|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 4:19:49 GMT
Ardent fans have always had issues with filmic adaptations of comic stuff. That's neither unique to X-Men nor was the first movie gratuitously bad in this regard FOR ITS TIME, which brings us back to the main point at hand. Innit? I'm not saying it was fucking Batman '89 in terms of cultural impact, either. Again, there's a lot of middle ground between it being dog shit and Best Picture. And it was below that middle ground. And again, for its time, it wasn't really all that good. And it's not about having issues with adaptations. Spider-man made a lot of changes and the only issues fans had with it were the webshooters and Goblin's costume. I'd say the only "good for its time" on X-men would be that there wasn't much around it to really compare it to. Right, and I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. Good talk. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 4:22:47 GMT
And it was below that middle ground. And again, for its time, it wasn't really all that good. And it's not about having issues with adaptations. Spider-man made a lot of changes and the only issues fans had with it were the webshooters and Goblin's costume. I'd say the only "good for its time" on X-men would be that there wasn't much around it to really compare it to. Right, and I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. Good talk. That's your prerogative. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2018 4:24:59 GMT
Yes and? I didn't say the other studios didn't take any risks, I said they didn't take risks more than what the MCU did. So far you have not presented any proof to back up your claim. There being comicbook movies decades ago has got nothing to do with the discussion of risks. Sure it does. First of all, every business venture has a degree of risk, but that's beside the point. Look: why can't the MCU owe literally any creative debt whatsoever on any fucking level at all to the other movies like the ones in its pantheon that preceded it, be it in terms of costumes, framing, sound design, direction, cinematography, etc etc etc etc etc? Why is that the boldest assertion anyone's ever made and even worth arguing over? It seems like a banal statement of objective fact, even in the instances where the MCU diverged from those prior movies. I feel like I'm trying to explain to child why it has to piss in the toilet rather than on the floor. Work with me, like, the slightest bit. If you really, critically understood what Newton meant and agree that it applies in this case, which it quite academically and in point of fact does, then we've no argument. Of course the MCU movies took some inspiration and similarities to the older superhero movies. When have I ever said it didn't? But that has zero to do with what I'm saying because that still doesn't change the fact the the MCU movies have taken more risks than other studios with their movies. I think you're getting confused. The precedence of a movie does not make that movie more or less risky than others. That's not what dictates whether a movie is risky or not. Or at least it's not the only factor. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 4:26:07 GMT
Right, and I disagree for the reasons I've already stated. Good talk. That's your prerogative. Innit? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 4:28:32 GMT
Sure it does. First of all, every business venture has a degree of risk, but that's beside the point. Look: why can't the MCU owe literally any creative debt whatsoever on any fucking level at all to the other movies like the ones in its pantheon that preceded it, be it in terms of costumes, framing, sound design, direction, cinematography, etc etc etc etc etc? Why is that the boldest assertion anyone's ever made and even worth arguing over? It seems like a banal statement of objective fact, even in the instances where the MCU diverged from those prior movies. I feel like I'm trying to explain to child why it has to piss in the toilet rather than on the floor. Work with me, like, the slightest bit. If you really, critically understood what Newton meant and agree that it applies in this case, which it quite academically and in point of fact does, then we've no argument. Of course the MCU movies took some inspiration and similarities to the older superhero movies. When have I ever said it didn't? But that has zero to do with what I'm saying because that still doesn't change the fact the the MCU movies have taken more risks than other studios with their movies. I think you're getting confused. The precedence of a movie does not make that movie more or less risky than others. That's not what dictates whether a movie is risky or not. That's (a) a gross oversimplification of what I wrote that evinces a misunderstanding of my point entirely and (b) actually untrue in and of itself. It's absolutely inherently riskier doing something for the first time than the hundred and fifteenth, because people have the capacity to study and learn. Or at least some of them.  |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 4:50:15 GMT
