|
|
Post by politicidal on May 16, 2018 1:52:26 GMT
Blade trilogy also fits in this as well. See, I like the first Blade the best. Started out loving Blade II but then I got bored halfway through. Most I've seen of Trinity was that Cinemasins episode. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 19, 2018 2:38:15 GMT
I can watch the first 2 Spiderman movies and they can still hold up against the best superhero movies of today. I can't say the same thing for the first 2 X-men movies.
That said, I'd rather watch X3 again than Spdierman3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 19, 2018 2:55:22 GMT
X-men films have some memorable scenes like the attack on the White House and Xavier estate. Some story points are very hokey.
I think the Spider-man films aged badly from the moment of creation though.
They used CGI for things they should not have-like him climbing a building and jumping from rooftops.
Totally unnecessary and fake looking even in 2002.
They were not faithful to the Ditko comics so I was not a fan anyway.
Best thing about them were the Bruce Campbell cameos.
|
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on May 19, 2018 17:19:13 GMT
I would choose the X-Men trilogy anyday over Spiderman trilogy
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on May 19, 2018 20:29:05 GMT
Sure but Raimi’s Spider-Man films were stillborn.
|
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Nov 8, 2019 8:39:04 GMT
Honestly, I think Spider-Man trilogy has/have aged better on the ground that the first X-Men film looks VERY outdated in terms of action scenes, which were unbelievably stiff.
|
|
thenolan
Sophomore
@thenolan
Posts: 778
Likes: 162
|
Post by thenolan on Nov 8, 2019 12:10:51 GMT
it depends on what you like about comics films.
if you liked the more realistic grounded take. than yes xmen has aged better
if you want something mcu wishes that is was, where comic films can still be amazing without being kiddie comedy though not as grounded, spiderman original trilogy is the go to.
both two series are still the best marvel movies despite a weaker 3rd movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Nov 8, 2019 13:00:43 GMT
Hmm tough call. I feel that Spider-Man 2 has aged really well. But there are certain smaller aspects of each trilogy that haven’t aged well. Like Flash Thompson from Spider-Man and the leather suits from X2.
As far as what I prefer I’d say I prefer Spider-Man 2 over everything. But I do prefer X2 to everything else.
Basically:
1) Spider-Man 2
2) X2
3) Everything else
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 8, 2019 14:22:39 GMT
These were two CBM trilogies that came out during a similar time. I honestly think X Men has aged better I mean I liked the original Raimi trilogy but some of the cinematography, acting and effects don't hold up whereas X Men still holds up to today's CBMS. In general I think the series was better I mean X-Men was better than Spider-Man, X2 was better than Spider-Man 2 and even The Last Stand was better than Spider-Man 3. Does anyone else feel the same way? "X-Men" was groundbreaking. "X2" was a masterpiece. "The Last Stand" was a bleak and brilliant superhero movie, very underrated. Also, the most profitable one. So... X-Men win this easily.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 8, 2019 15:05:32 GMT
These were two CBM trilogies that came out during a similar time. I honestly think X Men has aged better I mean I liked the original Raimi trilogy but some of the cinematography, acting and effects don't hold up whereas X Men still holds up to today's CBMS. In general I think the series was better I mean X-Men was better than Spider-Man, X2 was better than Spider-Man 2 and even The Last Stand was better than Spider-Man 3. Does anyone else feel the same way? "X-Men" was groundbreaking. "X2" was a masterpiece. "The Last Stand" was a bleak and brilliant superhero movie, very underrated. Also, the most profitable one. So... X-Men win this easily. Mate if you cannot do basic maths for yourself buy a calculator atleast so you don't keep making such basic cock ups.
If you go by pure box office minus budget then X2 is the most profitable, $297m more than it's production cost, Last Stand wasn't even $250m, and that's without factoring in marketing costs, but yeah X2 was way more profitable.
Also Last Stand is mediocre as hell, Magneto is the master of magnetism why in the fuck is he hiding in the woods? he is so vulnerable there it's ridiculous, as is the emotional pay off of Logan killing Jean, he's spent what 3 weeks around her? who brought that bullshit, it was also the worst looking of the movies because it went into more effects which age badly.
But I do agree X-Men win, but not for the reasons you say necessarily as Spider-Man was also ground-breaking in it's own way and Spidey 2 many feel is a masterpiece also, not me but many people, but this isn't a which is better, it's which holds up the best, imo that's X-Men, by not trying to go too heavy on the effects in 1 & 2 choosing to use more practical effects and stunt work the movie still holds up visually, those Spider-Man films however were so CGI heavy it's extremely noticeable, and some looked like shit even back in the day let alone almost 20 years later.
Out of the 2 X-Men for the win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 8, 2019 19:06:31 GMT
I don't need a calculator, I'm pretty strong in Mathematics. Worry for yourself and your money LOL.
From a box office point of view, without considering the net profit, "The Last Stand" was way more successful than X2 at that point.
