Spider-Man fans thought on the Blade and X-Men movie trilogies

[Beaddle]

Marvel is a big world, its a fascinating universe that sometimes seem to have different fans who can be grouped separately, I have seen many people on Xbooks who say, they only like marvel because of XMen and have never read a marvel comic with no xmen in it. I thought of the topic a while back but I am now more curious to know about this because I saw a thread asking about how Power of X affects Spiderman. Also it seems back then, there was little superhero films backlash.

For those of you who like marvel mostly only for spiderman and are not into other marvel series, where were thoughts on Blade 1, Blade 2 and Blade 3. X-men 1, X-men 2 and X-men 3. These films were sandwich around spiderman 1, 2, 3 from year 1998 through 2007.

Did the X-Men/Blade films ever spark your interest about the possibility of a marvel movie universe back then?

Did you appreciate the different approach of Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer in making superhero films?

Did watching X-Men or Blade ever make you think of Spiderman showing up in their movies and vice versa.

What was it like for you back then to have a spiderman film , a Blade film and a xmen film that had their own separate worlds? Do you appreciate it now or wish they had just made a marvel universe where spiderman, blade and x-men could heavily reference their movies. For instance, Iceman in X-men 3 talking about the train scene in spiderman 2?

I have some specific reservation about these era of superhero films but I want to hear from Spiderman fans who loved the Sam Raimi's Spiderman films the most about what they thought of other marvel movies back then?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

For those of you who like marvel mostly only for spiderman and are not into other marvel series, where were thoughts on Blade 1, Blade 2 and Blade 3. X-men 1, X-men 2 and X-men 3. These films were sandwich around spiderman 1, 2, 3 from year 1998 through 2007.

I think Blade II is a good movie, very stylish and so on but on the whole it really isn't for me. The first Blade was average. Obviously Wesley Snipes is fantastic there. I haven't seen the third movie though. To be honest, I saw both on TV and I don't remember it well.

The X-Men movies have dated poorly in my view, maybe worse than the Blade movies. They are cast very well obviously, and X-Men 1 and X-Men 2 are watchable but on the whole they have been surpassed by X-Men First Class and Logan as films. I think Brian Cox's William Stryker is a great villain however. I think the first half of X-Men 2 is maybe the best part of the original X-men Trilogy, including the Nightcrawler opening, the attack on the mansion where Jackman's Wolverine finally becomes comics!Wolverine, the scene at Iceman's parents, Magneto's bloody escape from the plastic prison. But the denouement is weak and I feel that Scott and Jean were miscast (nothing against the actors they are just not right for the parts) and they were thrown under the bus for Wolverine.

I definitely think Raimi's Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2 are better films than the X-Men and Blade films. Spider-Man 1 is the best film on the whole. The movies have style, character, charm, and of course one of the best love stories in 21st Century cinema, and the biggest romance since Titanic.

Did the X-Men/Blade films ever spark your interest about the possibility of a marvel movie universe back then?

Back then nobody thought it could be done. I know a lot of X-Men fans like to make fun today of Singer mocking "yellow spandex" in the first X-men film but that was an uncontroversial statement back then because fans by and large accepted that movies couldn't be faithful to the comics and there had to be translations, changes and so on. Nobody believed a shared universe would work.

And to be honest, I think a lot of fans, actually preferred those movies which put Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man as the only heroes of their world. It made the characters feel grander and dramatically upped the stakes. If you read a Marvel comic, it's always going to be frustrating to see a character like Spider-Man who is bigger and better than all the Avengers put together treated second fiddle in the eyes of readers who know the Avengers aren't fit to shine his shoes. In the Raimi movies, Spider-Man is the grand hero by himself. And as people point out with the MCU and the Billionaire Intern kid, I think that's on the whole the better approach.

I think the Shared Universe has gone from being a cool Pipe Dream (as in a wouldn't-it-be-fun kind of new thing) to becoming a stale thing. It's coming at the expense of characters in my view.

Did you appreciate the different approach of Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer in making superhero films?

To be honest, I don't think Raimi and Bryan Singer had a different approach. Both of them were following the template of the Richard Donner Superman and Tim Burton Batman. I think Singer's X-Men might be the bigger undertaking because he made a team of superheroes with different powers as well as a ton of exposition about the idea of mutantkind and X-Gene work...whereas Raimi was doing a traditional solo movie.

