|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 27, 2019 18:35:45 GMT
According to Kinberg its about an empowered woman talking control of her destiny so that's intentional.
After seeing the movie twice you can feel that was his intent. But why not just call the movie X-Men: Phoenix? I doubt there would have been as much fan backlash. I know a lot of fans complained about it being too soon to do Dark Phoenix Saga because Jean wasn't developed enough. However, this movie ended up being more like the Phoenix Saga in that Jean becomes empowered, the villains are aliens, with Xavier and Jean acting as duel protagonists.
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 28, 2019 7:24:23 GMT
I'd assume it was either Fox or Kinberg who did it to try and cash in on the popular storyline from the comic.
Or maybe they didn't know what to call it so they just used it because it sounded cool. Like how Marvel Studios used Age of Ultron as a subtitle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 28, 2019 22:10:57 GMT
I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 29, 2019 1:29:19 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 29, 2019 4:22:18 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Having a theme or subtext to a movie is great. It turns average movies into good and good movies great. The problem with it is you have to build that theme/subtext on a scaffolding of good movie making. If you don't then it can twist on itself and you get a pretensions aggravating mess. Kinberge as a writer hasn't shown a lot of movie making talent imho. He especially doesn't have the talent to reach for theme/tone. He is trying to paint a masterpiece and he hasen't learned what 2 colors make Green yet He needs to learn how to write and direct a solid movie first, before thinking about what this movie has to say. I also think that IF and I mean IF they ever do another DP. (Maybe in 25 years) Jean should be a villian for a whole movie. And that Jean gets at least 1.5 movies as a villain
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 29, 2019 12:06:29 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Ultimately the timing was off for this film. We just didn't have enough invested in this iteration of the team to care what happened to Jean. The franchise has been such a roller coaster, they've never really settled on a tone or a theme that resonates throughout. A story like DP only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters-- because they genuinely appear to care for each other; I can't speak for everyone but I didn't have that connection with the characters and I certainly didn't see that connection onscreen. Creatively, I don't know why the story morphed into one about aliens trying to steal the phoenix force. It feels so trite. If you're going to go out with a bang, just give us the DP saga-- even a rushed version of it would've been better than what we got. (And I'm on record saying I didn't hate the film. It was a decent for what they were going for, but what they were going for sure seems like a low bar to clear.) I don't mind when CBMs make changes to classic comic arcs, because the film doesn't have to be identical to the comics. The key is to capture the essence of the story that's being told on the page, and that was definitely lost in translation here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 29, 2019 14:56:32 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. I think that Kinberg, more than most, has been subject to the pitfalls of modern screenwriting (and filmmaking). He's also been hemmed in by previous work completed on the series by himself and others. General audiences are hungry for positive representation even if it comprises the thematic meaning of existing source material. Woman, so-called minorities, and members of the LGBT community don't want to be seen in a stereotypical or negative light --- even if the source material being adapted demands it. Kinberg, misguided as he is, thought that this story would be better than the source material if the protagonist were good and well-meaning but, only misguided. The idea that you can change or "evolve" your fate, while a powerful message, is heavily clichéd cinematically speaking. It wasn't executed well across either film in question (i.e., DoFP or DP) and doesn't merit praise in and of itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 29, 2019 19:46:50 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. I don't know, but it's clear that Kinberg is fundamentally confused and lost. He threw out the actual source material for some high-minded sounding nonsense. He focused too much on what he wanted to "say" and not enough on who this movie was actually for. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Being the villain doesn't make you evil. Just the antagonist. The implication of X3 is that Jean was evil because of another personality that she created and Xavier hid away. I'm guessing in Dark Phoenix they went the route of Venom. That the Phoenix Force heightened what was already in her to justify her not being actually evil this time.
I still think that Lilandra should have been the villain. Again, not evil. Just someone that is against the heroes. The Phoenix Force destroyed planets and she wants to destroy it by any means. Even if that means having to kill someone close to the heroes (and maybe the solar system).