And it was bleak, brilliant, epic and had IMPRESSIVE FX for that age, that's 100% undeniable.
I agree that fusing together two different storylines was a mistake, but it turned out great anyway despite the fusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 8, 2019 20:27:24 GMT
I don't need a calculator, I'm pretty strong in Mathematics. Worry for yourself and your money LOL. From a box office point of view, without considering the net profit, "The Last Stand" was way more successful than X2 at that point. And it was bleak, brilliant, epic and had IMPRESSIVE FX for that age, that's 100% undeniable. I agree that fusing together two different storylines was a mistake, but it turned out great anyway despite the fusion. Well this is the I think 4th time I myself have had to correct you on simply add and subtract math problems in the last week, so no you are not strong in maths, also 13% isn't what I would call way more successful, it was slightly more successful, which given it was the hyped up final chapter of the X-Men trilogy and the 2nd move exceeded the 1st's box office by 37.5% give or take a half a million dollars, so yeah that's not WAY more successful.
And seeing the production budget was almost doubled for 3 over what 2 had a mere 13% box office increase would probably have been seen as disappointing I would imagine.
But in the end use the right words, you said X3 was more profitable, but that's bollocks as I proved, see if you simply go by BO numbers you are being kind of daft, because those numbers they mean nothing without context, such as this Godzilla KOM this year grossed $385.9 million, is it more successful than X1? X1 only grossed $296.3 million, so Godzilla is more successful right? well Godzila also cost a minimum of over $100m more than X1 did, and X1 grossed than $296m almost 20 years ago, which would adjust it up to closer to $450m in todays money, not to mention grossing most of it's money in the US where the return for the studios is greatest, where as Godzilla took most of it's money in internationally, so you see context is important.
Also use the right words then, you said X3 was more profitable than X2, which again simple maths says proves is not true, so use the right words and facts instead of spouting off foolishly as you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 8, 2019 22:28:52 GMT
I don't need a calculator, I'm pretty strong in Mathematics. Worry for yourself and your money LOL. From a box office point of view, without considering the net profit, "The Last Stand" was way more successful than X2 at that point. And it was bleak, brilliant, epic and had IMPRESSIVE FX for that age, that's 100% undeniable. I agree that fusing together two different storylines was a mistake, but it turned out great anyway despite the fusion. Well this is the I think 4th time I myself have had to correct you on simply add and subtract math problems in the last week, so no you are not strong in maths, also 13% isn't what I would call way more successful, it was slightly more successful, which given it was the hyped up final chapter of the X-Men trilogy and the 2nd move exceeded the 1st's box office by 37.5% give or take a half a million dollars, so yeah that's not WAY more successful.
And seeing the production budget was almost doubled for 3 over what 2 had a mere 13% box office increase would probably have been seen as disappointing I would imagine.
But in the end use the right words, you said X3 was more profitable, but that's bollocks as I proved, see if you simply go by BO numbers you are being kind of daft, because those numbers they mean nothing without context, such as this Godzilla KOM this year grossed $385.9 million, is it more successful than X1? X1 only grossed $296.3 million, so Godzilla is more successful right? well Godzila also cost a minimum of over $100m more than X1 did, and X1 grossed than $296m almost 20 years ago, which would adjust it up to closer to $450m in todays money, not to mention grossing most of it's money in the US where the return for the studios is greatest, where as Godzilla took most of it's money in internationally, so you see context is important.
Also use the right words then, you said X3 was more profitable than X2, which again simple maths says proves is not true, so use the right words and facts instead of spouting off foolishly as you have.
Don't always act as a sexually frustrated woman all the time, Dazz! LMAO. It was the most successful and even profitable one for many reasons. It had more success in either the box office and video sales departments. You don't like the movie, fine, but it was the most successful in the franchise until "Days of Future Past" came out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 8, 2019 23:18:29 GMT
Well this is the I think 4th time I myself have had to correct you on simply add and subtract math problems in the last week, so no you are not strong in maths, also 13% isn't what I would call way more successful, it was slightly more successful, which given it was the hyped up final chapter of the X-Men trilogy and the 2nd move exceeded the 1st's box office by 37.5% give or take a half a million dollars, so yeah that's not WAY more successful.
And seeing the production budget was almost doubled for 3 over what 2 had a mere 13% box office increase would probably have been seen as disappointing I would imagine.
But in the end use the right words, you said X3 was more profitable, but that's bollocks as I proved, see if you simply go by BO numbers you are being kind of daft, because those numbers they mean nothing without context, such as this Godzilla KOM this year grossed $385.9 million, is it more successful than X1? X1 only grossed $296.3 million, so Godzilla is more successful right? well Godzila also cost a minimum of over $100m more than X1 did, and X1 grossed than $296m almost 20 years ago, which would adjust it up to closer to $450m in todays money, not to mention grossing most of it's money in the US where the return for the studios is greatest, where as Godzilla took most of it's money in internationally, so you see context is important.
Also use the right words then, you said X3 was more profitable than X2, which again simple maths says proves is not true, so use the right words and facts instead of spouting off foolishly as you have.
