Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I love me some Pulp Fiction, but it was more of an homage to earlier movies than a genre defining movie in it's own right.  Pulp Mags, crime stuff, and cheesy 70's movies.  Same with the Kill Bill line and of course One Upon a Time in Hollywood.  It was the dialogue that made it so great (IMHO). 

Sure but it was an independent movie that won the Palme D'or and ushered in a decade worth of films that tried to recapture its magic. It made Miramax a big name. A whole host of movies tried to copy its tone, dialogue, and cool factor. 


Blade was fine. Spider-Man is the real genre-defining movie. There is no MCU without it. 

Posted
3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Serious movies

  • Rocky - 70's underdog, come from the gutter to glory sports movies for which there are dozens now
  • Schindlers List - 90's harrowing doc on the camps, etc.  Nothing like it before or after on that scale.
  • Saving Private Ryan - late 90's film with brutal reality.  Spawning BoB and the Pacific and the Flags of our Fathers movies.  

Pixar

  • Toy Story kind of started it all

Marvel/Superhero

  • Blade - the first bad ass production movie that was a box office success.  Blade was the OG, spawning a whole host of subsequent Marvel movies that made gazillions

I would argue Batman with Nicholson was a much bigger nation wide influence than Blade. It had Michael Keaton and Kim Bassinger who were both madly popular at the time. It was 1989 vs 1988 for Blade. Say what you will, and no CR but Blade wasn't as big with some groups for reasons. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, mdmost said:

Blade was fine. Spider-Man is the real genre-defining movie. There is no MCU without it. 

I'd disagree.  SM came out in 2002.  Blade was already on it's sequel by then and has largely been recognized as the first Marvel movie that proved that comic adaptations could appeal to adults.  Also the first black superhero actor, etc.  If you want to talk the most influential Marvel movie, you have to give it to Iron Man in '08.  There'd been multiple Super and Spiderman movies prior.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Sure but it was an independent movie that won the Palme D'or and ushered in a decade worth of films that tried to recapture its magic. It made Miramax a big name. A whole host of movies tried to copy its tone, dialogue, and cool factor. 


Blade was fine. Spider-Man is the real genre-defining movie. There is no MCU without it. 

Superman =>Batman => Spider-Man 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I would argue Batman with Nicholson was a much bigger nation wide influence than Blade. It had Michael Keaton and Kim Bassinger who were both madly popular at the time. It was 1989 vs 1988 for Blade. Say what you will, and no CR but Blade wasn't as big with some groups for reasons. 

Batman was safe to take your kids to.  Blade was not.  That's the era it ushered in.  The language.  The violence.  It was an adult-only film that many people didn't think was possible.  

Posted
1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

I'd disagree.  SM came out in 2002.  Blade was already on it's sequel by then and has largely been recognized as the first Marvel movie that proved that comic adaptations could appeal to adults.  Also the first black superhero actor, etc.  If you want to talk the most influential Marvel movie, you have to give it to Iron Man in '08.  There'd been multiple Super and Spiderman movies prior.  

Batman won an Academy award for Best Art Direction. 

I think Blade was very important, but moreso in the Wick/Woo genre than superhero. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Batman was safe to take your kids to.  Blade was not.  That's the era it ushered in.  The language.  The violence.  It was an adult-only film that many people didn't think was possible.  

I don’t disagree, I'm speaking to genre changing and Batman was dark for 1989. Not as dark as Blade, which I love BTW, but dark for the era and a superhero movie, relatively speaking. Batman was PG-13... and not super child friendly. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted

I would go with Batman but I can see Blade

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I would argue Batman with Nicholson was a much bigger nation wide influence than Blade. It had Michael Keaton and Kim Bassinger who were both madly popular at the time. It was 1989 vs 1988 for Blade. Say what you will, and no CR but Blade wasn't as big with some groups for reasons. 

I don't think that had anything to do with it at all.  Batman is the most popular comic book character in history.  Most people didn't even know Blade was a comic book character.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

Most people didn't even know Blade was a comic book character.

I didn't know it earlier this afternoon. Isn't he a vampire? 

Posted
8 hours ago, dcar00 said:

Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Horror/Gore Slasher

Fuck. This is a great one. One of the best movies ever made imo and absolutely set the template for slasher horror. 

10 hours ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

While Star Wars obviously had a much wider audience than 2001, I doubt it would have been made without 2001 breaking ground by showing that big-budget Sci-Fi movies could be made and be profitable.  By big budget, I mean as compared to the previous low-budget sci-fi films.  Both 2001 and Star Wars had very comparable budgets, that while not considered big, were at least comparable to mainstream films of the time.

