What Was the First Modern Comic Book Movie?

[poofyhairguy]

When I think about comic book movies, it seems there is a clear difference between what I consider old-style movies (Christopher Reeve's Superman, Tim Burton's Batman, Judge Dredd, Dick Tracy, etc.) and new style movies. The key differences seem to be believable computer effects and better production values in general, hyper action till every frame is busting at the seams, and purposeful planning with sequels in mind. It seems if a comic book movie does not deliver these pieces, in most cases it bombs in the box office in the last decade.

What I can't nail down is: what was the first movie that first established this style?

I mean, the Matrix put forth the level of special effects that became a template for modern comic book movies even though it is not comic-based in 1999. It seems the first movie that put all these parts together for a popular comic franchise was X-Men in 2000.

But am I missing a key picture, some 90's movie that set the bar beforehand? Was Blade the first one?

 

[Blackjack200]

To me it seemed like Spider Man was a major turning point.

 

[phucheneh]

Spideman was my assumption, as well.

 

[MrPickins]

My first thought is X-Men. It kinda set the stage for Spider-Man et al.

 

[Sonikku]

X-Men.

 

[zinfamous]

My first thought is X-Men. It kinda set the stage for Spider-Man et al.

I thought Syringer-man came before X-Men?

if not, then it's X-Men.

 

[Ichinisan]

I think that would be "X-Men," by your definition.

 

[zinfamous]

What about Spawn with Jon Leguezamo? That movie was fantastic!

 

[vi edit]

The first Blade movie came out in '98. That was a cool movie at the time. Also - Men in Black was in '97.

Neither of those are majorly popular franchises though.

 

[blackdogdeek]

Elektra

 

[KeithTalent]

X-Men, but I really think Spiderpig took it to new levels and sort of turned things into what they are now.

KT

 

[crownjules]

The first Blade movie came out in '98. That was a cool movie at the time. Also - Men in Black was in '97.

Neither of those are majorly popular franchises though.

That's my answer too. A lot of people didn't know that Blade was a Marvel hero since the atmosphere of the movie is much darker and more grim than your X-Men, Spiderman, and Avenger movies.

 

[KeithTalent]

That's my answer too. A lot of people didn't know that Blade was a Marvel hero since the atmosphere of the movie is much darker and more grim than your X-Men, Spiderman, and Avenger movies.

Which is why I don't think it fits for this. It does not have the same tropes as all of the new, modern day movies.

It can have the distinction of being one of the first comic book flicks, but I do not think it really qualifies as the progenitor to modern comic book movies.

KT

 

[Phanuel]

X-Men, but I really think Spiderpig took it to new levels and sort of turned things into what they are now.

KT

So what you're saying is that Simpson's did it first?

 

[Blueoak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_DC_Comics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Dark_Horse_Comics_properties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_based_on_Image_Comics

Crow started in '94, but I think X-Men most meets your requirements.

 

[zinfamous]

That's my answer too. A lot of people didn't know that Blade was a Marvel hero since the atmosphere of the movie is much darker and more grim than your X-Men, Spiderman, and Avenger movies.

Then you might as well toss in the Spawn move that I mentioned, The Punisher with Dolf Lundgren D), and slews of other comic-based flicks that came out in the nineties and were sort of under-the-radar comic book flicks.

Things really took a noticeable change with the first X-Men and Spider-man, though: Major studios, serious budgets, serious talent behind them, obviously.

I mean, look at that Fantastic Four "movie" that was released in the 80s, early nineties? People often forget that before that X-Men franchise, there was basically Tim Burton's Batman, and a bunch of low budget grade D shlock that primarily came out of fan-scripts (well, seemed that way, anyway).

I think people put "major superhero" franchises on a different level, different type of expectation than they do for the lesser-known, non-traditional material, like Blade, or The Crow.

Those actually got studio attention because they didn't have that public "super hero stigma" that definitely made studios run away for decades. It wasn't lack of effects, I think it was a desire to remain as true as possible--meaning, lame-ass spandex and convoluted overly-complex plots that turned producers away.

Superman with Reeves was still the gold standard, but everyone seemed to agree that that type of movie, in the 90s and beyond, would be a huge flop. Add they were probably right.

 

[waggy]

the first batman was great. sure the ones after it sucked ass..