Don't always act as a sexually frustrated woman all the time, Dazz! LMAO. It was the most successful and even profitable one for many reasons. It had more success in either the box office and video sales departments. You don't like the movie, fine, but it was the most successful in the franchise until "Days of Future Past" came out. Only a stark raving mad lunatic would think a movie that cost $210m and grossed less than $460m is more successful than a $100m movie that grossed almost $410m, see again simple maths, 460 - 210 = 250, where as 410 - 110 = 300, 300 is bigger than 210, therefor the movie that grossed 300m more than it cost to make is the more successful, but you being a stark raving mad lunatic who cannot do simple add and subtract sums you wouldn't know this.
As for those X3 DVD numbers, nice but again out of context, they mean nothing, let me add context, this is the X2 unit sales for it's first 5 days of release where it made over $107m according to Variety.
Some six million units were sold last week, with an estimated 10 million in domestic sales possible.
See that, that 5 million units sold sounds real good until you compare it to the 6 million units sold of the previous film in it's 5 day opening window also, context my dear simpleton context is key.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Nov 8, 2019 23:54:09 GMT
X-Men 1 has aged terribly, but Spider-Man 1 is still good despite it's dated CGI.
X2 and Spider-Man 2 are equally good and still hold up despite the former kicking off what would become the Wolverine-Magneto: Stryker problem.
I like X-Men: The Last Stand over Spider-Man 3. Both suck, but The Last Stand is more action packed and has 100% less emo dancing.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 9, 2019 2:14:41 GMT
X-Men trilogy feels more self contained, less timely, which helps age it better.
Spider-Man trilogy has always felt 00's.
|
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Nov 9, 2019 6:11:30 GMT
Days of Future Past has also aged horrendously in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 9, 2019 18:45:15 GMT
dazzYou mean: a Tony Stark raving mad lunatic. LOL Said that, you can't deny that "The Last Stand" was a big success in an age where billion dollars grossing superhero movies were still a quantum anomaly. It grossed more than X2 in its theatrical run, this is undeniable, my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 9, 2019 20:53:27 GMT
dazz You mean: a Tony Stark raving mad lunatic. LOL Said that, you can't deny that "The Last Stand" was a big success in an age where billion dollars grossing superhero movies were still a quantum anomaly. It grossed more than X2 in its theatrical run, this is undeniable, my friend. Depends on how you define a success, did it gross a lot of money? yes, I think outside of a Spiderman movie The Last Stand grossed the most money of any other comic book movie at the time, unadjusted obviously otherwise Batman 89 and Superman 78 I think beat it easily.
Now having said that the simple gross of a movie as I said is meaningless out of context, The Last Stand cost almost twice as much as X2, and with marketing for all we know it could actually be more than twice as much, but it grossed only a fraction more than X2 did, most of those gains coming via ticket inflation, the same amount of tickets sold in 2003 for $407m = $440m or so, meaning X3 only grossed about $20m more than X2 did.
This is my point the gross is meaningless out of context, and you constantly cite box office out of context, The Last Stand all things considered could be the least successful of the trilogy when you consider that the $220m over it's budget the Original X-Men grossed in 2006 dollars would amount to about $267m in 2006 dollars, the near $300m over it's budget that X2 grossed in 2003 would make for around $324m in 2006, where as The Last Stand only brought in under $250m over it's budget, so out of the 3 amounts it made the least when you figure how much in 2006 dollars each movie made after subtracting their production budgets, now in reality it doesn't work this way, typically you need to figure out how much over double their budget they made and then half that amount to figure out the profit, because obviously the studios at most take only 50% of a films gross whilst they pay 100% of the expenses, this is again before you even factor in marketing, but when you do this even unadjusted The Last Stand is the loser, $460m / 2 = $230m - $210m = $20m, where as X-Men is $296m / 2 = $148m - $75m = $73m, X2 goes $407m / 2 = $203.5m - £110m = $93.5m, which if you then adjust = X1 = $88m, X2 = $101m & X3 = $20m, now these are rough numbers, they may and probably are off by a little, not a whole lot though, but you see how X3 made the absolute least likely profit in terms of box office despite it having the biggest box office?
This is why Joker is such a big hit, because it's total estimated costs are just $120m, so even though it wont likely exceed Aquaman's $1.148b box office it will be far more profitable because Aquaman cost with production & marketing something like $400-450m, it's also why despite likely going to make less than half of what Infinity War did Joker is likely going to make around the same level of profit for DC & WB that IW did for Disney & Marvel, because it isn't only about the gross.
But yes you are right of the original trilogy of X-Men films The Last Stand grossed the most money, no matter how you slice it, it grossed the most, that's a fact, and one I did not deny, I just corrected you on the faulty statement that it was the most profitable, gross and profit however are very different things, as I just pointed out several times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 12, 2019 0:36:34 GMT
No. And I say that as someone who likes the X-Men series more overall.
|
|
