Is this the movie that started it all?
-
IMDB_Vits — 11 years ago(May 27, 2014 07:07 PM)
No,
Burton
's
BATMAN
showed that super-hero movies can be dark.
BLADE
and
S
P
A
W
N
slightly expanded on that by being R-rated, but they weren't really groundbreaking.
X-MEN
showed that super-hero movies can be deep. -
midwestdawg83 — 9 years ago(October 10, 2016 09:48 PM)
Spawn was not released as an R-rated film in theaters. The animated HBO films were great, but the theatrical movie doesn't hold up well at all when you look at the special effects and the terrible action sequences. Plus, Todd McFarlane's horrendous acting.
Batman is a dark character to begin with, not to say Blade isn't either, but the first Batman wasn't that dark compared to "Batman Returns" and that film killed the Keaton franchise.
Blade spawned a trilogy with the lead being an African-American superhero, which had not existed before in movie history. It was groundbreaking for a superhero movie because of it's bloodshed. It got banned in Jamaica when it was released. It also paved the way for action horror movies, like "Resident Evil" and "Hellboy".
me. -
Times_Up — 11 years ago(June 18, 2014 11:07 AM)
Men In Black
would be the movie that started it all for Marvel really, but
Blade
did it for both the genre and continued Marvel's success. Then came
X-Men
which was the 1st major hit based on a flagship title and not obscure stuff and finally came
Spider-Man
, a huge hit and their mascot character.
Tell me something are you fellas really with the Internal Revenue Service?- The Omega Man
-
war-path — 11 years ago(June 19, 2014 07:32 PM)
Men In Black would be the movie that started it all for Marvel really, but Blade did it for both the genre and continued Marvel's success.
If you're going that far back and not saying BLADE is what started it all for Marvel, then instead of Men In Black, you'd probably be more accurate in writing that the very first Crow movie 20 years ago starring Brandon Lee in his final role would be what started it all for Marvel. It was the first R-rated comic book movie that was successful at the box office, I believe. I could be wrong on that, and would like to be corrected about it if indeed I am wrong. -
koffeenkreame41-1 — 11 years ago(June 24, 2014 08:42 AM)
Agreed, The Crow did it well. But as for this generation of superhero films, people sadly forget Blade is even a Marvel comics character, even though Stan Lee is credited in all the opening scenes.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna*beep*wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens. -
war-path — 11 years ago(July 03, 2014 04:36 PM)
Agreed, The Crow did it well.
Thanks.
But as for this generation of superhero films, people sadly forget Blade is even a Marvel comics character, even though Stan Lee is credited in all the opening scenes. [
]
Indeed. It's BLADE that Marvel and the rest of the comic book/superhero movies have to be thankful to. Just like what Batman 1989 did as the 90's was dawning, so did Blade in 1998 for the new millennium, the 2000's. -
brightmidnight71 — 11 years ago(July 16, 2014 11:08 AM)
It's very true that most of the movie-going public didn't know Blade was a comic book character when the film, and that was ok, because it didn't cater to the typical comic book audience, i.e. teens. If anything, Blade opened the gates for modern vampire movies that incorporate more science than supernatural, like the Underworld series and countless others. This is the first film I can think of where the ideas of bullets of concentrated garlic and UV lamps, and other high tech gadgets being used against vampires.
Same for The Crow. Not every goth kid who worshipped that movie knew or even cared that it was a comic first. Only hardcore fans.
There are plenty of movies that borrowed from comics. the original Punisher was really dark and grittythen there's Hellboy
X-Men opened the floodgates for straight comic adaptations. -
war-path — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 10:37 AM)
It's very true that most of the movie-going public didn't know Blade was a comic book character when the film, and that was ok, because it didn't cater to the typical comic book audience, i.e. teens.
But it was still a comic book movie, regardless. Because most of the movie going public at the time wasn't aware of that and that being part of it's success at the box office is debatable.
If anything, Blade opened the gates for modern vampire movies that incorporate more science than supernatural, like the Underworld series and countless others. This is the first film I can think of where the ideas of bullets of concentrated garlic and UV lamps, and other high tech gadgets being used against vampires.