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 29, 2019 20:29:31 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Having a theme or subtext to a movie is great. It turns average movies into good and good movies great. The problem with it is you have to build that theme/subtext on a scaffolding of good movie making. If you don't then it can twist on itself and you get a pretensions aggravating mess. Kinberge as a writer hasn't shown a lot of movie making talent imho. He especially doesn't have the talent to reach for theme/tone. He is trying to paint a masterpiece and he hasen't learned what 2 colors make Green yet He needs to learn how to write and direct a solid movie first, before thinking about what this movie has to say. I also think that IF and I mean IF they ever do another DP. (Maybe in 25 years) Jean should be a villian for a whole movie. And that Jean gets at least 1.5 movies as a villain Yeah, Kinberg got too ambitious. I think the biggest problem with his direction is that he replies too much on previous films and I’ve seen several reviews note that as a problem. Jean actually gets a decent extended arc that started in Apocalypse.  Too bad it flew over most people’s heads. Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Ultimately the timing was off for this film. We just didn't have enough invested in this iteration of the team to care what happened to Jean. The franchise has been such a roller coaster, they've never really settled on a tone or a theme that resonates throughout. A story like DP only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters-- because they genuinely appear to care for each other; I can't speak for everyone but I didn't have that connection with the characters and I certainly didn't see that connection onscreen. Creatively, I don't know why the story morphed into one about aliens trying to steal the phoenix force. It feels so trite. If you're going to go out with a bang, just give us the DP saga-- even a rushed version of it would've been better than what we got. (And I'm on record saying I didn't hate the film. It was a decent for what they were going for, but what they were going for sure seems like a low bar to clear.) I don't mind when CBMs make changes to classic comic arcs, because the film doesn't have to be identical to the comics. The key is to capture the essence of the story that's being told on the page, and that was definitely lost in translation here. I’m going to meet you halfway. I agree with you that a story like Dark Phoenix only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters–because they genuinely appear to care for each other. However, the film switched it around and made the tragedy around Mystique’s fate rather than Jean’s. They even gave her Jean’s funeral.  Mystique and her relationship with the First Class was developed in three prior films. We have definitely seen that connection on screen. What happened to Jean in the original storyline was a story of corruption but that isn’t the case here with this movie. Her arc is much closer to what Marvel Studios did with Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk, in that it’s about reclaiming agency. -Both Jean and Bruce become imbued with power they can’t control, which are based on their emotion. -They both accidentally kill people causing the military to go after them. -In the end they learn to control their powers by embracing their emotions. There is even a moment she says “You’re making me angry, Erik!” and the villain takes some of her power for themselves like the Abomination did with Bruce. It feels like Kinberg was ripping off that movie. Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. I think that Kinberg, more than most, has been subject to the pitfalls of modern screenwriting (and filmmaking). He's also been hemmed in by previous work completed on the series by himself and others. General audiences are hungry for positive representation even if it comprises the thematic meaning of existing source material. Woman, so-called minorities, and members of the LGBT community don't want to be seen in a stereotypical or negative light --- even if the source material being adapted demands it. Kinberg, misguided as he is, thought that this story would be better than the source material if the protagonist were good and well-meaning but, only misguided. The idea that you can change or "evolve" your fate, while a powerful message, is heavily clichéd cinematically speaking. It wasn't executed well across either film in question (i.e., DoFP or DP) and doesn't merit praise in and of itself. The first Phoenix Saga was about female empowerment though. Jean went from the weakest X-Men to the strongest in that storyline. Silver Age Jean suffered from pretty sexist tropes and Claremont wanted to exist that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 29, 2019 20:46:16 GMT
Rey Kahuka Vassaggo ThatGuy I want your takes on the subject. So you believe they should have made Jean a villain? Thematically that wouldn’t have made sense considering that the theme of Days of Future Past was that you can evolve to change yourself and your fate. That movie ended with an implication that happened with Jean. I remember Singer or Kinberg saying that they took inspiration from Terminator 2. Which had the theme of “no fate but what we make” but that was ruined by Terminator 3 saying “Judgement Day is inevitable”. Kinberg avoided repeating that mistake. He even said that he wanted it to line up with DOFP. Being the villain doesn't make you evil. Just the antagonist. The implication of X3 is that Jean was evil because of another personality that she created and Xavier hid away. I'm guessing in Dark Phoenix they went the route of Venom. That the Phoenix Force heightened what was already in her to justify her not being actually evil this time.
