|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 16:23:37 GMT
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.Cyber and Omega read aren't cannon characters in the movies!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 16:26:36 GMT
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.Cyber and Omega read aren't cannon characters in the movies!!!!!!!!! Canon = From the comics. Without which these movies wouldn't exist. Then again, Fox has never shown that kind of respect for the source material in the first place. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
 
|
Post by Lee on Mar 16, 2017 16:29:48 GMT
Cyber and Omega read aren't cannon characters in the movies!!!!!!!!! Canon = From the comics. Without which these movies wouldn't exist. Then again, Fox has never shown that kind of respect for the source material in the first place. Same goes for MCU and DCEU. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 16:30:33 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. Seriously, this is like trying to debate with a five-year-old. And besides the "I think he's cool", they are coming back with this, "Well, he's an established character in the comic books" argument as if it justifies his complete and total nonexistence in the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 16:44:21 GMT
Canon = From the comics. Without which these movies wouldn't exist. Then again, Fox has never shown that kind of respect for the source material in the first place. Same goes for MCU and DCEU. They're more respectful, and if changes are made there they make sense. Moreso for the MCU than the DCEU though, as they don't have someone with nihilistic tendencies (Snyder) running things. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 16:45:08 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. Seriously, this is like trying to debate with a five-year-old. And besides the "I think he's cool", they are coming back with this, "Well, he's an established character in the comic books" argument as if it justifies his complete and total nonexistence in the movies. Because we want stuff that's more respectful of the source material, as opposed to 16 years of what FOX has been doing. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 17:02:23 GMT
Seriously, this is like trying to debate with a five-year-old. And besides the "I think he's cool", they are coming back with this, "Well, he's an established character in the comic books" argument as if it justifies his complete and total nonexistence in the movies. Because we want stuff that's more respectful of the source material, as opposed to 16 years of what FOX has been doing.Making financially successful and well received movies? You want your comics, go read your comics. Nobody is stopping you. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
|
Post by Lee on Mar 16, 2017 17:08:05 GMT
Same goes for MCU and DCEU. They're more respectful, and if changes are made there they make sense. Moreso for the MCU than the DCEU though, as they don't have someone with nihilistic tendencies (Snyder) running things. No the changes in the MCU didnt make sense. The Mandarin, or the Ancient One are good examples. And you have to learn, that not comic book movies doesnt need to be full of humor. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 16, 2017 17:09:56 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. Yes, using a character based on a comicbook to appear in a movie based on a comicbook makes much more sense than just creating a character out of thin air. Whether or not they have a connection to the movie is not a problem because that will depend on the writing. You get a comicbook character, you adjust the writing to make him fit. You create a character from thin air, you adjust the writing to make it fit. Bottom line is, a character with a history in comics will obviously have more impact and leave a longer lasting impression than someone who not only was created from nowhere, but is basically just a young clone of the hero. We want villains who are unique characters, not just knock offs. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 16, 2017 17:12:31 GMT
They're more respectful, and if changes are made there they make sense. Moreso for the MCU than the DCEU though, as they don't have someone with nihilistic tendencies (Snyder) running things. No the changes in the MCU didnt make sense. The Mandarin, or the Ancient One are good examples. And you have to learn, that not comic book movies doesnt need to be full of humor. So you picked 2 characters from the hundreds of characters in the MCU and think that reflects the rest of the MCU? And at least MCU fans were honest enough to express their displeasure with Mandarin and the Ancient One. Fox and DCEU fans seem to be in denial that their franchises ever make mistakes. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
|
Post by Lee on Mar 16, 2017 17:16:42 GMT
"We want villains who are unique characters, not just knock offs."
Glad that the majority of moviegoers didn´t care about this. They want just watch the movies, and don´t overanalyzing enything.
|
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
|
Post by Lee on Mar 16, 2017 17:18:17 GMT
"Fox and DCEU fans seem to be in denial that their franchises ever make mistakes."