Of course the MCU movies took some inspiration and similarities to the older superhero movies. When have I ever said it didn't? But that has zero to do with what I'm saying because that still doesn't change the fact the the MCU movies have taken more risks than other studios with their movies. I think you're getting confused. The precedence of a movie does not make that movie more or less risky than others. That's not what dictates whether a movie is risky or not. That's (a) a gross oversimplification of what I wrote that evinces a misunderstanding of my point entirely and (b) actually untrue in and of itself. It's absolutely inherently riskier doing something for the first time than the hundred and fifteenth, because people have the capacity to study and learn. Or at least some of them. Did you just quote Barry Allen? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 4:53:22 GMT
That's (a) a gross oversimplification of what I wrote that evinces a misunderstanding of my point entirely and (b) actually untrue in and of itself. It's absolutely inherently riskier doing something for the first time than the hundred and fifteenth, because people have the capacity to study and learn. Or at least some of them. Did you just quote Barry Allen? The hell is Barry Allen? |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 5:02:47 GMT
Did you just quote Barry Allen? The hell is Barry Allen? The Flash? From the movie Justice League? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 5:06:30 GMT
The Flash? From the movie Justice League? Oh, yeah. Him. No, I didn't see JL yet. Why, does he get into a circular and entirely pointless argument about comic book movies? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 11, 2018 5:10:17 GMT
Marvel is in a position to take chances, we don't want cookie cutter movies even if you fail, i would respect Marvel more, if they took a chance for once Bullshit. Don't kill yourself backpedaling. Luckily, Disney, Marvel and the fandom don't need your respect. How the fuck do you think they got in a position to "take chances" in the first places? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 5:14:18 GMT
Marvel is in a position to take chances, we don't want cookie cutter movies even if you fail, i would respect Marvel more, if they took a chance for once Bullshit. Don't kill yourself backpedaling. Luckily, Disney, Marvel and the fandom don't need your respect. How the fuck do you think they got in a position to "take chances" in the first places?Being well capitalized and cementing a favorable position in the market? |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 5:16:34 GMT
The Flash? From the movie Justice League? Oh, yeah. Him. No, I didn't see JL yet. Why, does he get into a circular and entirely pointless argument about comic book movies? Not the argument, but something you said in it. Ergo. Vis a vis. Concordantly. And the line was in the trailer. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 11, 2018 5:28:54 GMT
Bullshit. Don't kill yourself backpedaling. Luckily, Disney, Marvel and the fandom don't need your respect. How the fuck do you think they got in a position to "take chances" in the first places?Being well capitalized and cementing a favorable position in the market? That and a bet-the-company-and-all-the-characters-in-it deal with Lynch and Goldman back in 06. A $500 million loan against ALL Marvel IP. Disney wasn't even in the picture then. You hate Disney? Would you have preferred to see the Sach's version of Iron Man instead? Iron Man would been out on the streets turning tricks for the lowest studio bidder with Xena level CGI. The movie would have had all the credibility of a superhero movie with Shaquille O'Neal as the lead. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 5:30:03 GMT
Being well capitalized and cementing a favorable position in the market? That and a bet-the-company-and-all-the-characters-in-it deal with Lynch and Goldman back in 06. A $500 million loan against ALL Marvel IP. Disney wasn't even in the picture then. You hate Disney? Would you have preferred to see the Sach's version of Iron Man instead? Iron Man would been out on the streets turning tricks for the lowest studio bidder with Xena level CGI. The movie would have had all the credibility of a superhero movie with Shaquille O'Neal as the lead. So basically you'd prefer Shaq over RDJ. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 11, 2018 5:32:06 GMT
That and a bet-the-company-and-all-the-characters-in-it deal with Lynch and Goldman back in 06. A $500 million loan against ALL Marvel IP. Disney wasn't even in the picture then. You hate Disney? Would you have preferred to see the Sach's version of Iron Man instead? Iron Man would been out on the streets turning tricks for the lowest studio bidder with Xena level CGI. The movie would have had all the credibility of a superhero movie with Shaquille O'Neal as the lead. So basically you'd prefer Shaq over RDJ. Uh... basically. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 11, 2018 7:30:34 GMT
