|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 21, 2018 5:55:23 GMT
But The Punisher is Marvel you dumb fuck, so saying “R.I.P. Marvel” is stupid as fuck. is the punisher a movie? its too adult to be a movie. disney's xmen are going to fail anyway. they will fail for the same reasons their star wars and spiderman movies failed.
they best of star wars and spiderman came from fox and sony. xmen will be the same.
disney will never make anything close to the best of fox just like star wars. that is fact.
Spider-Man: Homecoming was a joint production of Marvel/Disney and Sony, doofus and it did well critically, financially, and just fine with fans it was not by any stretch a failure.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jun 21, 2018 6:13:57 GMT
is the punisher a movie? its too adult to be a movie. disney's xmen are going to fail anyway. they will fail for the same reasons their star wars and spiderman movies failed.
they best of star wars and spiderman came from fox and sony. xmen will be the same.
disney will never make anything close to the best of fox just like star wars. that is fact.
Spider-Man: Homecoming was a joint production of Marvel/Disney and Sony, doofus and it did well critically, financially, and just fine with fans it was not by any stretch a failure. lol, sony's raimi's spidey could punch people and did not feel like a high school musical tv movie.
did well critically? bs media faux reviews...still inferior to the raimi movies. sony raimi movies was also a lot more profitable and overall superior.
disney xmen will end up inferior to the best of fox.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 21, 2018 7:29:00 GMT
Spider-Man: Homecoming was a joint production of Marvel/Disney and Sony, doofus and it did well critically, financially, and just fine with fans it was not by any stretch a failure. lol, sony's raimi's spidey could punch people and did not feel like a high school musical tv movie.
did well critically? bs media faux reviews...still inferior to the raimi movies. sony raimi movies was also a lot more profitable and overall superior.
disney xmen will end up inferior to the best of fox.
Because punching people is the ONLY method to fighting bad guys if you're a superhero... At what point did it feel like a High School Musical movie? Because of the high school setting? Ah, the old "I didn't like it, anyone who gave it good reviews was paid off or liked it for selfish/political reasons!" argument...When did these go out of style again? The X-Men IP under Fox are very uneven in quality and are directionless, even with their best produced content its hard to really believe that anybody at the top has a solid game plan laid out in the long haul. It's essentially how Star Wars is being treated now; where is this all going towards? What is this complimenting? What is this expanding upon? They're all over the place and no matter how strong the quality is it won't eliminate the head scratching, Deadpool and its sequel are really the only ones to address the puzzling continuity issues but its done for comedic purposes no one outside is really trying hard to make sure everything fits together and its a shame too because it would be pretty neat if Professor X showed up on Legion or Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Rogue appeared on The Gifted but no opportunities are being taken or even much reference - Legion this last season referenced Charles not even five times in all of its episodes. Hell, Stewart showed love and appreciation to the suggestion of appearing on the show on live television with Dan Stevens...And Fox isn't doing anything about it. Being under one roof at least gives the IP some direction for a change and fitting into a larger universe adds icing to the cake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 7:30:00 GMT
Spider-Man: Homecoming was a joint production of Marvel/Disney and Sony, doofus and it did well critically, financially, and just fine with fans it was not by any stretch a failure. lol, sony's raimi's spidey could punch people and did not feel like a high school musical tv movie.
did well critically? bs media faux reviews...still inferior to the raimi movies. sony raimi movies was also a lot more profitable and overall superior.
disney xmen will end up inferior to the best of fox.
I'll agree Raimi's first two were better but Homecoming was pretty good too. Homecoming was the beginning of Spider man also it didn't feel like a High School musical movie as I've actually watched those movies. Also Tom's Spider man threw punches in Civil War and Infinity War so that proves your first sentence false. The last sentence we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 21, 2018 10:04:55 GMT
Its not over until is finalised and approved. Even so, Comcasts bid made Disney bid an extra 20billion that they didnt want to, so it has come at extra cost. I hope people in 2022 will have grown tired of the same MCU cheesy formula and will reject the first Disney Xmen film. I see this happening anyway, once the original Avengers leave in Cap and IM the brand will dip in popularity, hopefully to the point of oblivion.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jun 21, 2018 10:09:39 GMT
lol, sony's raimi's spidey could punch people and did not feel like a high school musical tv movie.
did well critically? bs media faux reviews...still inferior to the raimi movies. sony raimi movies was also a lot more profitable and overall superior.
disney xmen will end up inferior to the best of fox.