I still think that Lilandra should have been the villain. Again, not evil. Just someone that is against the heroes. The Phoenix Force destroyed planets and she wants to destroy it by any means. Even if that means having to kill someone close to the heroes (and maybe the solar system). The definition of a villain is an evil character. www.dictionary.com/browse/villainYou’re right on the money about them going down the venom route. The Cosmic Force(never called the Phoenix Force) heightens both her powers and emotions. They take it a step further and not have Jean go do anything irredeemable. Mystique’s death is clearly an accident and she never acts antagonist towards the X-Men unless you count X-Men. She’s written more like Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk. This one of the reasons why it got unfavorable reviews (I’ve read over a hundred of them). The marketing promised an action packed tale about Jean turning to the evil and wrecking havoc on the X-Men but we got a family drama with generic aliens as the villain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 29, 2019 22:04:47 GMT
Having a theme or subtext to a movie is great. It turns average movies into good and good movies great. The problem with it is you have to build that theme/subtext on a scaffolding of good movie making. If you don't then it can twist on itself and you get a pretensions aggravating mess. Kinberge as a writer hasn't shown a lot of movie making talent imho. He especially doesn't have the talent to reach for theme/tone. He is trying to paint a masterpiece and he hasen't learned what 2 colors make Green yet He needs to learn how to write and direct a solid movie first, before thinking about what this movie has to say. I also think that IF and I mean IF they ever do another DP. (Maybe in 25 years) Jean should be a villian for a whole movie. And that Jean gets at least 1.5 movies as a villain Yeah, Kinberg got too ambitious. I think the biggest problem with his direction is that he replies too much on previous films and I’ve seen several reviews note that as a problem. Jean actually gets a decent extended arc that started in Apocalypse. Too bad it flew over most people’s heads. Ultimately the timing was off for this film. We just didn't have enough invested in this iteration of the team to care what happened to Jean. The franchise has been such a roller coaster, they've never really settled on a tone or a theme that resonates throughout. A story like DP only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters-- because they genuinely appear to care for each other; I can't speak for everyone but I didn't have that connection with the characters and I certainly didn't see that connection onscreen. Creatively, I don't know why the story morphed into one about aliens trying to steal the phoenix force. It feels so trite. If you're going to go out with a bang, just give us the DP saga-- even a rushed version of it would've been better than what we got. (And I'm on record saying I didn't hate the film. It was a decent for what they were going for, but what they were going for sure seems like a low bar to clear.) I don't mind when CBMs make changes to classic comic arcs, because the film doesn't have to be identical to the comics. The key is to capture the essence of the story that's being told on the page, and that was definitely lost in translation here. I’m going to meet you halfway. I agree with you that a story like Dark Phoenix only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters–because they genuinely appear to care for each other. However, the film switched it around and made the tragedy around Mystique’s fate rather than Jean’s. They even gave her Jean’s funeral. Mystique and her relationship with the First Class was developed in three prior films. We have definitely seen that connection on screen. What happened to Jean in the original storyline was a story of corruption but that isn’t the case here with this movie. Her arc is much closer to what Marvel Studios did with Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk, in that it’s about reclaiming agency. -Both Jean and Bruce become imbued with power they can’t control, which are based on their emotion. -They both accidentally kill people causing the military to go after them. -In the end they learn to control their powers by embracing their emotions. There is even a moment she says “You’re making me angry, Erik!” and the villain takes some of her power for themselves like the Abomination did with Bruce. It feels like Kinberg was ripping off that movie. I think that Kinberg, more than most, has been subject to the pitfalls of modern screenwriting (and filmmaking). He's also been hemmed in by previous work completed on the series by himself and others. General audiences are hungry for positive representation even if it comprises the thematic meaning of existing source material. Woman, so-called minorities, and members of the LGBT community don't want to be seen in a stereotypical or negative light --- even if the source material being adapted demands it. Kinberg, misguided as he is, thought that this story would be better than the source material if the protagonist were good and well-meaning but, only misguided. The idea that you can change or "evolve" your fate, while a powerful message, is heavily clichéd cinematically speaking. It wasn't executed well across either film in question (i.e., DoFP or DP) and doesn't merit praise in and of itself. The first Phoenix Saga was about female empowerment though. Jean went from the weakest X-Men to the strongest