flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 14, 2017 23:26:52 GMT
Dude, I've read virtually every issue of Uncanny X-men, from the Jack/Stan ones to present and most of the spin-offs. I'm willing to bet money I've read more than you. And yes, I know who Omega Red is, and yes, he's a relatively obscure villain. He was barely used outside the 90's, and for good reason. So much he was also killed off without much fanfare or without anyone giving a shit and has been dead for a decade without asking him to be brought back.
And again, you're nitpicking just because you don't want to admit you're wrong. A fucking Soviet killing machine with tentacles and virtually no connection to Logan wouldn't fit the story they were telling, and you know it. "Oh, they could have changed him, made him not Russian/no tentacles/no mutant/ connected to Logan/whatever"- then WHY THE FUCK you want to use him in the first place? Just admit you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 14, 2017 23:47:13 GMT
Dude, I've read virtually every issue of Uncanny X-men, from the Jack/Stan ones to present and most of the spin-offs. I'm willing to bet money I've read more than you. And yes, I know who Omega Red is, and yes, he's a relatively obscure villain. He was barely used outside the 90's, and for good reason. So much he was also killed off without much fanfare or without anyone giving a shit and has been dead for a decade without asking him to be brought back. And again, you're nitpicking just because you don't want to admit you're wrong. A fucking Soviet killing machine with tentacles and virtually no connection to Logan wouldn't fit the story they were telling, and you know it. "Oh, they could have changed him, made him not Russian/no tentacles/no mutant/ connected to Logan/whatever"- then WHY THE FUCK you want to use him in the first place? Just admit you're wrong. You want me to admit I'm wrong because you know you're losing this debate. Omega Red is one of Wolverine's top villains. In the world of Wolverine, he is definitely not obscure. Definitely not as obscure and lame as a Wolverine clone. So you can make up whatever you want about reading x number of comics but if you think Omega Red is obscure then it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. And Omega Red is no more "unfitting" for this movie than Caliban is. Just admit it, with proper writing Omega Red could easily fit in this movie. Or Cyber for that matter. Nothing you have said makes it impossible to fit their characters in this. All you really are doing is being very unimaginative.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 15, 2017 0:05:57 GMT
i think it's best to ask the director and writer(s) this question, they must have chosen x-12*2 for a reason, maybe they thought x24 killing professor x would be more impactful than omega red.
besides they'll probably recast wolverine within 5 years and you'll get different characters by then.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 15, 2017 0:12:09 GMT
It's sort of a tradition for movies based on Marvel characters to have really dull forgettable villains. Even Loki who some people rave about for some odd reason is as exciting as watching paint dry. Personally I think that's why Marvel movies have zero tension.
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 15, 2017 0:12:38 GMT
Caliban was used in the film because he's a mutant tracker, his powers were necessary to advance the plot.
X-24 isn't obscure, he's a new character, period. And I've already explained why he fits into the film, thematically and for narrative purposes.
Your reply has simply been "BUT I WANT OMEGA RED! WHAAAAAAAAH!". If you think he had be used and I'm being "unimaginative", is YOUR duty to explain how the fuck a Soviet killing machine with tentacles and no connection to fits the plot and the tone of the film, and does it better than X-24 did.
And again, Omega Red, as often happened, was "all the rage" in the 90's and then abandoned and killed off without raising eyebrows. He's D-list material.
