He means this one:
Umm, you guys know that superhero movies had a long and successful run in theaters from the silent era?
Fantomas
Captain Marvel
Captain America
Flash Gordon
The Green Hornet
Rocketman
Spy Smasher
and my favorite: Houdini’s Master of Mystery films.
I’ve been a fan of Hellblazer from the beginning and the film was nothing like it, but on its own and even taking into account the sucking black hole of talent that is Keanu Reeves, it turned out remarkably well.
Unlike, say, Ghost Rider. <shudder>
Probably somebody should start a new thread, but I thought Superman Returns was more pathetic than Ghost Rider. At least Ghost Rider took chances and tried to be original in some aspects…SR was just insulting.
Which was never officially released and made on the cheap just to keep the rights for a few more years. Doesn’t count.
Superman Returns was a fine movie as long as you know when to hit stop.
Still, they both made plenty of money.
I never said it did. I’m just pointing out that the two of you are talking about different films.
There’s the Captain America film from 1990 too: Captain America (1990) - IMDb Apparently it didn’t even get a US cinema release. I’m guessing the one coming out next year might just do 
Of course. But we were asked by Exapno Mapcase to only consider movies within 25 years either way of Superman: The Movie. The Serial system had ended before Exapno’s time frame.
Hmm. Rebecca Staab, who played Susan Storm/Invisible Woman in that version, appears to have had an otherwise successful career in television. And seems to have aged remarkably well (she’s 49 now), judging by her photos and her demo reel (TV work, but probably NSFW) 
During the opening credits?
Anyway, the superhero genre isn’t nearly played out. I expect it’ll only get better and I’m looking forward to the Avengers movie, in part because of improving effects technology, but also because the storylines can be a bit more adult than the source material, or even the earlier films.
Heck, the recent straight-to-DVD animated films DC has licensed have been impressive to various degrees. Hearing one character call another a “son of a bitch” was refreshing, and the Wonder Woman movie had more than a little innuendo which adults can enjoy even as they fly over the heads of the kids, much like the classic Warner toons of the forties (though, sadly, not the technically impressive but dramatically sterile and formulaic Superman cartoons made by Fleischer). I give Bruce Timm major props for this.
I’m personally hoping the last Twilight movie will be a disaster - the vampire genre really needs to go back into the coffin for a few years.
Maybe, but I think they’ve already kind of burned through most of the really popular characters, and the ones that can be done in live-action without looking overly campy. Plus, I really iked the first bunch of super-hero movies at the beginning of the decade, but even I’m kinda getting sick of the genre, I doubt I’m alone.
So we’ll see, but FWIW, my prediction is that the next crop of films won’t bomb, but will underperform enough so that we’ll start seeing studios produce a lot fewer of them for the future.
i like vampire movies, but yes, something is really wrong when you have to make your characters sparkle to differentiate them from other type of vampires; or if they’re basically emo humans (Underworld) who’s afraid of the sun.
True Blood is okay though.
The silent era? Are you one of those Jaywalking characters who thinks Lincoln freed the slaves in 1950? 
Superman was introduced in 1938, well after the silent era ended. Every superhero serial was made in sound.
But you can’t talk about their box office effectiveness. Although there was much variation, by the end of the 40s serials played mostly at kiddie matinées because that was their audience. There wasn’t a culture of live-action movies for kids the way there is today. B-movies like westerns were pitched to them, along with serials, cartoons, and other shorts. You went to see the movie that was showing and got the other stuff for free.
As far as I know there wasn’t a single attempt to make a superhero movie in the 1940s, mainly because comics were considered to be juvenile junk. The first superhero movie is Superman Versus the Mole Man in 1951, made essentially as a pilot for a Superman tv series.
Nothing followed. You got the camp era on television in the 60s and a Batman movie emerged from that, but again it wasn’t until Superman the movie in 1978 that a real film was put on screen. Except for the Batman movies, nothing really caught the public consciousness until about 2000, with X-Men.
You guys also don’t seem to understand the term box-office poison. One bomb could get that label applied. People we think of as the most famous stars in Hollywood history were called box-office poison, from Marlene Dietrich to Marlon Brando. It just took one hit for everyone to forget they had ever said it. Movies are that fickle a business.
You keep ignoring the fact that nothing followed because the effects weren’t there yet.
I’d go a little farther back. Pulp and comic strip characters like Mandrake, the Phantom, Doc Savage, the Shadow, and Zorro were superheroes that predated Superman. But you’re right that none of these characters went back to the silent film era.
I think the demographics also dictate that a lot of people, such as boomers, had grown up with many of the superheroes in the comics. Now they can see them in action on a big screen. It’s always interesting, at least to me, to see how a comic figure is turned into a live action hero on the big screen. And with the advance of CGI it’s now possible to create the same effects as seen in the comics. For a superhero like Green Lantern, there’s no way it can be made into a movie (at least a decent movie) without some great CGI.
Well, Superhal’s text says “silent” but his link says “serial”. I’m guessing Freudian slip.
Ha. I responded to that and didn’t even notice. I would have sworn that had said Serial Era.