Raimi's main idea was that he brought in a lot of independent stars and actors and put them as leads. Kirsten Dunst who had a career as a child actor was like the biggest name, but Willem Dafoe was a character actor who had fallen by the wayside at the time, Tobey Maguire appeared in independent films and J. K. Simmons had a career as a voice actor having given up movie fame. Raimi made all of them stars.

I have some specific reservation about these era of superhero films but I want to hear from Spiderman fans who loved the Sam Raimi's Spiderman films the most about what they thought of other marvel movies back then?

I never saw the Raimi Spider-Man movies and thought, "you know what's missing, Jackman's Wolverine, or whatnot". Sure it would have been cool to see Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man fight Juggernaut...but certainly not Vinnie Jones' low-rent travesty. I also don't think Jackman's Wolverine and Tobey's Spider-Man would have had a good dynamic.

Raimi's Spider-Man movies never made you yearn to see other characters, whereas Tom Holland's Peter is so bland that he does need other characters to make him work.

[Scott Taylor]

At the time you are talking about, lots of comic fans were just happy to even have a decent Superhero movie again. Donner's Superman and Burton's Batman were long-gone and had been killed by their respective sequels. Spider-Man was really the tipping point, to me, in ushering in the kernel of a shared universe.

Blade and X-Men were the earliest of those you mention but they weren't hits, not really, and they didn't shape the superhero genre in any way. The Blade series is watchable popcorn movie fun, for me. Blade II is probably the best, though it had kind of a lame villain. Blade was just ok. Blade 3, bleh. The original X-Men trilogy was pretty brilliantly flawed for the first two movies, then just flawed and sucked ass in the third one. I'd say that they were probably most loved by a niche of comic book fans.

But Spider-Man. Spider-Man, was more of a crossover hit movie. Heck, I knew lots of non-comic book fans who saw it at the time. It got buzz from the general public that the other superhero movies didn't get at the time. Keep in mind that during that same timeframe, there was 9/11 that also happened. In America in particular, this opened up an opportunity for superhero films. It especially benefited Spider-Man in his red, white and blue costume set in New York, with its 1960s and 1970s era dialogue ala Donner's Superman. Had a great romance, great villain - all cheesy but fun. Just a perfect storm of a movie at a time when people needed hopeful stuff at the Box Office. Spider-Man did exactly the kind of thing a superhero story is supposed to do.

So of any of them, Spider-Man was the one that most sparked my interest in a shared universe. Can't say I watched the Raimi films and ever thought it would be cool to see Iron Man fly in and hand Spider-Man some high-tech armor - yet thats exactly what ended up happening eventually. But those Raimi films made a superhero film world seem at least possible. And I'd say that the entire MCU has successfully struck many of the same optimistic and charming notes that the Raimi Spider-Man series had.

[WebLurker]

Did the X-Men/Blade films ever spark your interest about the possibility of a marvel movie universe back then?

The idea never occurred to me until the MCU started doing it (although I was bit young for the Raimi and Fox movies when first made, so I did get into them a bit later in life after they had been on DVD for years; heck, I didn't see any of the old X-Men movies besides the first one until I was in college, at which point I'd seen a few of the MCU ones).

Did you appreciate the different approach of Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer in making superhero films?

Didn't really compare them much when I first saw them. I think that the more character-centric approach Raimi had appeals to me more then Singer's more narrative-driven one; I'm more invested in those characters and their stories. I also think that Raimi was better craftsman in terms of filming and direction, but I'm no film expert.

Did watching X-Men or Blade ever make you think of Spiderman showing up in their movies and vice versa.

No, they all did a pretty good job fleshing out their worlds and characters so they felt complete onto themselves.

What was it like for you back then to have a spiderman film , a Blade film and a xmen film that had their own separate worlds?

It just was. To be totally honest, as someone who didn't read comics back then, all the characters seemed like their own thing to me (I was a kid and all I knew was what I picked up from pop culture and picture books); the idea of them living in the same world frankly seemed weird then.

Do you appreciate it now or wish they had just made a marvel universe where spiderman, blade and x-men could heavily reference their movies. For instance, Iceman in X-men 3 talking about the train scene in spiderman 2?

Don't really care. The MCU made a good interconnected series, Fox and Raimi made good standalones. Like 'em both for what they were.

I have some specific reservation about these era of superhero films but I want to hear from Spiderman fans who loved the Sam Raimi's Spiderman films the most about what they thought of other marvel movies back then?

