True, but unless it's a very conventional superhero story or played for comedy, it likely wouldn't be considered a superhero film.
For instance, if Blade wasn't a character in Marvel comics, the films wouldn't be considered superhero films any more than the Underworld films are. They would be action/horror with no mention of superheroes.
Honestly, I don't believe there's been a superhero, even a very conventional one, specifically created by Hollywood that wasn't played for comedy. I certainly can't recall a superhero film where the character didn't originate in comics that was played straight.
Actually, Unbreakable may the only original Hollywood superhero film that was played straight. But that wasn't conventional since it was a metafictional analysis of the superhero genre. The villain's whole purpose was to find, or even create in a way, a superhero.
To bring it back to my original point, calling something a superhero film doesn't carry much weight since pretty much any genre can include superheroes.
But honestly any genre can include anything. It doesn't really matter.
Trust me M Night is going to tell you that was all comic book super villain superhero. As well as the other examples I gave that can blur the lines.
so it seems its more territorial?
underworld to me should be considered superhero. Much respect to my brother Grevioux. Why wouldn't it be? But its also action. And horror.
I'm not big into labeling everything.
Its all whatever - its not important besides time wasting fan stuff.
So all action heroes are essentially superheroes by that logic. And many horror legends are super villains? Is resident evil horror?
Let's not get into Me3an.
I'm still lost on why its important to categorize and why one movie can't be multiple things?
