000s were a bad decade for comic book movies.
Blade is not a superhero. He's a comic book character. If appearing in a comicbook makes you a super hero then Scrooge McDuck is also a superhero.
It's pretty funny how you avoid addressing my actual argument. You act as though Batman And Robin and Superman IV never existed. Those are the movies that sunk the franchises, and in each case the previous outings were of markedly lower quality than the first two chapters. The superhero genre was in dire straights, and Marvel stepped in, as Out of My Vulcan Mind pointed out.
Blade is a superhero. He is even listed as part of the superhero genre on boxofficemojo.
I did address your argument. Your argument is to ignore the huge successes of both franchises in order to focus on the ONE FILM in each series that did poorly.(and actually, "batman and robin" STILL made $107 million domestically)
And as I pointed out, ignoring the successes to focus on the failures is not a fair way of looking at it.
That's nice. Like others, they conflate comic book with superhero. Blade is a guy who hunts Vampires and is a human/vampire hybrid. He was created in the Tomb of Dracula series, a horror comic. So, is Jack Russell, the central character in Werewolf By Night also a Superhero?
I'm worried about Paramount's promotion here in venezuela. We are 3 weeks away from the Film and I haven't seen the first POSTER.
How the hell is Blade not a superhero he's a fucking super human/vampire wrecking machine.
The characters in the Underworld movies have superpowers because they're vampires and werewolves, but they're not superheroes. The line as to who is and isn't a superhero can be a little fuzzy. I'd say Blade has become more of a superhero character in the comics over the years as he's become more enmeshed in the Marvel Universe and has joined superhero groups, but most moviegoers wouldn't look at the Blade movies as superhero movies. They'd see them as horror action movies.
Blade and Werewolf by Night had each paired up with Spider-Man in Marvel Team-Up in the 70s/80s (I have the comics in a box in my basement). That doesn't make them classic "superheroes", of course, but it puts them into the same playground.
Because he fights vampires for a living and was created in a horror comic to fight Dracula, not Doctor Doom or Magneto. He's a horror character. Just as Swamp Thing is a horror character not a superhero.
Horror characters can become superheroes in the comics thanks to the shared universe. If Blade is rubbing shoulders with superheroes, joining superhero teams and sometimes fighting regular supervillains then he becomes a superhero. But the New Line Blade movies weren't part of a shared universe. They were just horror action movies. What Marvel does with Blade now that they've got the rights back remains to be seen.
So, the comic stories in which they appear are horror stories? Do they tend more toward gothic, Stephen King, or slasher type stories?
X-Men and Spider-Man launched the current cycle of big-budget blockbuster super-hero movies by doing two things differently: they both took the material entirely seriously, and Spider-Man embraced the visual iconography and story material of the comic book pretty unreservedly.
Yeah, as I said earlier, Blade was an important movie for Marvel, but it wasn't perceived by most moviegoers as a superhero movie. X-Men and Spider-Man were the movies that got moviegoers engaged with superhero movies again and that led to a broadening of the superhero genre on screen.
True, but I'm referring to what he was created to be and as you pointed out, how he was presented in the film. The filmmakers didn't buy a superhero property.
Separate names with a comma.