Most likely it did, even though I feel that there were a few attempts at incorporating more science based explanations than superstitious fantasy to vampires on movies before Blade was released. But Blade was the most well known of the vampire movies as well to have really laid it all out on the map. The bullets of guns used in Blade were mostly silver, not concentrated with garlic. The garlic projectile used in Blade was just a 'vampire mace' that was sprayed with a push of a button.
Same for The Crow. Not every goth kid who worshipped that movie knew or even cared that it was a comic first. Only hardcore fans.
Well, the Crow movie was an adaptation of a comic book. Yes. However, that was an underground independent comic book. While Blade was somewhat obscure since he appeared in Marvel comics, who's anything but underground, he was already gaining more exposure in he early 90's. Yet they had to make some changes here and there, and also, vampires were still the rage in the 90's.
There are plenty of movies that borrowed from comics. the original Punisher was really dark and grittythen there's Hellboy
X-Men opened the floodgates for straight comic adaptations.
The original Punisher movie, the 1989 movie I believe you are talking about, was dark and gritty, but it was not a great adaptation of him overall and it never got released theatrically in the US, just direct to video. It was also ashamed to be a comic book movie, even more than the Dark Knight trilogy. It was a failed comic book movie and I don't see how it helps your argument. Hellboy already came out after the first Blade, the same year Blade Trinity came out.
X-Men was a comic book movie of an actual household name comic book title from Marvel comics. But Blade (1998) was still a comic book movie from Marvel also, and it helped saved Marvel from bankruptcy. It got the word out one way or another, that it's a comic book movie as well, it's one of Marvel's. Considering this all happened as the massive failure of Batman and Robin (1997) and even Spawn (1997), which were associated with DC and Image comicsMarvel's competitors, was still fresh in many people's minds.
Blade's overall success critically and box office wise in 1998 is what helped green light the very first theatrically released live action X-Men movie. If it wasn't for Blade, would we have had X-Men in the magical and awesome summer of 2000? -
-
RoyWilliamsbeatsCoachK — 10 years ago(September 15, 2015 05:48 PM)
Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man(02) all played a pivotal role in the Comic book revolution. Bade was near perfection and it showed that even a lesser known marvel character could become a hit and eventually a successful franchise. X-Men was a mainstream comicbook that became a hit on the heels of a successful animated show which set the stage for Spider-Man and others. Hulk was already being made when Spider-Man was, so was Daredevil. X-Men really showed that Marvel's characters could be done in live action in a serious way. Then Spider-Man just broke the doors off the whole thing. It showed that not only good comicbook movies be viable and be very profitable, it showed they could be record breaking box office smash hits! Spider-Man broke the opening weekend box office record, and was the top movie at the box office in 2002 in a year that included a Star Wars and Lord of the Rings sequel. From that point on, everything was a go!
I mentioned the X-Men animated series of the 90's. I think that show doesn't get enough credit for starting the comicbook movie revolution. Sure it was an animated series, but it got a ton of kids into comics and marvel characters that otherwise wouldn't have been. It was also pretty gritty for a kids show. Granted it was a kids show, but compare it to other animated shows during that time aimed for kids and you will see what I mean. -
war-path — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 07:20 PM)
It was also pretty gritty for a kids show. Granted it was a kids show, but compare it to other animated shows during that time aimed for kids and you will see what I mean.
While I agree that it was gritty for a kids show in general, Batman TAS remains the grittiest animated kids show during that time. -
Times_Up — 11 years ago(July 31, 2014 06:35 AM)
Good call about the Crow, but that was independent, Blade is Marvel and we were talking about Marvel Comics. By your logic, we would have to say 1989's Batman, but again that is DC Comics.
Steadfast he opened his mouth, but nothing came out. What a wash out. -
war-path — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 10:59 AM)
Good call about the Crow, but that was independent,
Thanks. Well, I was going by your logic actually. You mentioned a comic book movie adapted from an independent underground comic book to be credited for Marvel, so did I trying to be more accurate on it. You were going back before Blade.
Blade is Marvel and we were talking about Marvel Comics.
But you were saying that Marvel owed it to something else that was not the 1998 Blade movie and the MIB wasn't from Marvel at all.
By your logic, we would have to say 1989's Batman, but again that is DC Comics.
