Comic book movies before X-men(2000)

[CTTT]

Before X-Men came along and then Spider-Man(2002) followed not long after by the MCU, what were the reputation of CBM's? Were they thought of as a joke in Hollywood? I wonder why filmmakers didn't think about creating a shared universe before 2008? Because even in the 90's and early aughts there was plenty of material to draw from.

[evolutionaryFan]

Superhero scripts are really hard to write... not to mention the huge budgets. So they're big risks. Still the 90s had quite a few superhero films.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...uperhero_films

Notice that a lot of these films were dark and brooding... Even the TMNT one. I think that style of superhero movie is a lot easier to write than a "boyscout" like superhero or something in the middle. I suspect a lot of those scripts were in development hell. MCU needs Captain America, Thor and Iron Man to get moving. They tried Captain America and FF in the 90s. Those were failures.

So my theory is: writing movie scripts is hard. Writing dark superhero movie scripts is harder. Writing non-dark supermovie scripts is almost impossible.

[inisideguy]

Before X-Men came along and then Spider-Man(2002) followed not long after by the MCU, what were the reputation of CBM's? Were they thought of as a joke in Hollywood? I wonder why filmmakers didn't think about creating a shared universe before 2008? Because even in the 90's and early aughts there was plenty of material to draw from.

Well the first two super-man movies were massive, as well as the first two batman movies. The crow was very successful, and of course so was Blade. I was always fascinated why WB let the first super-man franchise sort of just die. It was a huge franchise for them. The first two movies were iconic. Same with batman. I never really got why they just gave up on quality control. They were huge cash makers. I don't know who was in charge of WB at the time. Never understood it.

[Powerboy]

I think the first two Superman movies were taken relatively seriously compared to how they had been taken before. If nothing else, that Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman would sign on told people that this was going to be very high production values if nothing else.

But it was ten years to Michael Keaton's Batman which, again, the sheer number of big name actors willing to sign on.

Yet, there was not a slew of superhero movies and certainly not big budget.

I would say that it was the 1978 Superman that started the idea that a superhero movie could target an adult audience. Regardless of how campy it may feel today, a lot of that is just that we are a different culture and the 1970s culture feels silly to us even though it really existed.

As to a shared universe, I suspect there were creative people who thought of that but the business people are always trailing decades behind. As far as DC live action, the irony is that, to the best of my knowledge, the first live action DC teamup was Batman and the Green Hornet in the 1960s.

A shared universe was considered for "Superman Returns" though that's only slightly before 2008. But that script was rejected.

Marvel didn't have the resources for a big budget movie teamup until the 21st century. Their first live action teamup was the Hulk and Thor on television in the 1980s and that was the worst and corniest thing they ever did with the Hulk show and that is saying a lot.

[Powerboy]

Well the first two super-man movies were massive, as well as the first two batman movies. The crow was very successful, and of course so was Blade. I was always fascinated why WB let the first super-man franchise sort of just die. It was a huge franchise for them. The first two movies were iconic. Same with batman. I never really got why they just gave up on quality control. They were huge cash makers. I don't know who was in charge of WB at the time. Never understood it.

Same here. I could brush off S3 as just a mistake. I think the Salkinds may have still had the movie rights and decided they could make a fortune without spending anything on S4 by letting a cheap studio do one more.

[evolutionaryFan]

Marvel didn't have the resources for a big budget movie teamup until the 21st century.

Yeah, let's not forget Marvel went bankrupt in 1996.

EDIT:

Actually, this may have been the trigger. They went bankrupt... then in order to recover they auctioned off their characters like Blade, X-men, Spiderman... then those films got made pretty quick.

[Castle]

There were Superman and Batman films that were very well received and successful. Also I agree with whoever said Reeves Superman films were taken seriously.


Blade was also out by 1998.

While X-Men 2000 is one of the most important films in the comic book genre, it also came at the right place and the right time. it was year 2000, a new Decade/Century/Millennium. Many industry insiders predicted the comic book genre was done and over after Batman and Robin in 1997. X-Men coming 3 yeas later in a new century with a completely different take of what is perceived about comic film story telling and comic books laid a good foundation for everything that has come later with comic films that are set up more as drama and social commentary with a bit more realism.

[Powerboy]

There were Superman and Batman films that were very well received and successful. Also I agree with whoever said Reeves Superman films were taken seriously.


Blade was also out by 1998.

While X-Men 2000 is one of the most important films in the comic book genre, it also came at the right place and the right time. it was year 2000, a new Decade/Century/Millennium. Many industry insiders predicted the comic book genre was done and over after Batman and Robin in 1997. X-Men coming 3 yeas later in a new century with a completely different take of what is perceived about comic film story telling and comic books laid a good foundation for everything that has come later with comic films that are set up more as drama and social commentary with a bit more realism.

I would also say that one reason the Reeve Superman movies and the Burton Batman movies didn't lead to a slew of superhero movies was because they were pre-cgi. It was really the dawn of cgi that started leading to mass produced big budget superhero movies becoming viable. In fact, back in 1977, literally three weeks before Star Wars was released, there was a made for television movie called "Exo-Man". It was quite good in every way except effects but people said it was the closest to Iron-Man we would get in live action in any foreseeable future and it was. He was a guy in a suit of armor. He could not fly. He walked slowly but was an unstoppable tank. With the limited effects, it would never have sold as a big budget theatrical movie. But, in 2000, CGI changed all of that.

