How the hell is Blade not a superhero
he's a fucking super human/vampire wrecking machine.
STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
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.How the hell is Blade not a superhero
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.
How the hell is Blade 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.
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.
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.
I'm just noticing something on Paramount's GLOBAL SITES & RELEASE DATES page. With the exception of Brazil, all the Latin American countries listed link to the same page: the one for Mexico (also to the 'StarTrek.MX' Facebook page) and half of those listed opened in May. Could they have spent the whole promo budget on those early openings?
No you didn't. I've already explained it to you twice. You ignored the movies that killed the two franchises and led to reboots several years later, and only became successful once Marvel launched their own brand with Blade and X-men. Not my problem if you don't understand what I'm saying.
right, which is what I wrote. You focused on two movies out of eight, both of which came at the tail end of two hugely successfull franchises, just to cherry pick data to support your argument while dismissing all of the other successfull movies. I understand exactly what you're arguing, it's just silly. "Well if you dismiss the hugely successfull parts of the series, you'll see that they weren't actually very successfull at all."
And I really don't think that the success of the Nolan films was a result of "Blade," "X-Men," or "Spider-Man."
"Batman" did that in 1989.
As did Superman in 1978. I think, though, that X-Men and Spider-Man were made in styles that were easier to apply as templates to other comic book movies than Donner's Superman or Burton's Batman, although the first half of Donner's Superman was influential on both Singer and Raimi in putting their respective Marvel superhero films together.
And so did Superman in 1978. However, most modern comic book movies today aren't like Superman nor Batman, especially the later entries. It's my opinion but I think the current wave of movies has been so successful because they put an emphasis on a solid Hollywood presentation, overcoming stigma over the comic book source. I think it's why JJ Trek has been successful as well.
EDIT: Was writing this as Out Of My Vulcan Mind posted but looks like we were thinking on the same wavelength (scarily so on the first line).
I'm feeling it may just scrape the $450.
Now you have me imagining the big dance number.