The film that did the most for superheroes was ________.

[Güicho]

In your opinion , what was the film that made the biggest stride in superheroes' journey to big-time cinema, and why?

I take issue with only one part of your post:The OP points out that superhero films are now getting Oscar nominations. Very few were looking at that as a possibility even 10 years ago. The question was what elevated them above more farcical roots?

Would love to see you go back in time and tell Siegel, Shuster, Kane & Finger about the low-level "farcical roots" you deem their creations, and how they did nothing for the now "big-time" Superhero films.

This whole thread is a "farce".
The list- http://www.imdb.com/list/ls078254853/

Lets be real, so we are talking about ignoring the rest and acknowledging two specific Oscar nods here that count towards the OP's kowtowing definition of we've finally made it to the "big-time cinema" -
Everything on the list before Nolan/Ledger's Joker performance, and Mangold's screenplay (both great and undeniably well deserved) was a farce by this definition? aka not "big time cinema" LOL!

The nods in those two categories are great! and well deserved and should be celebrated, but as much as I love that performance, and that screenplay, devoid of all the other stuff, the Superhero genre would become dead hollow experience.
Lets celebrate them, and expect more, but hope what we embrace and acknowledge as "DOING THE MOST FOR SUPERHERO FILMS " doesn't just mean beginning and ending with celebrating those, but keep mixing it up!

...

[Powerboy]

Someone mentioned this before but I still think the real winner in the contest of what did the most for superhero movies and made them the prolific blockbusters they are now, that put them on and all over the map, is no movie at all but a little thing called CGI.

CGI made it inevitable. Movies were lined up at the starting gates once it reached a certain level of development. If X-Men hadn't gotten out the door first, Spider-Man would have had the same impact two years later. If there had been no X-Men or Spider-Man, the next one would have done it. CGI made it inevitable and is the real winner.

[DrNewGod]

Would love to see you go back in time and tell Siegel, Shuster, Kane & Finger about the low-level "farcical roots" you deem their creations, and how they did nothing for the now "big-time" Superhero films.

This whole thread is a "farce".
The list- http://www.imdb.com/list/ls078254853/

Lets be real, so we are talking about ignoring the rest and acknowledging two specific Oscar nods here that count towards the OP's kowtowing definition of we've finally made it to the "big-time cinema" -
Everything on the list before Nolan/Ledger's Joker performance, and Mangold's screenplay (both great and undeniably well deserved) was a farce by this definition? aka not "big time cinema" LOL!

The nods in those two categories are great! and well deserved and should be celebrated, but as much as I love that performance, and that screenplay, devoid of all the other stuff, the Superhero genre would become dead hollow experience.
Lets celebrate them, and expect more, but hope what we embrace and acknowledge as "DOING THE MOST FOR SUPERHERO FILMS " doesn't just mean beginning and ending with celebrating those, but keep mixing it up!

...

I think you're attributing some dislike for pre-current superhero cinema into OP that doesn't actually exist. I love the early efforts too, it's just that The Academy didn't, and it seems most studios tended to regard them as kids' movies until (relatively) recently. I was trying to determine for myself what seems to have converted these characters into IP that's applied to "serious" film today, and wanted some opinions to shape my thinking.

The "farcial" treatments were meant to refer to the kid-focused films, particularly those from Batman'66-Superman'78, not the source material.

[Jim Kelly]

The thing is in the 1970s you had two different impulses. While STAR WARS took advantage of the effects we saw in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, it was the antithesis of that movie. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a serious treatment of science fiction ideas. Whereas, George Lucas was evoking FLASH GORDON serials.

The shadow of the 1960s BATMAN television series loomed large in the 1970s. The TV show had been inspired by the 1940s serials, but camped it up. The SUPERMAN movie walks a thin line. Because the camp trend made super-heroes look cheap. They wanted the movie to be taken seriously--thus having the writer of THE GODFATHER pen a treatment and hiring serious Academy Award winning actors--yet they also wanted to evoke that sense of the serials that made STAR WARS a success. And they got the writers from IT'S A BIRD . . . IT'S A PLANE . . . IT'S SUPERMAN to doctor the Puzo story--adding in more camp. And there's several moments in the movie (starting with the first scene) that recall those 1940s serials.