Never saw the Blade ones (not a horror fan), like the first three X-Men movies overall (although three is pretty weak and I will admit that my favorites were made later in the series life). Gonna miss it now that it's over and on track for a reboot. Hope the new one repeats what was good, improves on what was bad, and does new stuff the old never got to do.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Blade and X-Men were the earliest of those you mention but they weren't hits, not really, and they didn't shape the superhero genre in any way.

To put this in perspective.
-- Blade I which came out in 1998 made $131mn worldwide.
-- X-Men 1 which came out in 2000 made $296mn worldwide.
-- Blade II which came out in 2002 made $155mn worldwide.

Combine those three movies and it's $582mn. Spider-Man I made $825mn worldwide. Which is a success by several times over the Blade and X-Men movies made before.

If you compare it with Batman movies. After Tim Burton's mammoth success in 1989, Batman Returns (1992) made $266mn, Batman Forever (1995) made $336mn, and Batman and Robin (1997) made $238mn. Combine all three and it's $840mn, which is a small lead over the success of Spider-Man 1 alone.

So Spider-Man 1 was the biggest superhero movie since Batman 89 which was the biggest since the first Superman.

So of any of them, Spider-Man was the one that most sparked my interest in a shared universe. Can't say I watched the Raimi films and ever thought it would be cool to see Iron Man fly in and hand Spider-Man some high-tech armor - yet thats exactly what ended up happening eventually. But those Raimi films made a superhero film world seem at least possible. And I'd say that the entire MCU has successfully struck many of the same optimistic and charming notes that the Raimi Spider-Man series had.

The MCU would never have happened if not for the success of Raimi's films. The success of those movies revived interest in Marvel and that led to the first wave of Marvel movies : Tim Story's Fantastic Four, the Ben Affleck Daredevil, Thomas Saint's The Punisher, Ang Lee's Hulk. And it also attracted capital investment in Marvel which led to the formation of the MCU.

[Beaddle]

The idea never occurred to me until the MCU started doing it (although I was bit young for the Raimi and Fox movies when first made, so I did get into them a bit later in life after they had been on DVD for years; heck, I didn't see any of the old X-Men movies besides the first one until I was in college, at which point I'd seen a few of the MCU ones).

.

its a generational thing. Even the superhero backlash going on now, Scorsese thinks its more of a generational thing of the changing faces of a younger audience. It has always been true many people now who are into comic movies where very young in 1998-2007. It definitely explains some genuine ignorance about marvel. Maybe the best one is how some think Iron Man is the most important marvel character, when in reality its Spiderman.

Didn't really compare them much when I first saw them. I think that the more character-centric approach Raimi had appeals to me more then Singer's more narrative-driven one; I'm more invested in those characters and their stories. I also think that Raimi was better craftsman in terms of filming and direction, but I'm no film expert.

I agree you are not expert, Singer is light years ahead of Coolger or the Russos as an auteur director, it takes an expert to now this. Raimi and Singer got lucky they got to handle marvel titles that fitted their talents best. Raimi had more big action blockbuster talents than Singer. Singer was more talented to do compelling drama movies. both attributes, fitted spiderman and xmen respectively. the tone of singer's xmen would have been wrong for spiderman. the tone of Sam raimi's spiderman would only work for a few xmen stories but not the xmen stories, singer focused on in films.

The first scene of spiderman 1 is cheeky, when Peter says, its all about MJ and we say MJ all happy and popular and Peter the geek getting mocked as he chases after a school bus.

The first scene of x-men 1 is gritty and dark that takes places in world war 2 Germany.


However you are right about the goals. X-men had a narrative, although a complex one,since singer was not interested in telling superhero movies of the basic good vs evil. he said he found that content weak. it was about the survival of a disenfranchised groups. raimi had a character -centric approach about a man called Peter Parker trying to make life as a superhero work. Raimi had already beaten Logan and Joker with making a character study piece movie with Spiderman 2.

Never saw the Blade ones (not a horror fan), like the first three X-Men movies overall (although three is pretty weak and I will admit that my favorites were made later in the series life). Gonna miss it now that it's over and on track for a reboot. Hope the new one repeats what was good, improves on what was bad, and does new stuff the old never got to do.

This won't likely happen now but it all a closed topic. it barely happening with the rebooted Spiderman.