And again, the majority doesnt care about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 16, 2017 17:58:44 GMT
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. Yes, using a character based on a comicbook to appear in a movie based on a comicbook makes much more sense than just creating a character out of thin air. Whether or not they have a connection to the movie is not a problem because that will depend on the writing. You get a comicbook character, you adjust the writing to make him fit. You create a character from thin air, you adjust the writing to make it fit. Bottom line is, a character with a history in comics will obviously have more impact and leave a longer lasting impression than someone who not only was created from nowhere, but is basically just a young clone of the hero. We want villains who are unique characters, not just knock offs. You are having a problem with comics vs. movies. They are not connected whatsoever. Trying to say a comicbook character should be included in the movies, irregardless of the movie's plot, tone, etc. is mind-numbingly stupid. Not to mention, the tone/point of certain parts of the movie seem to go way over your head. Additionally, you're contradicting yourself. You want something "unique" and reject an original character in favor of some minor villain from the comics. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 20:43:59 GMT
Because we want stuff that's more respectful of the source material, as opposed to 16 years of what FOX has been doing.Making financially successful and well received movies? You want your comics, go read your comics. Nobody is stopping you. Making movies that advocate that creatively bankrupt "grounded" approach. Fox could've made smash hits like Guardians of the Galaxy using the Starjammers years ago, but they were too spineless to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 16, 2017 20:46:27 GMT
They're more respectful, and if changes are made there they make sense. Moreso for the MCU than the DCEU though, as they don't have someone with nihilistic tendencies (Snyder) running things. No the changes in the MCU didnt make sense. The Mandarin, or the Ancient One are good examples. And you have to learn, that not comic book movies doesnt need to be full of humor. The Mandarin has been an outdated character for years, and the revelation that someone was using the image of 'the foreigner' to cover up problems within society was a worthwhile message. The Ancient One? Same thing, an outdated racist caricature who would've got them in trouble if they played it straight. Instead we got a cool character played by Tilda Swinton. If you hate the humor in the MCU, you must seriously hate Star Wars, Dr Who, Star Trek, etc. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
|
Post by Lee on Mar 17, 2017 10:39:15 GMT
If i dont like humor, i wouldnt not watch movies like Deadpool, Kick-Ass, Kingsman, or other Comedy movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 17, 2017 10:40:39 GMT
If i dont like humor, i wouldnt not watch movies like Deadpool, Kick-Ass, Kingsman, or other Comedy movies. Those movies are even worse about their humor than the MCU movies, so you have nothing to complain about. |
|
Lee
Sophomore
@neo
Posts: 327
Likes: 177
|
Post by Lee on Mar 17, 2017 10:44:31 GMT
MCU is just lame humor for children. Deadpool and Kick-Ass are more adult humor.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 17, 2017 13:30:48 GMT
MCU is just lame humor for children. Deadpool and Kick-Ass are more adult humor. Nah, their humor is for all ages. Deadpool and Kick-Ass is crude humor for people too spineless to own up to it.
And saying "It's for kids" is also a spineless excuse too. Pixar is for kids, so is Star Wars and Star Trek and Dr Who and Lord of the Rings, and a heck of lot of other stuff.
The "It's too kiddie" excuse has always been a spineless one by people who can't own up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 17, 2017 15:26:48 GMT
Yes, using a character based on a comicbook to appear in a movie based on a comicbook makes much more sense than just creating a character out of thin air. Whether or not they have a connection to the movie is not a problem because that will depend on the writing. You get a comicbook character, you adjust the writing to make him fit. You create a character from thin air, you adjust the writing to make it fit. Bottom line is, a character with a history in comics will obviously have more impact and leave a longer lasting impression than someone who not only was created from nowhere, but is basically just a young clone of the hero. We want villains who are unique characters, not just knock offs. You are having a problem with comics vs. movies. They are not connected whatsoever. Trying to say a comicbook character should be included in the movies, irregardless of the movie's plot, tone, etc. is mind-numbingly stupid. Not to mention, the tone/point of certain parts of the movie seem to go way over your head. Additionally, you're contradicting yourself. You want something "unique" and reject an original character in favor of some minor villain from the comics. So your argument is that comics have nothing to do whatsoever with a movie that was based on a comicbook. Yeah, sure. Read that a few more times and hopefully you'll realize just how stupid your argument is. |
|