They'd been doing Superman serials decades before Donner's film (and only the first Superman movie was good, the others all had major problems. Even Superman II), so a big budget movie was inevitable. Same with Batman. X-Men was good for 2000, but the problem is that the series hasn't moved on from that point. Was X-men good for 2000? No one liked how the characters were treated and Storm... Oh boy. Only thing people liked about X-men was Magneto, Wolverine on screen, Patrick Stewart as Xavier, Mystique was naked and that it was an adaption of X-men. LOL. X-Men 2000 is good now. the only people that think different are MCU fans like you who pretends to be an xmen fan because mcu movies are embarrassing and do not get the same respect. you see when people call the genre a joke and dumb with only cgi due to mcu movies, we reply and say- watch xmen 2000, watch blade, watch batman begins. No one likes how the characters were treated would be Thor 3 and the iron man sequels. films that has already been forgotten while xmen 2000 still remains a classic in the genre that redefined what comic films can be and went on to inspire the Nolan trilogy. What is MCU inspiring today? smart thinking directors flew from the mcu movies to make good comic films that eared real respect. (tim miller, james mangold, bryan singer, chris nolan) just to name a few. we true comic fans stand with them. |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Feb 11, 2018 7:55:19 GMT
Was X-men good for 2000? No one liked how the characters were treated and Storm... Oh boy. Only thing people liked about X-men was Magneto, Wolverine on screen, Patrick Stewart as Xavier, Mystique was naked and that it was an adaption of X-men. LX-Men 2000 is good now. you see when people call the genre a joke and dumb due to mcu movies, we reply and say- watch xmen 2000, watch blade, watch batman begins. No one likes how the characters were treated would be Thor 3 and the iron man sequels. films that has already been forgotten while xmen 2000 still remains a classic in the genre that redefined what comic films can be and went on to inspire the Nolan trilogy. What is MCU inspiring today? smart thinking directors flew from the mcu movies to make good comic films that eared real respect. (tim miller, james mangold, bryan singer, chris nolan) just to name a few. None of them EVER worked with MCU before - maybe aside from Tim Miller. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 11, 2018 8:09:01 GMT
X-Men 2000 is good now. you see when people call the genre a joke and dumb due to mcu movies, we reply and say- watch xmen 2000, watch blade, watch batman begins. No one likes how the characters were treated would be Thor 3 and the iron man sequels. films that has already been forgotten while xmen 2000 still remains a classic in the genre that redefined what comic films can be and went on to inspire the Nolan trilogy. What is MCU inspiring today? smart thinking directors flew from the mcu movies to make good comic films that eared real respect. (tim miller, james mangold, bryan singer, chris nolan) just to name a few. None of them EVER worked with MCU before - maybe aside from Tim Miller. For good reasons. tim miller's hate for mcu was what birthed deadpool. The OP's topic should have been. asking for the genre to gain serious credibility again does not make us haters.As someone posted the videos on thor. any smart person will hate thor 3 just for that because thor is not a goofy comedian. Please look at the cinematography for thor 3. so awful. very cartoonish just to lighten the tone and make it more Disneyish. can you really say it is better than this that was 18 years ago? no smart person will say so. only mcu fans. sorry but is true. its not hate. X-Men 2000 when thatguy and other mcu fans says, no like this. it is pretty laughable because he is trying to say , people are dumb and people only like movies with cgi movies. not smart people. sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Feb 11, 2018 8:20:06 GMT
Out of those directors, 2 of them started working on comic book films before MCU even existed.
Show me the source of this or it didn't happen.
That sounds ironic given how Fox nearly destroyed all that by making 'Fant4stic'.
Show this video. I should take a look at it to decide if he has any credibility.
So by your logic, good cinematography = colors that look like negatives were left out in the sun for a week.
Gotcha. Now it has been confirmed that 'Point Break' (2015) has better cinematography than... say... 'Pacific Rim'.
Congratulations. You just made 'Fifty Shades' trilogy better than Middle-earth saga!
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Feb 11, 2018 8:21:09 GMT
I think people would take your opinions more seriously if you didn’t call an entire fanbase dumb, summers8.
|
|