in that storyline. Silver Age Jean suffered from pretty sexist tropes and Claremont wanted to exist that. Her "empowerment" comes at the cost of her ultimately becoming one of the darkest characters in modern comic book history. The saga can be interpreted in several different ways (some more valid than others), and for me, it has always been the story of a "tragic figure." The tragic figure, as defined in literary terms, is a hero who makes an error in judgment at a critical moment that leads to her or his demise. If Jean is in control of her actions while she is the Dark Phoenix, she is irredeemable. If she is simply a host to a cosmic entity, she has no agency. Where is the empowerment in being psychically manipulated and repeatedly raped by a serial predator? Everyone wants to turn Jean to their purpose and their agenda. The central theme of the Dark Phoenix for me is that not every ending is a happy one. Not every mutant can live and cope with their powers and relate to others on a long term basis. Claremont shows us the consequences of repression. Modern scholars and critics have tried to lump the saga in with Claremont's other (noteworthy) works that portray women as empowered beings. What they miss is that he was also showing that they are human beings who are capable of love, hated, and the full range of emotions in between. The Phoenix Saga will always be relevant to me because, for the first time, it showed a long-time superhero who simply just didn't make it. A superhero made a critical error in judgment, and she couldn't come back from it. Instead, she paid the ultimate price.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 30, 2019 18:22:18 GMT
Being the villain doesn't make you evil. Just the antagonist. The implication of X3 is that Jean was evil because of another personality that she created and Xavier hid away. I'm guessing in Dark Phoenix they went the route of Venom. That the Phoenix Force heightened what was already in her to justify her not being actually evil this time.
I still think that Lilandra should have been the villain. Again, not evil. Just someone that is against the heroes. The Phoenix Force destroyed planets and she wants to destroy it by any means. Even if that means having to kill someone close to the heroes (and maybe the solar system). The definition of a villain is an evil character. www.dictionary.com/browse/villainYou’re right on the money about them going down the venom route. The Cosmic Force(never called the Phoenix Force) heightens both her powers and emotions. They take it a step further and not have Jean go do anything irredeemable. Mystique’s death is clearly an accident and she never acts antagonist towards the X-Men unless you count X-Men. She’s written more like Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk. This one of the reasons why it got unfavorable reviews (I’ve read over a hundred of them). The marketing promised an action packed tale about Jean turning to the evil and wrecking havoc on the X-Men but we got a family drama with generic aliens as the villain. Yes. That definition still fits. An evil agency to the heroes of the movie. The Empire isn't really evil in Star Wars. It's that we are looking at it from the point of view of the heroes. Thanos isn't evil from his point of view. It's the people that are out there taking up all the resources and killing every planet. So the villain of the movie is just the person(s) against the hero. If you try to take that definition out of context, then movies like the Ocean series has no heroes because they are all villains. But the Danny/ Debbie Ocean crews are seen as the heroes of the stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 30, 2019 23:00:24 GMT
Yeah, Kinberg got too ambitious. I think the biggest problem with his direction is that he replies too much on previous films and I’ve seen several reviews note that as a problem. Jean actually gets a decent extended arc that started in Apocalypse. Too bad it flew over most people’s heads. I’m going to meet you halfway. I agree with you that a story like Dark Phoenix only works if the audience cares deeply for the characters–because they genuinely appear to care for each other. However, the film switched it around and made the tragedy around Mystique’s fate rather than Jean’s. They even gave her Jean’s funeral. Mystique and her relationship with the First Class was developed in three prior films. We have definitely seen that connection on screen. What happened to Jean in the original storyline was a story of corruption but that isn’t the case here with this movie. Her arc is much closer to what Marvel Studios did with Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk, in that it’s about reclaiming agency. -Both Jean and Bruce become imbued with power they can’t control, which are based on their emotion. -They both accidentally kill people causing the military to go after them. -In the end they learn to control their powers by embracing their emotions. There is even a moment she says “You’re making me angry, Erik!” and the villain takes some of her power for themselves like the Abomination did with Bruce. It feels like Kinberg was ripping off that movie. The first Phoenix Saga was about female empowerment though. Jean went from the weakest X-Men to the strongest in that storyline. Silver Age Jean suffered from pretty sexist tropes and Claremont wanted to exist that. Her "empowerment" comes at the cost of her ultimately becoming one of the darkest characters in modern comic book history. The saga can be interpreted in several different ways (some