At the time you are talking about, lots of comic fans were just happy to even have a decent Superhero movie again. Donner's Superman and Burton's Batman were long-gone and had been killed by their respective sequels. Spider-Man was really the tipping point, to me, in ushering in the kernel of a shared universe.

.

I usually forget superman 3 and 4. batman and Robin was the real killer for superhero movies,

Blade and X-Men were the earliest of those you mention but they weren't hits, not really, and they didn't shape the superhero genre in any way. The Blade series is watchable popcorn movie fun, for me. Blade II is probably the best, though it had kind of a lame villain. Blade was just ok. Blade 3, bleh. The original X-Men trilogy was pretty brilliantly flawed for the first two movies, then just flawed and sucked ass in the third one. I'd say that they were probably most loved by a niche of comic book fans.

I prefer the term, older generation of comic fans than niche. Although Singer approached his first xmen movies as niche because he wanted to make the unusual suspects with xmen and had gone all scorsese on comics before scorsese ever did. X-Men 1 shaped the genre, it was the very first time people realised superhero movies can work more as dramas with real human topics than mindless action films or just slaps stick popcorn flicks.

But Spider-Man. Spider-Man, was more of a crossover hit movie. Heck, I knew lots of non-comic book fans who saw it at the time. It got buzz from the general public that the other superhero movies didn't get at the time. Keep in mind that during that same timeframe, there was 9/11 that also happened. In America in particular, this opened up an opportunity for superhero films. It especially benefited Spider-Man in his red, white and blue costume set in New York, with its 1960s and 1970s era dialogue ala Donner's Superman. Had a great romance, great villain - all cheesy but fun. Just a perfect storm of a movie at a time when people needed hopeful stuff at the Box Office. Spider-Man did exactly the kind of thing a superhero story is supposed to do.

This is what I liked about Spiderman, I think even till now in 2019. Sam Raimi’s Spiderman is the bridge of all superhero movies. it is easy to dislike what Joel did with batman and Robin, or not to like How Singer approached xmen with the pure grounded drama driven tone or hate the Nolan films for the obsession with realism when the guy dresses up as a Bat but Raimi managed to find a right balance.

Raimi is the only director in comic history who nailed the balance of superhero movies of common grounds. I think that fitted a character like spiderman well more than x-men characters because Spiderman represents the Everyman. Mutants were more stand ins for disenfranchised groups, Blade was a vampire.

So of any of them, Spider-Man was the one that most sparked my interest in a shared universe. Can't say I watched the Raimi films and ever thought it would be cool to see Iron Man fly in and hand Spider-Man some high-tech armor - yet thats exactly what ended up happening eventually. But those Raimi films made a superhero film world seem at least possible. And I'd say that the entire MCU has successfully struck many of the same optimistic and charming notes that the Raimi Spider-Man series had.

As I said I have reservation, but I will admit, it never sparked my interest of the idea that spiderman and xmen should cross over.. it will be unrealistic to see tobey's spiderman in the earlier xmen movies. Spiderman will look out of place. X-Men 1 and 2 in particular are grim and colour muted. the stakes were also different. spiderman won't be of much help to mutants. Even the dialogue style is different in both series.

And I'd say that the entire MCU has successfully struck many of the same optimistic and charming notes that the Raimi Spider-Man series had.

MCU Spiderman feels more like he belongs in the world of Disney child stars. the charming and optimistic notes is Disney trying to do Disney. Sam Raimi's Spiderman gave me a more Veronica Mars vibe.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Even the superhero backlash going on now, Scorsese thinks its more of a generational thing of the changing faces of a younger audience.

Scorsese's views of superhero movies as theme-parks are normal, conventional, basically true and something nearly everyone who watched superhero movies back in the 90s and early 2000s accepted without question. Nobody making those movies felt they were entitled to Oscars the way some fans think these days. I think that notion started when Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight and Ledger won an Oscar...but if you asked Nolan, and he has said this in interviews more or less, the Batman movies were basically stuff he made so he could make his more personal movies like Inception and so on.

It's interesting what Scorsese said about Joker 2019, where he said that the reason he passed on directing/producing it (TBH I don't think he ever wanted to do it, he probably did it because his agent told him it might help him if he got involved somehow) was that he couldn't get past the hurdle of the end where Phoenix's Arthur Fleck character becomes a comic book character. That's more or less what Tim Burton said about the backlash to Batman Returns. He said that the movie was about empathizing with and seeing the humanity in freaks like Penguin and Catwoman, but Burton pointed out that approach didn't work with the reality that both characters exist to be put down by Batman and make the latter look good. So Batman Returns, which in my view is actually a very bold movie, didn't catch on in its day.

