The film that did the most for superheroes was ________.

[Soubhagya]

I don't see any evidence that this is true. Also, let's not forget that Hulk, like Fantastic Four, had mediocre results. Spider-Man made studios sit up and take notice.

They started noticing with X-Men. Why do you say it was only Spider-man?

[AJBopp]

They started noticing with X-Men. Why do you say it was only Spider-man?

You literally quoted the answer. But to recap:

- X-Men was moderately successful but not so successful as to erase doubt that the genre held significant risk
- X-Men eschewed the "superhero costume" rather than embraced it, and attempted to establish a world less like like a comic book for the super powered characters to exist in, distancing itself from "kid stuff."
- X-Men chose a storyline that was more serious and had several allegories to real-world prejudices and responses (well-done allegories as well, IMO - at least in the first couple of movies)

- Spider-Man was very successful and began to erase doubt that a fully-embraced superhero could capture the general audiences attention in a blockbuster way
- Spider-Man accomplished this while embracing all of the elements that studios tended to shy away from as "kid stuff" - the costume, the outlandish origin story of both hero and villain, etc.
- Spider-Man told stories that were light: elements of serious conflict but elements of light-hearted fun, which nearly all subsequent superhero movies have followed. Up until Man Of Steel, the Dark Knight trilogy was the notable exception, and even that didn't get as dark and brooding (nor have the social allegory) that the X-Men films had.

In short, Spider-man was first to achieve success beyond its perceived potential, and was the model for most everything that followed. There is no other superhero film that really looks or feels like X-Men. Personally, I think that's to its credit. But it does make the case that it was not a trend-setter.

[DrNewGod]

You meant that? Thanks for clarifying that. Its a different way of putting the question. Why do you ask this? How is Logan getting a nomination affected by older superhero films? I don't understand what do you mean?

If Logan's screenplay is in top five adapted screenplays of the year in the opinion of the Academy's voters, how is it affected by something like Dark Knight or X-Men which came years ago? Are you implying that there is a bias against superhero films?

There are some fans who think that there is a bias against superhero films. That is untrue. And its an excuse finding exercise in my opinion. A superhero film is not nominated for an award if its simply not good enough in comparison to its competition in that year. Even Superman The Movie was nominated for three Academy Awards. Score, Sound and Editing. It got a special award for visual effects. Logan is just too good in comparison to the other films of this year which weren't nominated. That is the opinion of the Academy.

I should have cleared it up earlier, but the conversation was going in interesting directions that I didn't want to constrain, as I enjoyed reading and participating in the debate. Some of the questions I've asked were not necessarily because I disagreed with comments, but because I was interested in hearing more.

My own answer was Star Wars, but I can see the merit of X-Men, Superman: The Movie, Blade, Batman ('89), and The Mark of Zorro, among several others mentioned here.

[Soubhagya]

I should have cleared it up earlier, but the conversation was going in interesting directions that I didn't want to constrain, as I enjoyed reading and participating in the debate. Some of the questions I've asked were not necessarily because I disagreed with comments, but because I was interested in hearing more.

My own answer was Star Wars, but I can see the merit of X-Men, Superman: The Movie, Blade, Batman ('89), and The Mark of Zorro, among several others mentioned here.

Then thank you for allowing this great discussion. It has been pretty insightful. I was under the impression that you meant most helpful for the genre. But it was different. I feel a bit like a fool. LOL. But it was worth it.

Now i have to look back at the answers more clearly. Quite a number of answers were tackling this aspect. I simply took a look at them and kept insisting that Avengers did the most and X-Men birthed the genre.

And my answer changes to Superman The Movie. It pioneered this concept of taking something from the source material meant for kids i.e. comics and managed to strike a chord with general audiences while still staying pretty faithful to the source material, keeping that colorful and whimsical nature in tact.

X-Men is a particularly strong contender. It tackled some serious themes and was critically acclaimed. It has done a lot to improve public opinion that superhero films can be serious. And Dark Knight is important too. That film increased the prestige of the genre by a large extent.