more valid than others), and for me, it has always been the story of a "tragic figure." The tragic figure, as defined in literary terms, is a hero who makes an error in judgment at a critical moment that leads to her or his demise. If Jean is in control of her actions while she is the Dark Phoenix, she is irredeemable. If she is simply a host to a cosmic entity, she has no agency. Where is the empowerment in being psychically manipulated and repeatedly raped by a serial predator? Everyone wants to turn Jean to their purpose and their agenda. The central theme of the Dark Phoenix for me is that not every ending is a happy one. Not every mutant can live and cope with their powers and relate to others on a long term basis. Claremont shows us the consequences of repression. Modern scholars and critics have tried to lump the saga in with Claremont's other (noteworthy) works that portray women as empowered beings. What they miss is that he was also showing that they are human beings who are capable of love, hated, and the full range of emotions in between. The Phoenix Saga will always be relevant to me because, for the first time, it showed a long-time superhero who simply just didn't make it. A superhero made a critical error in judgment, and she couldn't come back from it. Instead, she paid the ultimate price. They only made her a villain because she got too powerful for them to write. That’s what Dark Phoenix is really about. The definition of a villain is an evil character. www.dictionary.com/browse/villainYou’re right on the money about them going down the venom route. The Cosmic Force(never called the Phoenix Force) heightens both her powers and emotions. They take it a step further and not have Jean go do anything irredeemable. Mystique’s death is clearly an accident and she never acts antagonist towards the X-Men unless you count X-Men. She’s written more like Bruce Banner in the Incredible Hulk. This one of the reasons why it got unfavorable reviews (I’ve read over a hundred of them). The marketing promised an action packed tale about Jean turning to the evil and wrecking havoc on the X-Men but we got a family drama with generic aliens as the villain. Yes. That definition still fits. An evil agency to the heroes of the movie. The Empire isn't really evil in Star Wars. It's that we are looking at it from the point of view of the heroes. Thanos isn't evil from his point of view. It's the people that are out there taking up all the resources and killing every planet. So the villain of the movie is just the person(s) against the hero. If you try to take that definition out of context, then movies like the Ocean series has no heroes because they are all villains. But the Danny/ Debbie Ocean crews are seen as the heroes of the stories. You’re making this more complicated than it really is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jul 31, 2019 0:38:04 GMT
Well, in the X-Men Beginnings universe:
PHOENIX - "Normal" Jean Grey operating as X-Man
DARK PHOENIX - Jean Grey who absorbed the unnamed COSMIC ENTITY.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 31, 2019 1:38:08 GMT
Her "empowerment" comes at the cost of her ultimately becoming one of the darkest characters in modern comic book history. The saga can be interpreted in several different ways (some more valid than others), and for me, it has always been the story of a "tragic figure." The tragic figure, as defined in literary terms, is a hero who makes an error in judgment at a critical moment that leads to her or his demise. If Jean is in control of her actions while she is the Dark Phoenix, she is irredeemable. If she is simply a host to a cosmic entity, she has no agency. Where is the empowerment in being psychically manipulated and repeatedly raped by a serial predator? Everyone wants to turn Jean to their purpose and their agenda. The central theme of the Dark Phoenix for me is that not every ending is a happy one. Not every mutant can live and cope with their powers and relate to others on a long term basis. Claremont shows us the consequences of repression. Modern scholars and critics have tried to lump the saga in with Claremont's other (noteworthy) works that portray women as empowered beings. What they miss is that he was also showing that they are human beings who are capable of love, hated, and the full range of emotions in between. The Phoenix Saga will always be relevant to me because, for the first time, it showed a long-time superhero who simply just didn't make it. A superhero made a critical error in judgment, and she couldn't come back from it. Instead, she paid the ultimate price. Yes. That definition still fits. An evil agency to the heroes of the movie. The Empire isn't really evil in Star Wars. It's that we are looking at it from the point of view of the heroes. Thanos isn't evil from his point of view. It's the people that are out there taking up all the resources and killing every planet. So the villain of the movie is just the person(s) against the hero. If you try to take that definition out of context, then movies like the Ocean series has no heroes because they are all villains. But the Danny/ Debbie Ocean crews are seen as the heroes of the stories. You’re making this more complicated than it really is. That's a bit reductive and has little bearing on my point. Making her into a villain was a choice that came with its own set of circumstances and consequences. There were any numbers of ways they could have written themselves out of that corner, but they chose that one (probably because of its more epic and tragic dimensions).