X-Men 1 shaped the genre, it was the very first time people realised superhero movies can work more as dramas with real human topics than mindless action films or just slaps stick popcorn flicks.

I doubt that to be honest.

MCU Spiderman feels more like he belongs in the world of Disney child stars. the charming and optimistic notes is Disney trying to do Disney. Sam Raimi's Spiderman gave me a more Veronica Mars vibe.

Never seen Veronica Mars. I think Raimi's Spider-Man is a kind of classical movie, i.e. classical Hollywood so it's got a slightly old-fashioned touch so that allowed it to cross-over.

[Beaddle]

Scorsese's views of superhero movies as theme-parks are normal, conventional, basically true and something nearly everyone who watched superhero movies back in the 90s and early 2000s accepted without question.

Frankly, this is not right story of the history of comic films. superhero movies were viewed as theme parks but that went too far with batman and Robin and it killed the genre. when superhero films came back in the millennium, they had to be opposite of what had come before. the millennium was what ushered in the new wave of grounded more taken seriously comic movies and it all started with X-men 1.

. Nobody making those movies felt they were entitled to Oscars the way some fans think these days. I think that notion started when Christopher Nolan made The Dark Knight and Ledger won an Oscar...but if you asked Nolan, and he has said this in interviews more or less, the Batman movies were basically stuff he made so he could make his more personal movies like Inception and so on.

Except, Singer already beat him to that. Singer said when he looked at the content of xmen, he realised he could just make another unusual suspects in tone style. did you know one of the major influences of Nolan came from singer's take on his xmen films? I have seen interviews of all these directors and singer and niolan are basically the same people when it comes to comic movies even down to them addressing how stupid people in bat and yellow spandex costumes are. neither liked comic films from the start, they only way they could make it work was to ground it and tell smaller scale human stories. allegories human stories to be frank.

It's interesting what Scorsese said about Joker 2019, where he said that the reason he passed on directing/producing it (TBH I don't think he ever wanted to do it, he probably did it because his agent told him it might help him if he got involved somehow) was that he couldn't get past the hurdle of the end where Phoenix's Arthur Fleck character becomes a comic book character.

It says a lot about scorsese that he passed on it, a movie that bold, the opposite of what comic films are today that the media lunched a smear campaign against it was not enough to make scorsese direct. It could have been different 15 years ago.

I doubt that to be honest.

Its accurate, roger egert who is arguably the greatest critic of all time, once said, it was unbelievable that x-men 1 was a comic movie. Read Nolan's analysis on the opening scene of the holocaust or just better watch it on YouTube and read the comments, most people today don't even think of that film as a comic film but that was what singer wanted because he thought the genre was lame and saw xmen as the perfect series to make people take the genre seriously beyond mindless popcorn flicks.

Never seen Veronica Mars. I think Raimi's Spider-Man is a kind of classical movie, i.e. classical Hollywood so it's got a slightly old-fashioned touch so that allowed it to cross-over.

Sam Raimi Spiderman movies were not as light hearted or as kid friendly as holland's spiderman is now. yes, spiderman was a not gritty or dark or 99% serious like xmen or as Gothic and violent as blade but Raimi did not make him a happy meal either like Disney are doing with Spiderman.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Frankly, this is not right story of the history of comic films. superhero movies were viewed as theme parks but that went too far with batman and Robin and it killed the genre.

Batman and Robin became kitsch among fanboys and so on. But outside of that, most viewers saw it as no different than any other comic film. Except you know another dumb sequel and so on.

Except, Singer already beat him to that. Singer said when he looked at the content of xmen, he realised he could just make another unusual suspects in tone style.

The name of the movie is The Usual Suspects. To be honest, I am weirded out that you are trying to defend Bryan Singer after his recent downfall. On a technical level, Singer was always visually a little staid. The Usual Suspects owes itself largely to the script by Christopher McQuarrie, and even then stuff like Benicio del Toro going off-script and improvising with Fenster over Singer's objections. Singer's Superman Returns was a pretty mediocre film as well.

It says a lot about scorsese that he passed on it, a movie that bold, the opposite of what comic films are today that the media lunched a smear campaign against it was not enough to make scorsese direct.