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 15, 2017 0:25:43 GMT
i think it's best to ask the director and writer(s) this question, they must have chosen x-12*2 for a reason, maybe they thought x24 killing professor x would be more impactful than omega red. besides they'll probably recast wolverine within 5 years and you'll get different characters by then. There's no need to ask the director or writer, it's pretty clear what they were going for- X-24 fits the movie thematically, because he's a literal representation of Logan's past (and thus Logan is running away from his past literally) without Logan's sense of morality or purpose. Also, both X-23 and X-24 represent different sides of Logan- Laura is his purer, uncorrupted side, the one that has a future and a chance to be something better, while X-24 iss a physical manifestation of the worst side of Logan- a remorseless, thoughtless killing machine with no morals and no connection to humanity. He's what Logan was made to be, and would have been without the X-men's intervention- first Cyclops, Jean and Nightcrawler freeing him from Stryker and later Xavier bringing him to the team. Meanwhile, Omega Red is a Soviet killing machine, without any special connection to Logan- and tentacles. Basically, a poor man's Doctor Octopus, that was killed off and forgotten in the comics.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Mar 15, 2017 1:27:53 GMT
Speaking of Omega Red, I would love to see him in a future X-Men film.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 15, 2017 1:47:22 GMT
It's sort of a tradition for movies based on Marvel characters to have really dull forgettable villains. Even Loki who some people rave about for some odd reason is as exciting as watching paint dry. Personally I think that's why Marvel movies have zero tension. The only reason people can say "there's no tension" is because they know there will be future movies because Kevin Feige was nice enough to tell us all beforehand. Of course instead of appreciating this people just use it as an excuse to say there's no tension. As for not using an obscure villain like Omega Red in this movie....does anyone here realize how obscure William Stryker was before Singer reinvented him for X2? He was a virtual unknown.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Mar 15, 2017 2:35:08 GMT
It's sort of a tradition for movies based on Marvel characters to have really dull forgettable villains. Even Loki who some people rave about for some odd reason is as exciting as watching paint dry. Personally I think that's why Marvel movies have zero tension. The only reason people can say "there's no tension" is because they know there will be future movies because Kevin Feige was nice enough to tell us all beforehand. Of course instead of appreciating this people just use it as an excuse to say there's no tension. As for not using an obscure villain like Omega Red in this movie....does anyone here realize how obscure William Stryker was before Singer reinvented him for X2? He was a virtual unknown. No there's a lot of reasons people can say there's no tension. The primary reason being THERE IS NO TENSION. At no point do I or many other people worry anything bad will happen to any character they care about. How can there be tension when the "big bads" are instantly forgettable 5 minutes after you walk out of the theater.
Who is Kevin Feige? What did he say and why should I appreciate it? If he has anything to do with Marvel then he should be appreciative people pay to see his cotton candy movies, right?
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 15, 2017 2:49:05 GMT
Speaking of Omega Red, I would love to see him in a future X-Men film. I bet we'll see him in a film or two, after new mutants or course.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 15, 2017 3:45:20 GMT
The only reason people can say "there's no tension" is because they know there will be future movies because Kevin Feige was nice enough to tell us all beforehand. Of course instead of appreciating this people just use it as an excuse to say there's no tension. As for not using an obscure villain like Omega Red in this movie....does anyone here realize how obscure William Stryker was before Singer reinvented him for X2? He was a virtual unknown. No there's a lot of reasons people can say there's no tension. The primary reason being THERE IS NO TENSION. At no point do I or many other people worry anything bad will happen to any character they care about. How can there be tension when the "big bads" are instantly forgettable 5 minutes after you walk out of the theater.
Who is Kevin Feige? What did he say and why should I appreciate it? If he has anything to do with Marvel then he should be appreciative people pay to see his cotton candy movies, right?
You can say you don't care because you already know going in that they'll be in another movie just a few months' later, that's why. Killing people willy-nilly is the mark of a truly lazy writer. As for "They're cookie cutter" movies, that's just the excuse people put up because they don't like how the movies look like they could all be in the same Universe.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 15, 2017 22:33:04 GMT
Caliban was used in the film because he's a mutant tracker, his powers were necessary to advance the plot. X-24 isn't obscure, he's a new character, period. And I've already explained why he fits into the film, thematically and for narrative purposes. Your reply has simply been "BUT I WANT OMEGA RED! WHAAAAAAAAH!". If you think he had be used and I'm being "unimaginative", is YOUR duty to explain how the fuck a Soviet killing machine with tentacles and no connection to fits the plot and the tone of the film, and does it better than X-24 did. And again, Omega Red, as often happened, was "all the rage" in the 90's and then abandoned and killed off without raising eyebrows. He's D-list material. Your replies basically amount to "X24 and Caliban work because that's what we saw in the film". Basically you saw a red apple and then refuse to believe that there are green apples out there just because you're basing your entire argument on this one, single apple that you've seen. I said before you lack imagination, I think maybe I was mistaken. I think you like the movie so much that you don't want to admit that it could have been improved. You probably feel like it is being attacked when someone suggests that it should have done things differently. You're just being defensive, I understand that. But I'd appreciate a little more open mindedness if you plan to continue debating this subject. I am not saying the movie was bad, far from it. I'm posing a hypothetical suggestion that would have made it better. If your reasoning basically boils down to "Your suggestion would not work because that wasn't what we saw in the movie" then a hypothetical debate is not the right place for you. I have already mentioned several times how the plot can fit Omega Red. Please tell me you've actually been reading my posts?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 15, 2017 22:57:25 GMT
