Incorporating elements from other genres doesn't diminish the presence of the original genre. There's a reason why terms such as "space western" or "paranormal romance" exist - because they're combining two different genres into a single work.Zontar said:
Per the above examples, there's a thing to consider when it comes to classifying genres, and that's the idea of "appeal elements." As in, what is it about a particular work/genre that draws people to it, or rather, why do people want to consume said work? Per said examples:
-Star Wars: While many label this as science fiction, I'd actually say it's an example of space fantasy, or at least, science fantasy. The appeal elements of Star Wars have a lot to do with its setting, which tends to be a strength of sci-fi and fantasy. While Star Wars is character focused, at least as far as the movies go, all of these characters exist within a backdrop outside the world as we know it.
-James Bond: Bond would come under the "thriller" genre, with sub-categorizations such as espionage. Bond himself is a large part of the appeal element, regardless of which type of Bond you like (e.g. compare Craig with Moore). However, the nature of the stories is part of the appeal elements, whether they be a take on the Cold War (Flemming novels), post-Cold War (Bronsan era), or modern times (Craig era). While Bond is the main protagonist and can come under the archatype of a hero, Bond usually leans towards realism on some level, even with the Moore films (still the existence of the Cold War).
-Superheroes: What are the appeal elements of the superhero genre? Well, in contrast to the above examples, it's not setting. Yes, a superhero universe can acquire a detailed setting over time, but the setting is rarely cited as an appeal element, especially since most superhero settings are within modern times at the time of publication, and focus on the individual, with the setting usually morphing to account for the hero being relatable (unlike Star Wars, where the setting distinctly changes over time). Is it like Bond? Well, not exactly, because as I mentioned, Bond's appeal has a lot to do with setting and style, focusing on a particular historical period and how Bond operates in it, not to mention the drive towards realism. Bond is good, but it's a set of abilities that he's been trained in. There's nothing supernatural about them. Superheroes, on the other hand, tend to have traits that fall into the idea of a) being born with incredible powers, or b) acquiring incredible powers. You get a few that don't fit into this type (e.g. Batman), but there's usually something about that individual specifically. There's multiple MI6 agents and multiple Jedi, but only one Batman, even if someone takes up the cowl.
So, yeah, you can draw similarities, but I'd still classify superheroes as their own genre. A genre that's usually defined by the following:
*Flexible setting, designed to accomadate characters, based on modern times in most cases (as in, modern at time of publication)
*Empowered individual/group of individuals: The individual/group is generally unique in the frame of their setting. They are empowered in literal and/or literary means that puts them above everyone else, and they are the only one with this skillset, even if they can be rivaled by antagonists.
*Binary divide - usually a superhero has a villain/set of villains that are recurring. While you can cite Vader and Blofeld in the above examples, they're still part of larger organizations (Empire/SPECTRE) that are part of the overall setting. Superheroes, you may get the occassional HYDRA, but most of the most iconic villains in the genre (e.g. the Joker) are independent, lone wolves. Think of Vader, think of the Empire. Think of Blofeld, think of SPECTRE. Think of Doctor Octopus, the average person isn't going to think of the Sinister Six immediately, and that's still a group rather than a setting defining organization.
Most superhero movies still conform to these tropes, at least in part. Nolan's Batman films had political/social themes (least 2 and 3 did), but Batman is still front and centre, the Joker operates alone, the League of Shadows exists in the...well, shadows, etc. Man of Steel had sci-fi elements (e.g. you could call it an alien invasion movie), but it's still focused on Clark, who's an empowered individual where the focus is on a setting that's identical to the time of its release, and has the binary divide with Zod. Marvel movies may incorporate other elements and have a setting where the status quo is affected by events (Civil War, Battle of New York, etc.), but they still correspond to superhero tropes - empowered individual, focus is on individual, usually a binary divide/distinct antagonist, etc. Of all the ones I've seen, I can only call Guardians of the Galaxy a non-superhero film - I'd personally classify it as science fantasy.
I guess I can cite Extra Credits in closing - is x PART of y, or is x the REASON I consume y?" To go back to Marvel, I've never heard anyone say "I watched Captain America because I like WWII movies" or "I watched Thor because I like fantasy movies." Let's be honest, the superhero element, and their origins of this element, are the reason people get invested in them.