Even though we've had serious comic book movies, it looks like the Marvel Studios movies take some of their inspiration from the serials and from camp super-hero movies and TV shows. The Marvel Studios movies are telling a long serial. The only difference is the chapters are much longer and spaced out over months or years rather than weeks, the effects cost a lot more money and the ticket prices are much higher. They manage to excuse the tropes of super-hero comics by using humour, when it gets too uncomfortably serious, so to break the tension. Which is pretty much what camp did. It's just that the movies look so slick and expensive that they can't be accused of being cheap.

[AJBopp]

I think you're attributing some dislike for pre-current superhero cinema into OP that doesn't actually exist.

I also think that person is confusing people who created, wrote, and drew comic books with people who created, wrote and filmed movies.

[Güicho]

I quoted the op asking for:

"the film that did the most for superheroes.?"

I named and cited the root film and actor that they the creators of the Superheroes, say influenced them in creating Superman and Batman.

OP replied

The question was what elevated them above more farcical roots?

So what was the OP referring to as farcical?

Look it's wonderful we got Oscar recognition.
But it didn't begin there.

If by your definition Oscar recognition equates to: "The film that did the most for superheroes", "big-time" ... "serious cinema". If you are looking for the film that began that.

I posted the link to the films where they [The Acadamy] began to recognize.

The list- http://www.imdb.com/list/ls078254853/

If you want my opinion where these strides, and recognition should already begin , I posted that film too.

[Photon Torme]

Batman '89.

[DrNewGod]

I was referring to studios' treatment of the content as farcical. Perhaps should have said "child focused" as opposed to "broad audience focused".

[hartttt]

Found this interesting write up

http://screencrush.com/dated-parts-of-x-men-1/

Now the parts that he feels does not hold up. tend to be easy throw aways aka black leather costumes, wolverine smoking a lot, jackman not in good physical shape and easter eggs? Not really a huge down spot.


the film does holds up mostly well on what it represented for comic films reminding me of my first comment about what film did the most for comic films.

Unfortunately many superhero-comic films released two-four years ago do not hold up at all.

[blackbolt396]

The answer is obvious ......Blade.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I'd say X-Men. It was when technology finally reached an acceptable level to show a team of heroes like that on the big screen that really showed that it was possible to market a franchise of characters who not everybody knew. From there we got Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, then Nolan's trilogy started, then the MCU started, then the DCEU started. But it really started imo in 1999 when X-Men showed how you could do it. For the most part, most films have followed that basically template of film.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The answer is obvious ......Blade.

See I think Blade's impact is underrated for non comic fans, but overrated by comic fans. It was a very early precursor to the current craze, but I really don't think many non comic fans view it as part of the superhero genre. They see it as something like the Resident Evil or Underworld series. More action horror than superhero.

[DrNewGod]

I'd say X-Men. It was when technology finally reached an acceptable level to show a team of heroes like that on the big screen that really showed that it was possible to market a franchise of characters who not everybody knew. From there we got Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, then Nolan's trilogy started, then the MCU started, then the DCEU started. But it really started imo in 1999 when X-Men showed how you could do it. For the most part, most films have followed that basically template of film.

X-Men is certainly a contender. From a purely technological standpoint, you could say the same of The Matrix. Even though, strictly speaking, it wasn't a superhero film, enough of the elements were there to demonstrate that kind of fantasy action adventure could be big $$$, and you didn't need Superman or Spider-Man to sell it.

[hartttt]

I'd say X-Men. It was when technology finally reached an acceptable level to show a team of heroes like that on the big screen that really showed that it was possible to market a franchise of characters who not everybody knew. From there we got Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, then Nolan's trilogy started, then the MCU started, then the DCEU started. But it really started imo in 1999 when X-Men showed how you could do it. For the most part, most films have followed that basically template of film.

superman/batman first though but in a different era.

[Carabas]

See I think Blade's impact is underrated for non comic fans, but overrated by comic fans. It was a very early precursor to the current craze, but I really don't think many non comic fans view it as part of the superhero genre. They see it as something like the Resident Evil or Underworld series. More action horror than superhero.

And they would be correct.
Having a main character that originated in Marvel comics doesn't make your movie part of the superhero genre.