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jul 31, 2019 18:45:48 GMT
Her "empowerment" comes at the cost of her ultimately becoming one of the darkest characters in modern comic book history. The saga can be interpreted in several different ways (some more valid than others), and for me, it has always been the story of a "tragic figure." The tragic figure, as defined in literary terms, is a hero who makes an error in judgment at a critical moment that leads to her or his demise. If Jean is in control of her actions while she is the Dark Phoenix, she is irredeemable. If she is simply a host to a cosmic entity, she has no agency. Where is the empowerment in being psychically manipulated and repeatedly raped by a serial predator? Everyone wants to turn Jean to their purpose and their agenda. The central theme of the Dark Phoenix for me is that not every ending is a happy one. Not every mutant can live and cope with their powers and relate to others on a long term basis. Claremont shows us the consequences of repression. Modern scholars and critics have tried to lump the saga in with Claremont's other (noteworthy) works that portray women as empowered beings. What they miss is that he was also showing that they are human beings who are capable of love, hated, and the full range of emotions in between. The Phoenix Saga will always be relevant to me because, for the first time, it showed a long-time superhero who simply just didn't make it. A superhero made a critical error in judgment, and she couldn't come back from it. Instead, she paid the ultimate price. They only made her a villain because she got too powerful for them to write. That’s what Dark Phoenix is really about. Yes. That definition still fits. An evil agency to the heroes of the movie. The Empire isn't really evil in Star Wars. It's that we are looking at it from the point of view of the heroes. Thanos isn't evil from his point of view. It's the people that are out there taking up all the resources and killing every planet. So the villain of the movie is just the person(s) against the hero. If you try to take that definition out of context, then movies like the Ocean series has no heroes because they are all villains. But the Danny/ Debbie Ocean crews are seen as the heroes of the stories. You’re making this more complicated than it really is. Not really. It's very simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jul 31, 2019 21:54:49 GMT
They only made her a villain because she got too powerful for them to write. That’s what Dark Phoenix is really about.You’re making this more complicated than it really is. That's a bit reductive and has little bearing on my point. Making her into a villain was a choice that came with its own set of circumstances and consequences. There were any numbers of ways they could have written themselves out of that corner, but they chose that one (probably because of its more epic and tragic dimensions). Perhaps it is reductive. However, something that wouldn’t work in this case. We need to show Jean as a hero first before her downfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 3, 2019 15:41:34 GMT
She has always been PHOENIX in the movieverse. The "firebird" is her natural energy signature as mutant.
In the Original Trilogy, set in Timeline Prime:
1980- After having "recruited" her in 1979 (roughly 20 years before "The Last Stand"), Xavier suppresses her Phoenix powers, unwillingly creating the alternate Phoenix "persona".
1990- The X-Men are formed. She's called "Marvel Girl".
1999- X-MEN 1. She's Jean Grey now. Her Phoenix persona & powers are still suppressed.
1999- X2. The Phoenix persona starts to surface again. By the end of the movie, she's Phoenix.
2000- The Last Stand. The Phoenix persona is 100% angry and going against Xavier and the X-Men.
The Cosmic Force is a standalone entity, it's not the comic book "Phoenix Force" at all.
|
|