[Soubhagya]

You literally quoted the answer. But to recap:

- X-Men was moderately successful but not so successful as to erase doubt that the genre held significant risk
- X-Men eschewed the "superhero costume" rather than embraced it, and attempted to establish a world less like like a comic book for the super powered characters to exist in, distancing itself from "kid stuff."
- X-Men chose a storyline that was more serious and had several allegories to real-world prejudices and responses (well-done allegories as well, IMO - at least in the first couple of movies)

- Spider-Man was very successful and began to erase doubt that a fully-embraced superhero could capture the general audiences attention in a blockbuster way
- Spider-Man accomplished this while embracing all of the elements that studios tended to shy away from as "kid stuff" - the costume, the outlandish origin story of both hero and villain, etc.
- Spider-Man told stories that were light: elements of serious conflict but elements of light-hearted fun, which nearly all subsequent superhero movies have followed. Up until Man Of Steel, the Dark Knight trilogy was the notable exception, and even that didn't get as dark and brooding (nor have the social allegory) that the X-Men films had.

In short, Spider-man was first to achieve success beyond its perceived potential, and was the model for most everything that followed. There is no other superhero film that really looks or feels like X-Men. Personally, I think that's to its credit. But it does make the case that it was not a trend-setter.

Well X-Men's story itself is not 'kiddie' to begin with. It starts right at the beginning with themes of persecution and racism. Who are they? Strange protectors who save humanity from people like them while they are themselves persecuted. That's right on the first page. The beginning of the story. I heard somewhere that the allegory of X-Men is racism and persecution and Spider-man is puberty.

X-Men is at once faithful while staying away from the source material at the same time. The costumes were abandoned to appeal to mainstream audiences. That joke about spandex was a nod to the fans. Some external elements like costumes were changed. But its still pretty much X-Men of comics.

Spider-man can't be called the model. Superman The Movie would be more accurate. First film takes a long time to build up the hero. At somewhere around 1/3rd of the film somewhere around 45 minutes hero appears for the first time. The costumes are colorful. The stories are told in a serious manner retaining some of the whimsical and colorful tone. That's the standard set by Superman. Look at Spider-man, Wonder Woman and a number of MCU films like Iron Man, Captain America. The things Spider-man did was done by Superman before it.

You make a compelling case for box office. X-Men was successful. And Spider-man was a huge success. I think we can agree that they started thinking its feasible with X-Men and Spider-man increased their confidence.

[5Eyes]

Superman - Would be the one that made SH as a big budget movie taken seriously by studio but if were thinking about which film was the one that went beyond the kiddie concept !? After thinking sometime about it, all the early films Superman, Batman, Spider-man - still was set as the "Here I come to save the day" character.. and though the film itself had them saving the day, the trailer , the concept presented , and the expectation that it was not that and it was something else would have to be X-men.

[GhostPirate]

Actually, the question of what made studios, audiences, and critics take superhero films seriously is exactly what I was asking.

Then the answer should be Iron Man. A film that embraced all the aspects of the genre in a serious way without needing to take them *too* seriously, all while showing the general audiences that there were very good stories to be told with these types of characters that didn't need to revolve around Superman, Batman or Spider-Man.

TDK isn't a superhero movie, it's a cosplay take on a crime drama/thriller for people who, inexplicably, feel looking for "mature" entertainment in a genre defined by super powers, costumes and code names somehow magically make them more a more mature person.

The first X-Men was too busy running away from and/or thumbing it's nose at genre conventions to put together any sort of coherent narrative, and sadly ended up just the first in a sloppy, long-running mixed metaphor for discrimination that fell apart for anyone that bothered to give it a second thought.

As far as Superman, Batman '89 and the first Raimi Spider-Man, they just showed that the first time you put these kind of big name characters on the screen people would flock to them out of curiosity.

Star Wars... I think it was more of a case of audiences being captivated with the world and potential mythologies than truly taking it seriously.

[Powerboy]

Actually, the question of what made studios, audiences, and critics take superhero films seriously is exactly what I was asking.

I don't know about studios but audiences and critics, the first was Superman the Movie.

In terms of movies, there was nothing before StM that was marketed to adults. The Adam West Batman movie may have gotten nice reviews but they were in the style of, "This is a wonderful children's movie. Take your kids to see it." But StM was something adults were going to see again and again with or without the kids.

StM is very fresh in my mind since I just finished watching it again right now. I don't know if age is a factor in this but growing up, my superhero television shows and movies were the 1960s Batman, Captain Nice, the Nicholas Hammond Spider-Man, Saturday morning cartoons and the Adventures of Superman, the last in reruns. I'll put it this way. The Incredible Hulk show, especially the pilot episode, was a quantum leap in realism compared to everything I had experienced before and it was the only thing like that before Superman the Movie.