As for not using an obscure villain like Omega Red in this movie....does anyone here realize how obscure William Stryker was before Singer reinvented him for X2? He was a virtual unknown. This has always been my problem with Fox and their cbms. They generally don't understand what their fans want. They make a B-list mutant (Mystique) a front runner instead of focusing their attentions on main X-men like Cyclops and Storm. They make obscure characters like Stryker and Shaw as main villains and turn supposedly main villains into side characters like Juggernaut and Sabertooth. They finally make Apocalypse and yet drop the ball with the 4 horsemen. They'd prefer to create villains from scratch (X24 and Barakapool) instead of utilizing villains like Omega Red or Mr. Sinister.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 14:44:29 GMT
Considering that this is Hugh Jackman's last Wolverine film, they really should have come up with a better villain than a younger Wolverine-clone. Put an iconic Wolveirne villain like Cyber or Omega-Red, change the story/writing so that it's a mutant that they've been experimenting putting cybernetics on and then you'd have a villain that would make a much bigger impact, someone that a final movie deserves. Giving us a Wolverine-clone as a villain just felt like a cheap cop-out. Whereas a villain that has never appeared or even been mentioned in next Monday universe – Cyber or Omega-Red – would carry a lot of weight.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 15:24:39 GMT
Considering that this is Hugh Jackman's last Wolverine film, they really should have come up with a better villain than a younger Wolverine-clone. Put an iconic Wolveirne villain like Cyber or Omega-Red, change the story/writing so that it's a mutant that they've been experimenting putting cybernetics on and then you'd have a villain that would make a much bigger impact, someone that a final movie deserves. Giving us a Wolverine-clone as a villain just felt like a cheap cop-out. Whereas a villain that has never appeared or even been mentioned in next Monday universe – Cyber or Omega-Red – would carry a lot of weight. Which is still FOX's fault for doing such a lame job that the only real villains they had were Magneto or Stryker.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 16, 2017 15:35:36 GMT
Considering that this is Hugh Jackman's last Wolverine film, they really should have come up with a better villain than a younger Wolverine-clone. Put an iconic Wolveirne villain like Cyber or Omega-Red, change the story/writing so that it's a mutant that they've been experimenting putting cybernetics on and then you'd have a villain that would make a much bigger impact, someone that a final movie deserves. Giving us a Wolverine-clone as a villain just felt like a cheap cop-out. Whereas a villain that has never appeared or even been mentioned in next Monday universe – Cyber or Omega-Red – would carry a lot of weight. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but since these movies are based off comicbook characters, then casting a villain already established from the comicbooks definitely carries more weight than creating one from thin air. Provided writing caliber is constant of course.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 16:12:13 GMT
Whereas a villain that has never appeared or even been mentioned in next Monday universe – Cyber or Omega-Red – would carry a lot of weight. Which is still FOX's fault for doing such a lame job that the only real villains they had were Magneto or Stryker. There's no fault here, because there was no problem with the villain. Bringing in some character who has no history with the franchise - or bringing back one of the do you mentioned - would not have worked at all. There was a purpose behind the choice. James Mangold has commented on it too
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 16:13:55 GMT
Which is still FOX's fault for doing such a lame job that the only real villains they had were Magneto or Stryker. There's no fault here, because there was no problem with the villain. Bringing in some character who has no history with the franchise - or bringing back one of the do you mentioned - would not have worked at all. There was a purpose behind the choice. James Mangold has commented on it too And I disagree with Mangold. This is the same guy who showed he was ashamed of comics by saying no to costumes and outfits.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 16:15:08 GMT
Whereas a villain that has never appeared or even been mentioned in next Monday universe – Cyber or Omega-Red – would carry a lot of weight. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but since these movies are based off comicbook characters, then casting a villain already established from the comicbooks definitely carries more weight than creating one from thin air. Provided writing caliber is constant of course. Yes, I am being sarcastic because inserting one of those two villains – who hasn't absolutely no connection to the movies and all – is obviously a very bad choice. They were in the comics, so they should be in the movie? Dude, that is an awful argument.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 16:21:46 GMT
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but since these movies are based off comicbook characters, then casting a villain already established from the comicbooks definitely carries more weight than creating one from thin air. Provided writing caliber is constant of course. Yes, I am being sarcastic because inserting one of those two villains – who hasn't absolutely no connection to the movies and all – is obviously a very bad choice. They were in the comics, so they should be in the movie? Dude, that is an awful argument. It's better than making up villains out of nowhere (Dr Rice, X-24) and then saying "Well, they represent thematically Logan's conflict!" That's creatively bankrupt, when they easily could have inserted canon characters in their places.
|
|