 

[smackababy]

The real turning point in comic movies, for me at least, came with Iron Man followed the next month by the Incredibly Hulk. That was when Marvel Studios took over and stopped the garbage being put out (except for Wolverine... I mean X-Men and Spiderman). That marked when we finally got a comic book movie that wasn't automatically a B movie, at best.

I suppose, you could argue Batman Begins really was before that, but Batman wasn't as comic book related at that point. It had been mainstream for a long time. Val Kilmer and George Clooney were Batman...

 

[SirStev0]

I vote Xmen.

 

[SMOGZINN]

When I think about comic book movies, it seems there is a clear difference between what I consider old-style movies (Christopher Reeve's Superman, Tim Burton's Batman, Judge Dredd, Dick Tracy, etc.) and new style movies. The key differences seem to be believable computer effects and better production values in general, hyper action till every frame is busting at the seams, and purposeful planning with sequels in mind. It seems if a comic book movie does not deliver these pieces, in most cases it bombs in the box office in the last decade.

What I can't nail down is: what was the first movie that first established this style?

I mean, the Matrix put forth the level of special effects that became a template for modern comic book movies even though it is not comic-based in 1999. It seems the first movie that put all these parts together for a popular comic franchise was X-Men in 2000.

But am I missing a key picture, some 90's movie that set the bar beforehand? Was Blade the first one?

Well we had the Superman in 1978 with a big name cast and a large budget (55 million, for comparison JAWs 2 was the second most expensive film of that year at 30 million) and won several Academy Awards. It had spectacular special effects for it's time (it even won Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects.) It was made for the very beginning to have a squeal, Superman 2 was filmed at the same time as Superman 1.

I think a lot of the comic book movies today have their origin in that movie.

 

[crownjules]

Then you might as well toss in the Spawn move that I mentioned, The Punisher with Dolf Lundgren D), and slews of other comic-based flicks that came out in the nineties and were sort of under-the-radar comic book flicks.

Things really took a noticeable change with the first X-Men and Spider-man, though: Major studios, serious budgets, serious talent behind them, obviously.

I mean, look at that Fantastic Four "movie" that was released in the 80s, early nineties? People often forget that before that X-Men franchise, there was basically Tim Burton's Batman, and a bunch of low budget grade D shlock that primarily came out of fan-scripts (well, seemed that way, anyway).

That's exactly why I say it started with Blade. The Batman movies of the late 80s/early 90s were too campy in my opinion. They were closer to the 70s TV series with Adam West then an honest portrayal of a comic book superhero in our world.

Blade brought in some good acting talent (Snipes, Kirstofferson) and tried to portray it as if Blade took place somewhere in the real world. It was a lower budget film than X-men and Spiderman so the SFX weren't up to par. But that changed drastically in the 2nd flick where vampire/Reaver deaths were explosions of colored dust and flame, some action sequences fully digitized the actors, and so forth.

 

[mmntech]

What about Spawn with Jon Leguezamo? That movie was fantastic!

Spawn wasn't really a mainstream comic though.

I vote for X-Men. It came out in 2000, two years before Spiderman. Really the first of the modern style of superhero movies.

Tim Burton's Batman films probably pre-date that. They were the first really stylized and dark takes on the character. Until Jole Schumacher ruined the franchise anyway. Paved the way for the fabulous animated Batman series in the 90s.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Well we had the Superman in 1978 with a big name cast and a large budget and one several Academy Awards. I think a lot of the comic book movies today have their origin in that movie.

I don't want to take credit away from that Superman movie. It was a huge deal, and him flying was actually an amazing special effect at one time apparently.

But all of those movies are COMPLETELY different than what we expect from a comic book movie today. Those Superman movies are very slow by modern standards, and every person in the movie doesn't know Kung Fu like we expect today. It would be classified as a drama maybe in 2014, not action and adventure. Somewhere along the way the audience came to expect hyper-action, fast pacing, and effects driving the plot: aka X-Men's whole plot was this CGI wave was going to ruin New York.

I forgot about Men in Black 1, that might actually qualify as it had the effects that still seem modern tied to a fast-paced ending.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Was Independence Day a comic or movie first? That would certainly qualify.

 

[KeithTalent]

What about Josie and the Pussycats? Long tails and ears for hats.

KT