The comic movie biz was in really bad shape when Blade came out. Blade got people into comic stores while giving comic fans a glimmer of hope that comic movies wouldn't continue to suck. It was certainly like this at the comic stores in NJ. That movie was loved around here and certainly in the comic press of the time.
Well, I was only 12 when B&R came out and 13 when Blade came out. I got my comics usually from the grocery stores (wish they still did that) and only visited the comic stores every once in a while. So maybe I wasn't "in the know" enough.
Do you remember 1988? The reaction was way less than positive. (I do get to say that I was on the "right side of history" on that one. Keaton was and is awesome.) Unless you're saying that the reaction WITHOUT the internet was intense and WITH the internet would have been much more intense.
There is a hilarious moment in the commentary for X-Men where Singer says how he had to frame a shot (it's somewhere around Liberty Island) so that both Wolverine AND Jean Grey didn't appear taller than poor Cyclops.
I was 4. So, no. And, all I'm saying is that the reaction would have been far more rampant and hostile.
I knew someone who was overjoyed at Keaton's casting because he was certain that that guaranteed that the movie was going to be an Adam West-style romp.
I don't personally count the Blade films as superhero movies, but I do think they deserve a share of the credit in helping the genre move forward. Not in terms of audience acceptance, since Blade's success says more about vampires than superheroes, but in terms of studio decisions I do think Blade made them more willing to take a chance on lesser known comic book characters and actually put some real effort into it.
The only thing that makes me sceptical about this is the question of how many studio execs making those decisions even knew it was a comic book property in the first place? Typically they're not often that well informed about anything not covered on the quarterly report. I imagine to most of them it was "that vampire movie with guns". And I suppose one might argue that the diminishing returns and shallow cash-in nature of the Blade sequels somewhat undermines this idea too. I'm not saying Blade wasn't a significant stepping stone on the creative side, I'm just not sure it had much impact on the suits.
Maybe I'm overestimating their competence, but I would assume most of them would be more likely to know where different properties had come from - especially successful properties. And I don't think the Blade sequels are really relevant - Blade gave the genre a little push to get it towards the state it was in 2000/2001. By the time the Blade sequels came out, the genre had already proven itself on its own terms.
Well the sequels are relevant in the sense that they're indicative of what the suits were thinking when they greenlit them and that was: "more guns, more action, more horror, more vampire stuff!" not "more content faithfully adapted from the comic books!" If the first movie really had made it easier to pitch comic book concepts then surely the latter would have been the case and not the former, no? And that's the suits that actually made the thing, never mind ones at other studios. That plus the fact that the first X-Men movie sort of slipped in the side door pretending to be a science fiction movie and was still mostly ashamed to admit it was really a superhero movie.
IMO, that's a whole different discussion. The breakthrough in the early 2000s was the willingness to even use these characters at all and give them decent budgets and real writing and acting talent. The insistence on also chopping them up and stuffing them with standard hollywood cliches at the expense of the source material persisted for years after, almost across the board. Not just in the Blade films, but the X-Men films, the Spider-man films, Hulk, Daredevil, Elektra, Catwoman, the Batman reboot, the FF, Ghost Rider, the Punisher, etc, etc. The breakthrough point when source material actually became a relevant consideration rather then just some background stuff to be ignored in favor of doing an original story about a mish-mash of pre-existing and original elements was a completely separate development that began far closer to the end of the decade than the beginning. Around the time of (the incredibly faithful) Watchmen and the first Iron Man (which wasn't very faithful narratively but did fully embrace the comic book visual style that almost all other projects very determinedly ran away from).
I'd argue that a greater respect for the material (on respectable budgets at least) started with Rami's Spider-Man movies, which lifted plot lines and even iconic panel compositions straight from the page. 'The Dark Knight' is what raised the profile of the genre to the point where it was proven to be more than just light popcorn fare. As much as I do like 'Watchmen', I think it's financial disappointment had a decidedly mixed impact on future films, especially since it's production came on the back of '300' and 'Sin City' and their sequels had disappointing returns too. As for faithfulness...while Watchmen certainly looked the part, I'm not sure Snyder ever really grasped the thematic underpinnings of it all.
He reversed Ozmandias' evil plot. Originally it was a failed invasion. The pretend Alien army was "accidentally" killed by their own teleporters, while they took out new York in the process. Dr Manhattan forced to become the bogeyman, like Batman taking the fall for Harvey Dent's crimes, didn't require that much of a leap. Sure they are above different laws, one is above the laws of man and the other is above the laws of nature, but it amounts to the same thing that they will on a long enough timeline, justify doing something awful, in the name of the greater good
So, the Skrull are nicely done and Jackson - well, he's just fun to see like this. As in the first trailer, Larson's got nothing going on here - she comes across with all the command and charisma of the second Scooby from the left on a CW DC show. Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, this is not. Maybe Black Widow...
Wonder Wonder was a generic B movie. Nothing more. It won't take much to be a better movie than the Captain America wannabe.
The $800M+ box office, almost as large as BvS's and $100M+ larger than JL's on a much smaller budget, refutes the idea that WW was "nothing more" than "a generic B movie."
We're supposed to trust the guy who takes his name from a b level musician on what constitutes a b level movie?