At the time, both the Hulk show and StM were talked about as a massive new leap in realism although the Hulk show quickly deteriorated into silliness as a weekly show with only the occasional great episode.

But again, arguing that both StM and the Hulk show seem corny now is moot if the question is: What was the first one to make audiences take it seriously? All that matters then is what the reaction was then, when it came out.

[hartttt]

Well X-Men's story itself is not 'kiddie' to begin with. It starts right at the beginning with themes of persecution and racism. Who are they? Strange protectors who save humanity from people like them while they are themselves persecuted. That's right on the first page. The beginning of the story. I heard somewhere that the allegory of X-Men is racism and persecution and Spider-man is puberty.

X-Men is at once faithful while staying away from the source material at the same time. The costumes were abandoned to appeal to mainstream audiences. That joke about spandex was a nod to the fans. Some external elements like costumes were changed. But its still pretty much X-Men of comics.

Spider-man can't be called the model. Superman The Movie would be more accurate. First film takes a long time to build up the hero. At somewhere around 1/3rd of the film somewhere around 45 minutes hero appears for the first time. The costumes are colorful. The stories are told in a serious manner retaining some of the whimsical and colorful tone. That's the standard set by Superman. Look at Spider-man, Wonder Woman and a number of MCU films like Iron Man, Captain America. The things Spider-man did was done by Superman before it.

You make a compelling case for box office. X-Men was successful. And Spider-man was a huge success. I think we can agree that they started thinking its feasible with X-Men and Spider-man increased their confidence.

I love that a person with a superman avatar understands x-men far more than Feige seems to do in 2018. you are right x-men was not kiddie to begin with, its answer the op questions by 90% correctly.

[Carabas]

Well X-Men's story itself is not 'kiddie' to begin with. It starts right at the beginning with themes of persecution and racism...

What's not kiddie about that?
I think you're seriously selling short kids' ability to grasp these concepts.

[Soubhagya]

I love that a person with a superman avatar understands x-men far more than Feige seems to do in 2018. you are right x-men was not kiddie to begin with, its answer the op questions by 90% correctly.

Thank you. Its flattering.

But that is something even the most casual of X-Men fans could grasp. Kevin Feige has a really strong understanding of Marvel comics as well as putting together good films. One may be good or great in one thing. He happens to be in both. A rarity. Why do you say that he has no understanding of X-Men? X-men films aren't coming to MCU anytime soon. We haven't even seen an X-Men film under Feige to make up one's mind. Is it some comment made by him?

What's not kiddie about that?
I think you're seriously selling short kids' ability to grasp these concepts.

Of course kids can grasp these concepts. May not be as well as adults but they surely can. To make sense of my comment take a more careful look at the post i was replying to.

X-Men eschewed some stuff which was considered kiddie at that time. Colorful costumes for example. And it touched upon some serious real world problems compared to most superhero films after it.

But my point was that it was the very nature of X-Men to tackle this stuff. It is no different from the more successful Raimi's Spider-man films after it in this aspect. Both were pretty faithful adaptations. The only difference might be that Spider-man was almost unashamed of accepting its roots while X-Men kept some distance in order to be considered as adult or serious. Colorful costumes may be the best example of things which people consider kiddie.

That kind of distancing oneself from the 'kiddie' aspects of the source material was seen in Dark Knight trilogy and later Man of Steel and DCEU. But other superhero films especially MCU have a different approach in tackling the source material. That was the point of the discussion.

[abulafia]

read pages 1-5 of the thread, and i am shocked, that noone addresses how the batman franchise annihilated all credibility of CBM.
x-men was the breath of fresh air. and even more important, a team adaptation!
that was unthinkable at that time

yes there have been others inbetween, which i mostly love, but the milestones are
supes
bats
xmen
spidey
nolan bats
iron man
avengers

[SpiderClops]

read pages 1-5 of the thread, and i am shocked, that noone addresses how the batman franchise annihilated all credibility of CBM.
x-men was the breath of fresh air. and even more important, a team adaptation!
that was unthinkable at that time

Well, technically.

[Carabas]

read pages 1-5 of the thread, and i am shocked, that noone addresses how the batman franchise annihilated all credibility of CBM.

It's hardly on topic.

Now if we were to make a thread about movies that did the most damage to superhero movies...

[DrNewGod]

It's hardly on topic.

Now if we were to make a thread about movies that did the most damage to superhero movies...

Challenge accepted.