I like all your points. I want to let the thread breathe - I think any further discussion on 2001 vs. Star Wars hinges on how you define "genre-defining"

They're both hugely important films. As is Alien. Which is the best film of the 3. And then Blade Runner followed shortly after and out-did all 3 of them. 

😁

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I would argue Batman with Nicholson was a much bigger nation wide influence than Blade. It had Michael Keaton and Kim Bassinger who were both madly popular at the time. It was 1989 vs 1988 for Blade. Say what you will, and no CR but Blade wasn't as big with some groups for reasons. 

For the love of God, Superman had fuckin Marlon Brando in it. And Gene Hackman. 1978 is when the comic book movie proved to be real, and everything afterwards owes their success to it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I didn't know it earlier this afternoon. Isn't he a vampire? 

according to the wiki - he was originally a vampire immune human but then became progeny between a vampire and a human.

Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Is Blade really thought of this way? I've never even seen it. 

No. It's not. This... is a novel take. 

And also wrong.

Posted

my original idea was for the genre of a movie.  some of this is blending into the technical/movie making aspects.  IMO, saving private ryan is one of the best movies of all time, and the first 30 minutes is the best opening 30 minutes of any movie I will ever see in my lifetime but it's genre is still a WWII movie.

Jurassic Park is similar.  It is a monster movie.  I put Jaws as one but the reality is it is a Monster movie, it just has the added First Summer Blockbuster tag which makes it somewhat unique.

I'm trying to figure out Monster movie(is it Kong or is it Nosferatu).  I guess monster could be separated into Animal Monster and Human Monster.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

No. It's not. This... is a novel take. 

And also wrong.

A movie can be important or influential, but I don't see how any superhero movie not called The Avengers or The Dark Knight or Superman could be called "genre-defining". 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Superman =>Batman => Spider-Man 

 

19 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

For the love of God, Superman had fuckin Marlon Brando in it. And Gene Hackman. 1978 is when the comic book movie proved to be real, and everything afterwards owes their success to it.

Whoa!!! Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight? Calm down fussy britches. You will carry me inside you all the days of your life. With great power comes great responsibility. Some mother fuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

martial arts - I would say Enter the Dragon.  Some may say Seven Samurai but that is almost all swordplay.

Enter the Dragon, for sure. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

For the love of God, Superman had fuckin Marlon Brando in it. And Gene Hackman. 1978 is when the comic book movie proved to be real, and everything afterwards owes their success to it.

Have to agree that Superman did define the genre.  Batman was just a better movie, IMO, while adding the movie song soundtrack to the mix.

Posted
1 hour ago, Kennythetiger said:

I think of Lonely Are the Brave for this one. 

Well, I think No Country for Old Men did what that movie did 40 years ago. I'd also argue that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was more in line with my original point of altering the black and white narrative of who is good and who is evil to a much greater degree. Particularly, in retrospect over the decades. The US civil war aspects, various races, and lack of clear hero changed the Western movie landscape tremendously. Was Tuco, one of the best "villains" of all time, BTW, really evil? Does The Outlaw Josey Wales exist without The Good, The Bad and The Ugly? Does Unforgiven? 

I'm not diminishing Lonely are the Brave, but I'd wager pretty heavily tons more people know and lovd the Good, the Bad and the Ugly than Lonely are the Brave. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Well, I think No Country for Old Men did what that movie did 40 years ago. I'd also argue that The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was more in line with my original point of altering the black and white narrative of who is good and who is evil to a much greater degree. Particularly, in retrospect over the decades. The US civil war aspects, various races, and lack of clear hero changed the Western movie landscape tremendously. Was Tuco, one of the best "villains" of all time, BTW, really evil? Does The Outlaw Josey Wales exist without The Good, The Bad and The Ugly? Does Unforgiven? 

I'm not diminishing Lonely are the Brave, but I'd wager pretty heavily tons more people know and lovd the Good, the Bad and the Ugly than Lonely are the Brave. 

well if the genre is spaghetti western it is GBU.  but admit that spaghetti western is a pretty narrow subgenre to western.

Posted
45 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

well if the genre is spaghetti western it is GBU.  but admit that spaghetti western is a pretty narrow subgenre to western.

The effect spaghetti westerns had on the western genre in general is far to substantial not to include them in the over arching genre historically. They didn't take entirely separate archs and it's the very reason I referenced The Outlaw Josey Wales. It's a direct outcropping with influence from "US westerns" and hell, has the same star. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...