[Riv86672]

I would also say that one reason the Reeve Superman movies and the Burton Batman movies didn't lead to a slew of superhero movies was because they were pre-cgi. It was really the dawn of cgi that started leading to mass produced big budget superhero movies becoming viable. In fact, back in 1977, literally three weeks before Star Wars was released, there was a made for television movie called "Exo-Man". It was quite good in every way except effects but people said it was the closest to Iron-Man we would get in live action in any foreseeable future and it was. He was a guy in a suit of armor. He could not fly. He walked slowly but was an unstoppable tank. With the limited effects, it would never have sold as a big budget theatrical movie. But, in 2000, CGI changed all of that.

Holy crap, I remember that now!

It’s like your post flipped a memory switch in my old man mind...

[green_garnish]

Darkman, while not based on a comic book, fits the genre, and was very well received, even though only a moderate commercial success. It had the look and feel that Nolan would adopt decades later in his Batman films. Clearly Raimi always knew how to do it right.

[Castle]

I would also say that one reason the Reeve Superman movies and the Burton Batman movies didn't lead to a slew of superhero movies was because they were pre-cgi. It was really the dawn of cgi that started leading to mass produced big budget superhero movies becoming viable. In fact, back in 1977, literally three weeks before Star Wars was released, there was a made for television movie called "Exo-Man". It was quite good in every way except effects but people said it was the closest to Iron-Man we would get in live action in any foreseeable future and it was. He was a guy in a suit of armor. He could not fly. He walked slowly but was an unstoppable tank. With the limited effects, it would never have sold as a big budget theatrical movie. But, in 2000, CGI changed all of that.

I dont know how much I will attribute CGI to xmen 1 in particular because the movie did have CGI but the CGI was not the main factor or most important part of the film. Infact I think X-Men 1 may be the only comic film ever done where the two main characters Magneto and Xavier never once engage in a physical bawl, which was and is still now a very ground breaking story telling concept in a comic film because we all expect the two main hero and villain characters to at least fight at some point.

I know the director of xmen 1 was very hands on on downplaying the action/cgi scenes of the film because he wanted people to be more largely engage with the story.

I will advice people to watch this video, professionally because of the horrible controversies around Singer and Rose about their personal lives.





CGI has been evolving since the 70s, the problem of CGI only became a negative issue somewhere around the mid 2000s were some comic films started to get some criticism for letting the CGI overrun the story. I know Spiderman 3 and X-Men 3 had this complaints, however it did not become an issue anymore after MCU and maybe other blockbuster films that had some similarities with comic films.

I will not put the blame on CGI. I think the blame falls more on comic films genre just changing in different eras.

[WebLurker]

Superhero scripts are really hard to write... not to mention the huge budgets. So they're big risks. Still the 90s had quite a few superhero films.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...uperhero_films

Notice that a lot of these films were dark and brooding... Even the TMNT one. I think that style of superhero movie is a lot easier to write than a "boyscout" like superhero or something in the middle. I suspect a lot of those scripts were in development hell. MCU needs Captain America, Thor and Iron Man to get moving. They tried Captain America and FF in the 90s. Those were failures.

So my theory is: writing movie scripts is hard. Writing dark superhero movie scripts is harder. Writing non-dark supermovie scripts is almost impossible.

Well, to be fair, the first TMNT movie was drawing more from the original comics then the '80s cartoon.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Darkman, while not based on a comic book, fits the genre, and was very well received, even though only a moderate commercial success. It had the look and feel that Nolan would adopt decades later in his Batman films. Clearly Raimi always knew how to do it right.

Because Darkman was originally supposed to be Batman. Raimi had tried to get the rights to Batman in the mid 80s, but they had long been optioned by that point to Melkiner and Uslan (Peters and Gruber joined them not long after they were optioned). Raimi then campaigned to get the directors gig on Batman (but lost out to Burton because Raimi only had The Evil Dead films to his name). He then tried to get The Shadow but, as was the case with Batman, the opinions had been secured by other parties.

In the end Raimi just went, "you know, I'll just do my own hero." Which worked out for him. I reckon he would have done Batman or The Shadow justice.

[Somecrazyaussie]

Well, to be fair, the first TMNT movie was drawing more from the original comics then the '80s cartoon.

And it was pitch perfect. Still one of the best CBM adaptions ever. Whenever I see Casey Jones, all I see and hear is Elias Koteas. Damn that was good casting. Whole film was brilliant. Shame the **** that followed didn't maintain the same tone.

[WebLurker]

And it was pitch perfect. Still one of the best CBM adaptions ever. Whenever I see Casey Jones, all I see and hear is Elias Koteas. Damn that was good casting. Whole film was brilliant. Shame the **** that followed didn't maintain the same tone.

Dunno, the 2012 cartoon was really good.

TMNT is kind of an odd property, in that the '80s cartoon is not the original source material but that is the defining installment of the franchise that even serious-minded adaptations can't get away from.