Blade coming back with Wesley?

[hex]

Blade made $70 million, Marvel only saw $25,000. I mean you can say Blade made comic book movies popular again (which I disagree with cause it was never really marketed as a comic book movie), but I don't think it's accurate to claim the MCU exists because of Blade.

Cats are here in wilding the fukk out breh. And it pains me to even downplay "Blade", because I seen it opening week end. But "the MCU owes it's existence to 'Blade'"....a character Marvel didn't even get the rights to, until 4 years after the MCU started....is

Fred.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Cats are here in wilding the fukk out breh. And it pains me to even downplay "Blade", because I seen it opening week end. But "the MCU owes it's existence to 'Blade'"....a character Marvel didn't even get the rights to, until 4 years after the MCU started....is

Fred.

Yeah I mean I love Blade as much as the next guy (I even enjoyed Trinity despite how ridiculous it was) but to say everything that's happening these days is because of it is borderline delusional

 

[hex]

no Blade.. and you really think you get this whole marvel movie renaissance in the early 2000s leading to Iron Man

Yes.

It's crazy how many people in this thread don't know Marvel didn't even make "Blade". It was New Line Cinema. Marvel got the rights back in 2012. The first X-Men movie was greenlit in 1996, with Singer as director. And Marvel didn't make that either....it was Fox.

So no, none of these random ass movies directly affected the MCU. A string of successful comic movies as a whole proved it was a viable genre....which lead to the MCU....if you want to argue "Blade" was part of that, cool. But the success or failure of "Blade" had nothing to do with "the whole Marvel movie renaissance in the early 2000s"....they're not even made by the same studio.

Fred.

 

[verbalkint]

This Blade slander is preposterous...

So as to not offend the copywrite lawyers can we agree the film breathed much needed life into the genre?...

 

[Red Shield]

Folk in here really downplaying Blade's impact

 

[verbalkint]

Folk in here really downplaying Blade's impact

I'm saying... Blade flops you think we're getting Raimi's SM in '02? The movie industry follows trends. If those flopped hot many CBM not named Batman do you really think we would've gotten?

 

[hex]

I'm saying... Blade flops you think we're getting Raimi's SM in '02? The movie industry follows trends. If those flopped hot many CBM not named Batman do you really think we would've gotten?

Breh what are you talking about?

Those aren't even the same studio.

Again:

Let's say "Blade" flopped. "X-Men" was green lit (with Bryan Singer attached as director) since 1996. So it was happening regardless.

Anyway, "X-Men" came out, did $296 million.

"Spider-Man" comes out, does $821 million.

"X2" comes out, does $421 million.

"Hulk" came out, did $245 million.

"Spider-Man 2" comes out, does $781 million.

"X-Men: Last Stand" came out, did $459 million.

etc etc etc.

Comic movies would exist as a genre with or without "Blade".

Fred.

I'm bringing facts to the table.

Fred.

 

[Kiyoshi-Dono]

 

[Bleed The Freak]

Blade made $70 million, Marvel only saw $25,000. I mean you can say Blade made comic book movies popular again (which I disagree with cause it was never really marketed as a comic book movie), but I don't think it's accurate to claim the MCU exists because of Blade.

If anything, it's the success of Spider-Man and X-Men and the fact that Marvel saw so little of their profits that pushed Marvel to create the MCU.

Feige admitted the Marvel craze started with Blade.

A rated R Marvel flick of an obscure character that made a shyt ton of money that came out a year after the Batman & Robin fiasco that tainted and scared every movie exec from touching comic flicks? Do you all remember what a debacle those years were?

Blade was a game changer.

Anyone thinking X-Men comes out in 2000 if this shyt flops is crazy

 

[hex]

Feige admitted the Marvel craze started with Blade.

A rated R Marvel flick of an obscure character that made a shyt ton of money that came out a year after the Batman & Robin fiasco that tainted and scared every movie exec from touching comic flicks? Do you all remember what a debacle those years were?

Blade was a game changer.

Anyone thinking X-Men comes out in 2000 if this shyt flops is crazy

I swear you cats live in your own little world.

"X-Men" was greelit by Fox, with Bryan Singer as a director, 2 years before "Blade" came out.

The sole reason it didn't come out until 2000, was because of rewrites, and Fox/Singer couldn't agree on a budget.

There is literally nothing to suggest any part of "X-Men" owes it's existence to "Blade". Again, they aren't even the same studio.

What world do you all live in where the modest $131 mill box office success of "Blade" would factor into whether or not "X-Men", a movie with nearly twice the budget of "Blade", would get made?

shyt is nonsensical from every angle.

Fred.

 

[hex]

And saying "the Marvel craze started with Blade" is hyperbolic as fukk....a more accurate statement would be "it was the first Marvel related movie that wasn't a complete train wreck".

I mean....the only Marvel theatrical release from that era prior to "Blade", was "Howard The Duck". There was nowhere to go but up.

Fred.

 

[Bleed The Freak]

I swear you cats live in your own little world.

"X-Men" was greelit by Fox, with Bryan Singer as a director, 2 years before "Blade" came out.

The sole reason it didn't come out until 2000, was because of rewrites, and Fox/Singer couldn't agree on a budget.

There is literally nothing to suggest any part of "X-Men" owes it's existence to "Blade". Again, they aren't even the same studio.

What world do you all live in where the modest $131 mill box office success of "Blade" would factor into whether or not "X-Men", a movie with nearly twice the budget of "Blade", would get made?

shyt is nonsensical from every angle.

Fred.

I'll take the word of Stan Lee and Feige over The Coli.

How bout dat

 

[Lord Beasley]

im not gonna continue to go back and forth with brehs trying to rewrite history.

 

[Norrin Radd]

I'll take the word of Stan Lee and Feige over The Coli.

How bout dat

im not gonna continue to go back and forth with brehs trying to rewrite history.

Yall just jumped over a lot of facts but go off I guess

 

[Zero]

That's not reality. The fukk?

"Blade" came out in 1998. Marvel didn't own the cinematic rights until 2012. So it's success or failure had no bearing on the MCU at all.

Let's say "Blade" flopped. "X-Men" was green lit (with Bryan Singer attached as director) since 1996. So it was happening regardless.

Anyway, "X-Men" came out, did $296 million.

"Spider-Man" comes out, does $821 million.

"X2" comes out, does $421 million.

"Hulk" came out, did $245 million.

"Spider-Man 2" comes out, does $781 million.

"X-Men: Last Stand" came out, did $459 million.

etc etc etc.

Comic movies would exist as a genre with or without "Blade".

So yeah....what reality are you in, where the MCU specifically....let alone comic movies in their entirety....is based solely on the success or failure of "Blade"?

Fred.

Yeah, problem with all this is, all that happened AFTER Blade was a success.

X-Men would've came out but who would've given a fukk if Blade hadn't re-ignited interest in Marvel comic book movies?

And no offense breh, but I'll take the word of people who are actually apart of the shyt before somebody online