Personally, I prefer super-hero to have a specific meaning. The more you stretch the meaning of a word, the less useful that word becomes.
Any movie with a super-hero in it is by definition a super-hero movie.
But unlike a western, a rom-com, a space opera--super-hero movies are pretty open in what they can be--they just need to have a super-hero in them. They can be westerns, rom-coms, space operas. Any genre of movie can have a super-hero in it.
And when it comes to comic book movies, there's even less restrictions. They don't need to have super-heroes in them. All a comic book movie needs is to be adapted (or inspired) in some way by a comic book.
It's like if there was a category of movie called the Brit Lit movie. All it would need is to be adapted from British literature--which is wide open.
The Signal
Weird movie but I enjoyed it. The "superhero" part only shows up at the end.
The Vampires from The Twilight movies. breaking dawn part 2 ,those were not vampires. they were some very generic version of mutants.
Last edited by Castle; 07-09-2021 at 03:53 PM.
I'd actually disagree with this one. In First Blood, John Rambo was a man with skills going up against cops and weekend warriors, so I'd say it is fairly realistic. It's when you get to First Blood Part II it starts going into Superhero land.
You've never seen me run
Ravenous has super powered people who are definitely not heroes.
That seems to be a really weak definition of a superhero.Defining a superhero as someone who can routinely accomplish physical feats no ordinary person can do.
I wouldn't consider most of the characters in this topic superheroes. Superheroes need a superhero name and costume.
There's a big difference between a guy named Clark that has powers and SUPERMAN.
Sandy Hausler
DC Boards Moderator (along with The Darknight Detective (who has a much cooler name that I do))
THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ Know them. Follow them. Love them.