Wesley Snipes Reflects on "Blade" and Its Influence on Marvel

[Colossus1980]

Blade was a kick-ass vampire action movie. I do not consider Blade a Marvel Super-hero at all, just a vampire hunter. The push the franchise made towards getting the Marvel comics onscreen is minimal IMHO. Eventually it was only going to be a matter of time for the comic heroes to return back to the big screen. No Blade, still a Spider-man, X-men, FF, etc etc etc.

[CliffHanger2]

Blade was a kick-ass vampire action movie. I do not consider Blade a Marvel Super-hero at all, just a vampire hunter. The push the franchise made towards getting the Marvel comics onscreen is minimal IMHO. Eventually it was only going to be a matter of time for the comic heroes to return back to the big screen. No Blade, still a Spider-man, X-men, FF, etc etc etc.

People keep saying that but the guy who actually brought spiderman to the big screen disagrees.

[Colossus1980]

People keep saying that but the guy who actually brought spiderman to the big screen disagrees.

Blade finished 29th in 1998 domestic box office. While good for an R movie, not great. Who was the guy who brought Spider-man to the big screen? If not him, someone else would have done it. These super-hero movies were going to happen regardless. I'm more on the poster's view who said studios was waiting for technology to improve first.

[PretenderNX01]

If not him, someone else would have done it.

Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda but that doesn't seem to be what actually happened.

I'm more on the poster's view who said studios was waiting for technology to improve first.

Since that seems to be a popular excuse, I think studios should run with it- we're waiting for the technology needed to have a woman or person of color person leading a Marvel Studios movie.

[Cyke]

Star Wars 7 is in trouble, since they're waiting for the technology to build actual starfighters. I just hope they finish in time for Christmas 2015.

Technology was most definitely not a limiting factor for Spider-Man's production. Probably the most famous name attached to the project was James Cameron -- the guy who helped shepherd the tech needed for the Abyss, Terminator 2, and Titanic. And he'd been trying to get Spider-Man made for years and years -- he was ready and raring to go. But it was red tape and studio politics that stopped him. If there was ever any technological limitations (hardly, considering that Spidey and most of his rogues aren't all that complex visually), Cameron would be the guy to think around or come up with creative solutions for those limitations and charge anyway full steam ahead.

Almost anything Spidey's done, we've seen ninjas and other heroes do before. Green Goblin is a guy on a moving platform. Venom is the T-1000. Doc Ock's arms are nearly fluid like the water creatures in the Abyss. The hardest villain to make would probably be Sandman, and even then they only brought him out after 2 proven hits. Most of the characters in Spidey's stories don't need anything revolutionary; whatever new tech that's used in these movies is primarily used to add more action and pizzazz, rather than making those scenes possible in the first place (fight scenes on trains and lifting cars in the air have been done before).

[Biff Pow!]

Almost anything Spidey's done, we've seen ninjas and other heroes do before. Green Goblin is a guy on a moving platform. Venom is the T-1000. Doc Ock's arms are nearly fluid like the water creatures in the Abyss. The hardest villain to make would probably be Sandman, and even then they only brought him out after 2 proven hits. Most of the characters in Spidey's stories don't need anything revolutionary; whatever new tech that's used in these movies is primarily used to add more action and pizzazz, rather than making those scenes possible in the first place (fight scenes on trains and lifting cars in the air have been done before).

The problem is- those effects were really expensive in the early 90s, and a Spider-Man movie would need a lot more than the few morphing scenes in T2. I'm not surprised that James Cameron was the only guy to almost get the movie greenlit.

Once CGI had advanced enough to (almost) seamlessly integrate with live action, Spider-Man suddenly became doable on a reasonable budget. (Still high, but lower than it would have been ten years earlier, with less effects.)

[Alex Dragon]

The problem is- those effects were really expensive in the early 90s, and a Spider-Man movie would need a lot more than the few morphing scenes in T2. I'm not surprised that James Cameron was the only guy to almost get the movie greenlit.

Once CGI had advanced enough to (almost) seamlessly integrate with live action, Spider-Man suddenly became doable on a reasonable budget. (Still high, but lower than it would have been ten years earlier, with less effects.)

With Hollywood it always comes down to money. They saw that BLADE did well and it became easier for a producer/director to get a superhero film greenlit based on BLADE's success. The cost of movies doesn't scare off execs if they think they can make it back. The history of Hollwood is littered with huge big budget movies that got the go ahead.

If Hollywood/studios/directors wait on technology to "catch up" to make movies we'd never have CGI movies to begin with. What happens more often than not is a lot of the technology is invented during the production of the movie. The director goes to the FX guys with a problem to be solved and they figure out a way to do it. After they figure out how to do something it startsto become common and others take that and build off it. Even as far back as the first SUPERMAN movie they had to figure out a lot of the FX work as they went along. The same is true of the first SPIDER-MAN movie. Same is true of AVATAR. The tech/FX advances by actually making the movies, not waiting for it to catch up.

[Biff Pow!]

If Hollywood/studios/directors wait on technology to "catch up" to make movies we'd never have CGI movies to begin with. What happens more often than not is a lot of the technology is invented during the production of the movie. The director goes to the FX guys with a problem to be solved and they figure out a way to do it. After they figure out how to do something it startsto become common and others take that and build off it. Even as far back as the first SUPERMAN movie they had to figure out a lot of the FX work as they went along. The same is true of the first SPIDER-MAN movie. Same is true of AVATAR. The tech/FX advances by actually making the movies, not waiting for it to catch up.

Technology advances step by step. Yeah, the movie industry is a big contributor to that advancement, but no single project can go from Tron to Spider-Man. Each project would learn a little more, through "Money For Nothing", The Abyss, Pixar, etc. James Cameron wanted to make Avatar in the 90s, but technology hadn't advanced enough for him to make the film he envisioned. He was part of the advancing that made Avatar possible, but he did still wait for technology to "catch up".

EDIT: More accurately- CGI effects are limited by the memory and processing power of the current computer industry.

[CliffHanger2]

Technology advances step by step. Yeah, the movie industry is a big contributor to that advancement, but no single project can go from Tron to Spider-Man. Each project would learn a little more, through "Money For Nothing", The Abyss, Pixar, etc. James Cameron wanted to make Avatar in the 90s, but technology hadn't advanced enough for him to make the film he envisioned. He was part of the advancing that made Avatar possible, but he did still wait for technology to "catch up".

EDIT: More accurately- CGI effects are limited by the memory and processing power of the current computer industry.

Funny thing is Cameron didn't see a lack of technology as a problem for making a Spiderman movie.

[Colossus1980]

I always thought the impact of The Matrix's 'bullet time' and wire fu helped the Superhero movies action sequences moreso.