Well he made actual movies for grownups so he passed. And even then, Joker is not the only movie Scorsese has produced in that time. He's also produced The Souvenir and Uncut Gems. And anyway, Scorsese took on Jesus with Last Temptation and got on the Chinese government's s--t list for making KUNDUN, and so on. Stuff like comics are trivial to him.

I meant more of the tone. Sam Raimi Spiderman movies were not as light hearted or as kid friendly as holland's spiderman is now. yes, spiderman was a not gritty or dark or 99% serious like xmen but raimi did not make him a happy meals either like Disney are doing with Spiderman.

In terms of merchandise and so on, Raimi's movie did make happy meals for Disney just as much as the MCU did, as did Bryan Singer's X-Men movies.

It's just that Raimi cooked up something charismatic and charming, and sweet. He made you care for the characters.

And at the end of the day, Singer's X-Men wasn't a true ensemble. It was basically Wolverine and you losers are invited.

[Beaddle]

Batman and Robin became kitsch among fanboys and so on. But outside of that, most viewers saw it as no different than any other comic film. Except you know another dumb sequel and so on.
.

It was not a kitsch among fanboys, if it was, DC would have not done a 180 when they rebooted it in 2005. the truth is back then, fans didn't even have power to influence like what we see now with star wars or even spiderman. if a studio did a 180 then you know this **** must have been bad for them to change course. WB was very embarrassed about batman and Robin and so were the actors. Fans were just angry.

The name of the movie is The Usual Suspects. To be honest, I am weirded out that you are trying to defend Bryan Singer after his recent downfall. On a technical level, Singer was always visually a little staid. The Usual Suspects owes itself largely to the script by Christopher McQuarrie, and even then stuff like Benicio del Toro going off-script and improvising with Fenster over Singer's objections. Singer's Superman Returns was a pretty mediocre film as well.

separate the art from the person, I don't see scorsese telling people not to watch Bad that he directed because there is new evidence out there that supports the idea Michael Jackson was into little boys?????

I am defending some of the good of singer's work. his personal life does not affect that . before his down fall, he was considered one of the best director of his time. in marvel's live action universe, Singer has more influence than Sam raimi when it comes to taking marvel movies seriously. the fact that singer even came back in the MCU era and made Days Of future past was a true testament of his talents. I am not going to deny him any film credit because he too may have been into little boys.

Well he made actual movies for grownups so he passed. And even then, Joker is not the only movie Scorsese has produced in that time. He's also produced The Souvenir and Uncut Gems. And anyway, Scorsese took on Jesus with Last Temptation and got on the Chinese government's s--t list for making KUNDUN, and so on. Stuff like comics are trivial to him.

Hugo was for kids, Scorsese made that. I think this is bigger than grown ups. I think this is more about what blockbusters are today

In terms of merchandise and so on, Raimi's movie did make happy meals for Disney just as much as the MCU did, as did Bryan Singer's X-Men movies.

Every so called blockbuster have happy meals, it does not mean their movies are there just for you to have happy meals. Singer never put selling happy meals over using xmen as an opportunity to tell the story of superhero movies who main goal was to fight prejudice. Raimi was driven to make spiderman his art, the only time he failed over it was spiderman 3 and that was because Sony interfered because they thought Venom would sell more merchandise for them. venom did, but the film's quality suffered.

It's just that Raimi cooked up something charismatic and charming, and sweet. He made you care for the characters.

True

And at the end of the day, Singer's X-Men wasn't a true ensemble. It was basically Wolverine and you losers are invited.

Sort of true too but like I said, I only commend some of the good part of singer. which was how he approached the comic book genre or maybe how he never cared that Sony was making spiderman movies when he was making xmen and he just focused on his own films.

I think I heard stories that he got irritated when people where trying to link DOFP to the MCU and he was like?Wtf? this is a different movie. Clearly he felt the way we do here when we say watching spiderman, xmen or blade should or does not make anyone of us think that they should be connected.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Singer has more influence than Sam raimi when it comes to taking marvel movies seriously.

That’s not entirely true. Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man movies got critical acclaim being praised by French critic and film-maker Bertrand Tavernier.

Among movie aficionados, Batman Returns, Spider-Man 2 are well liked while the director’s cut of Daredevil has a bit of a cult.

Bryan Singer’s Superman Returns was praised by Quentin Tarantino with many trying to claim that it’s some classic which has happily died down lately.