No. Not even my logic to begin with. lol
That was different. Not just because it was DC but it was groundbreaking because it was based on a very iconic well known character that is rooted in darkness and showed that dark comic book movies could work. This was right after the failures of the last 2 Superman movies, Supergirl and Howard the Duck during the 80's. If anything, Batman 1989 helped out DC more than it did Marvel.
Remember, Marvel had seen some other versions of their characters on the big screen with The Punisher in 1989 and Captain America in 1990, all to disastrous results. They even released the 1994 Fantastic Four movie, which was already after Batman 1989 had come out and set it's own unique standard, and that met a horrible and similar fate like the 1989 Punisher and the 1990 Captain America flicks.
Blade came in after 1997's Batman and Robin and Spawn, which were failures overall. Blade overall belonged to Marvel and that's what matters ultimately. Marvel was saved by Blade, it was done by Blade. Not 1997's Men in Black. -
Times_Up — 11 years ago(August 01, 2014 12:07 PM)
Actually, no, but I see why you thought that. Men In Black was owned by Marvel when the film came out, that is why I credited it to Marvel, b/c it was their property.
Steadfast he opened his mouth, but nothing came out. What a wash out. -
war-path — 11 years ago(August 03, 2014 07:41 PM)
Actually, no, but I see why you thought that.
Oh ok. Thanks.
Men In Black was owned by Marvel when the film came out, that is why I credited it to Marvel, b/c it was their property.
Men In Black was originally created by Lowell Cunningham who had his work released under Aircel Comics back in 1990. Marvel didn't come into the picture until a couple of years later when it had bought out Malibu Comics after they acquired Aircel Comics. In such short amount of time, the movie was already being produced and released in 1997. It was successful but no matter what, the movie wasn't really something definitive for Marvel to go by, given what I already mentioned. Just cuz it was one of their properties doesn't mean they were authentically from Marvel comics with lots of history and association to Marvel.
Blade and the Nightstalkers and the rest of his vampire hunting team from Tomb of Dracula had been around since the 70's before Blade saw his 1998 feature length movie. Blade was being updated and showcased quite prominently in the early to mid 90's and he even made a guest appearance in the 90's Spider-Man Animated Series. Surely it was still Blade that Marvel owed it's success to, not so much the Men in Black. -
Times_Up — 11 years ago(August 04, 2014 10:04 AM)
I don't know that the history and association matters so much, but it may. No question Blade was important and was more of a superhero movie anyway. Regardless, Stan Lee, in the Blade special features, mentions the 89 Batman movie and the 90 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie as saving Marvel b/c they got people back in the shops buying comics including Marvel inspite of not having a hit movie.
Steadfast he opened his mouth, but nothing came out. What a wash out. -
war-path — 11 years ago(August 04, 2014 07:49 PM)
I don't know that the history and association matters so much, but it may. No question Blade was important and was more of a superhero movie anyway.
I guess it's subjective but I feel that Blade is still more deserving of such credit than MIB because Blade was created by Gene Colan and Marv Woflman for Marvel comics from the very beginning of his debut in the Tomb of Dracula comics. MIB was never created under Marvel comics from their very first appearance back in 1990. Considering Blade and MIB have the concepts of the paranormal and occultism in common, even the protagonists wearing sunglasses and wearing black attire and fighting in secrecy where the general public is unaware of, if Marvel wanted to do something like the MIB, they would've already done it like the Tomb of Dracula comic series. That took an existing folklore(vampires and the cinematic horror version of Count Dracula) and adapted it into it's own Universe creating a new spin on things here and there. MIB didn't have that since it was first published by Aircel, an independent company unlike Marvel who is a commercially well known comic book company.
Regardless, Stan Lee, in the Blade special features, mentions the 89 Batman movie and the 90 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie as saving Marvel b/c they got people back in the shops buying comics including Marvel inspite of not having a hit movie.
I wonder where he says that because from whatever of the special features I'm able to see of Blade, I don't remember seeing him say anything like that. Batman 1989 and even the first TMNT live action movie were beneficial to the comic book industry in general for pretty much what you stated. It's no coincidence that X-Men TAS was released right around the same time Batman TAS also premiered in 1992.
But I think your mentioning of MIB is very fascinating and I never realized how you may be onto something. You did bring up a very good point.