By way of comparison, compare it to Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. They were both made by New Line Cinema and they both came out at a similar time. The Austin Powers movie was a sequel to a film that had proven a reasonable hit and was therefore given a decent budget upgrade. The original film cost under $20m and The Spy Who Shagged Me was given a budget of $33m. Blade cost $45 million.

So, I say Blade was big budget by virtue of not being low budget.

Comparing it to other films that came out that year. Blade doesn't event come close to being big budget. Moderate to decent at best.

Godzilla 125 Million

Lost in Space 80 Million

Deep Impact 80 Million

The Horse Whisper 60 Million 

Armageddon 140 Million

Lethal Weapon 4  140 Million

Mulan 90 Million 

I believe that on the DVD commentary for "Blade," it's mentioned that they didn't have a big budget.

Anthony, when I wrote "It wasn't a tentpole summer flick and it wasn't among the bigger budgeted films that year", your list just agrees with that. 

At the risk of discussing at some length how long is a piece of string:

Moderate or decent budget films are not terms I've heard bandied around. As I said in my previous post, traditionally there has tended to be a binary distinction of low budget and big budget*. Though of course there is no clear cut definitions or parameters, the distinction is really one of whether a studio has put some some welly behind the film. Blade would tend to fall into the latter category with an established star, a wide release, plenty of marketing, etc.

Yes, the Black Panther has a much bigger budget. No arguments on that. But so what?

Certainly for the point of the discussion of firsts, it would seem extremely strange to discount Blade in favour of Black Panther as a big budget film given the very sensible points Michael makes above. 

It's like saying Michael Keaton's first appearance in a big budget Batman film was Batman Returns, because Batman cost less than half of Batman Returns and therefore is only a moderate-to-decent budget film in comparison.

By the by, Batman -- one of the more expensive films back in the summer of 89 -- cost about the same as Blade in inflation-linked terms and was released on fewer screens. The exact comparisons aren't relevant though. They were both major releases.

No matter how colossal the Black Panther's budget, he isn't the first black superhero in a major studio flick.

*We also have the more recent term of microbudget films for the likes of Blair Witch and El Mariachi

Anthony, when I wrote "It wasn't a tentpole summer flick and it wasn't among the bigger budgeted films that year", your list just agrees with that. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter, my post was in response to this comment from you

Blade came out in August 21 of 98 so that would have made it a summer flick. For a studio like New Line Cinema I'd argue that Blade was indeed a tentpole movie for them.  Blade wasn't really considered a "superhero" movie. It was considered more of a thriller.

-----

Late August isn't a tentpole for anyone, even New Line. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY's August release was viewed as a gamble by Marvel Studios, and its huge box office success in that month was unprecedented. And that was early August. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It isn't a fair comparison. GOG was had a HUGE BUDGET 232 million dollars. By any standards that is going to be a gamble. If it failed I'm sure it would have hurt Disney/Marvel Studios. But if it wouldn't have destroyed the company.

New Line Cinema would have been destroyed had Blades budget been that. But at 45 million it would have hurt it. But the studio wouldn't have gone out of business. 

Anytime a studio tries to put out a film that hasn't been done before there's going to be some kind of risk.  I seem to remember quite a bit of merchandise and movie tie ins at 7 /11 and toy stores when Blade came out. I don't know if New Line was hoping for the profits from the film to cover the studio for the year. But the film was a big deal when it came out. So I'd say that it qualifies as a tentpole summer movie. 

Thank you, Tim! I find it maddening. Yes, it's news, but also the least interesting aspect of a movie, at least for those of us who don't own a share of it.

That said, yes, some films are more influential than others, and they have to be seen to be influential. They have to find their audience. But it doesn't have to be the biggest audience.

Matt H:  "The second part kind of explains the first part: Big budget becomes news."

Black Panther is by no means the first black Superhero movie. But it just might be the most important one. 

Since a half vampire half human character qualifies as "super" perhaps 100% vampire Blacula is in contention for the first black supervillain at the movies?

Those two in the same movie would be cool.

Since a half vampire half human character qualifies as "super" perhaps 100% vampire Blacula is in contention for the first black supervillain at the movies?

Those two in the same movie would be cool.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

I was thinking about Blacula this morning. But I don't think we can include him. We don't consider other vampires as Superheroes or Supervillain. So Blacula shouldn't be considered one either.

 Blade exists within the Marvel Universe. So I think a different set of rules apply. If Dracula shows up in the MCU that version would be a Supervillain. But we wouldn't consider Bela Lugosi's Dracula as one.

`````````

Editted to fix some typos and make it more coherent.

Edited.