[Scott Taylor]

To put this in perspective.
-- Blade I which came out in 1998 made $131mn worldwide.
-- X-Men 1 which came out in 2000 made $296mn worldwide.
-- Blade II which came out in 2002 made $155mn worldwide.

Combine those three movies and it's $582mn. Spider-Man I made $825mn worldwide. Which is a success by several times over the Blade and X-Men movies made before.

If you compare it with Batman movies. After Tim Burton's mammoth success in 1989, Batman Returns (1992) made $266mn, Batman Forever (1995) made $336mn, and Batman and Robin (1997) made $238mn. Combine all three and it's $840mn, which is a small lead over the success of Spider-Man 1 alone.

So Spider-Man 1 was the biggest superhero movie since Batman 89 which was the biggest since the first Superman.



The MCU would never have happened if not for the success of Raimi's films. The success of those movies revived interest in Marvel and that led to the first wave of Marvel movies : Tim Story's Fantastic Four, the Ben Affleck Daredevil, Thomas Saint's The Punisher, Ang Lee's Hulk. And it also attracted capital investment in Marvel which led to the formation of the MCU.

Yep. Thanks for the numbers to back this all up.

Its like a "third time's a charm" thing. The Spider-Man movies were such great crossover successes that they made the Hollywood big spenders really take notice. And idea of a notion was formed that maybe superhero films could be more than what they had been so far. Took a while for that seed to take off but it did.

[WebLurker]

its a generational thing. Even the superhero backlash going on now, Scorsese thinks its more of a generational thing of the changing faces of a younger audience. It has always been true many people now who are into comic movies where very young in 1998-2007.

If you say so.

It definitely explains some genuine ignorance about marvel. Maybe the best one is how some think Iron Man is the most important marvel character, when in reality its Spiderman.

Is it ignorance? From what I've seen, "most important character" is always in flux. There was a time when the F4 were the lynchpin of Marvel "first family"). The X-Men were big in the '90s. While Spider-Man is without a doubt the evergreen character, mascot, and (I think) most beloved character in their lineup, that's never a given (the F4 aren't first anything anymore, the X-Men remain superstars, but they're not like what they used to be). Besides, I think there's a case that the movies are the kingmakers of the franchise now. They're certainly the primary shaper of what the franchises look like and what audiences expect.

I agree you are not expert, Singer is light years ahead of Coolger or the Russos as an auteur director, it takes an expert to now this.

All I can say is that the latter got more of an emotional resonance out of me then Singer did with his X-Men stuff (frankly, I think James Mangold and Matthew Vaughn did better directorial work on the X-Men franchise). Maybe that's not the be all, end all of good directing, but it seems like the best directors in the business are able to take that ability to generate emotion and pair it with good craftsmanship.

Raimi and Singer got lucky they got to handle marvel titles that fitted their talents best. Raimi had more big action blockbuster talents than Singer. Singer was more talented to do compelling drama movies. both attributes, fitted spiderman and xmen respectively. the tone of singer's xmen would have been wrong for spiderman. the tone of Sam raimi's spiderman would only work for a few xmen stories but not the xmen stories, singer focused on in films.

The first scene of spiderman 1 is cheeky, when Peter says, its all about MJ and we say MJ all happy and popular and Peter the geek getting mocked as he chases after a school bus.

The first scene of x-men 1 is gritty and dark that takes places in world war 2 Germany.

Okay.

However you are right about the goals. X-men had a narrative, although a complex one,since singer was not interested in telling superhero movies of the basic good vs evil. he said he found that content weak. it was about the survival of a disenfranchised groups. raimi had a character -centric approach about a man called Peter Parker trying to make life as a superhero work. Raimi had already beaten Logan and Joker with making a character study piece movie with Spiderman 2.

Uh huh.

This won't likely happen now but it all a closed topic. it barely happening with the rebooted Spiderman.

avengers-endgame-movie-screencaps.com-17840.jpg

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

For those of you who like marvel mostly only for Spider-Man and are not into other Marvel series,

Looking at this line alone I should probably pass through and not answer this title question, but it's probably hard to believe some folks here in this section only read Spider-Man of all Marvel titles.

I love the original X-Men trilogy, half half on Wolverine trilogy, and love both First Class and Apocalypse despite not being a big fan of Days of Future Past.

I can't speak much of Blade movies cause I haven't seen more than a few scenes of the first film.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

I watched both the X-men movies and Raimi Spiderman movies when i was younger. I enjoyed both and wouldn't mind a crossover.