Because punching people is the ONLY method to fighting bad guys if you're a superhero... At what point did it feel like a High School Musical movie? Because of the high school setting? Ah, the old "I didn't like it, anyone who gave it good reviews was paid off or liked it for selfish/political reasons!" argument...When did these go out of style again? The X-Men IP under Fox are very uneven in quality and are directionless, even with their best produced content its hard to really believe that anybody at the top has a solid game plan laid out in the long haul. It's essentially how Star Wars is being treated now; where is this all going towards? What is this complimenting? What is this expanding upon? They're all over the place and no matter how strong the quality is it won't eliminate the head scratching, Deadpool and its sequel are really the only ones to address the puzzling continuity issues but its done for comedic purposes no one outside is really trying hard to make sure everything fits together and its a shame too because it would be pretty neat if Professor X showed up on Legion or Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Rogue appeared on The Gifted but no opportunities are being taken or even much reference - Legion this last season referenced Charles not even five times in all of its episodes. Hell, Stewart showed love and appreciation to the suggestion of appearing on the show on live television with Dan Stevens...And Fox isn't doing anything about it. Being under one roof at least gives the IP some direction for a change and fitting into a larger universe adds icing to the cake.
spoken like a true mcu fan. mcu fans should read more comics. they really think comics is about cross overs and random heroes talking to eachother. No legion does not have to connect to movies, am glad it did not. you see in comics there is something called alternate realities or a parallel universe. it gives writers the chance to branch out, tell stand alone stories and expand on mythology. if xavier appears it should not be Stewart or Mcvoy, it should be a brand new xavier that has nothing to do with films. see DC movies and DC TV for more info or read AOA or earth 2 comics.
the fact the mcu fans call these directionless is why mcu movies are the worst, you really need to read more comics and not because comics have more depth and show more artistry than whatever mcu formula garbage disney likes to spew.
wow this is educational.can wait for mcu xmen to crash and burn. their movies will suck. mcu movies cant even think like Logan or X2. mcu thinking is how much can their movies sell more toys to kids or blow up more cities and make jokes.
wow, just wow.. the ignorance...staggering.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jun 21, 2018 10:15:12 GMT
lol, sony's raimi's spidey could punch people and did not feel like a high school musical tv movie.
did well critically? bs media faux reviews...still inferior to the raimi movies. sony raimi movies was also a lot more profitable and overall superior.
disney xmen will end up inferior to the best of fox.
Because punching people is the ONLY method to fighting bad guys if you're a superhero... At what point did it feel like a High School Musical movie? Because of the high school setting? Ah, the old "I didn't like it, anyone who gave it good reviews was paid off or liked it for selfish/political reasons!" argument...When did these go out of style again? The X-Men IP under Fox are very uneven in quality and are directionless, even with their best produced content its hard to really believe that anybody at the top has a solid game plan laid out in the long haul. It's essentially how Star Wars is being treated now; where is this all going towards? What is this complimenting? What is this expanding upon? They're all over the place and no matter how strong the quality is it won't eliminate the head scratching, Deadpool and its sequel are really the only ones to address the puzzling continuity issues but its done for comedic purposes no one outside is really trying hard to make sure everything fits together and its a shame too because it would be pretty neat if Professor X showed up on Legion or Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Rogue appeared on The Gifted but no opportunities are being taken or even much reference - Legion this last season referenced Charles not even five times in all of its episodes. Hell, Stewart showed love and appreciation to the suggestion of appearing on the show on live television with Dan Stevens...And Fox isn't doing anything about it. Being under one roof at least gives the IP some direction for a change and fitting into a larger universe adds icing to the cake. funny you made this comment. see the director of Logan arguably now the most respected comic film ever apart from TDK hates MCU movies for these very reason you said , so do long time comic fan who are now into the disney crossover gimmick that was never a big thing in comic stories. just wow.
fox may be uneven in quality as any franchise can be that takes chances and gives the director his due, mcu has no quality. just cartoonish cgi formula movies with no story telling that are all the same.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 11:56:20 GMT
James Manigold is an upstart who had one small success and now lets it get to his head. He shows the problem with a big-headed "auteur" director getting involved in a group project...they don't want to play with others and see the big picture, they just want complete control over the one story they're doing with no respect for anyone else.
I mean really, Logan was no different from all the Charles Bronson/Clint Eastwood movies that were all over the place in the 70s and 80s.
Disney's way isn't perfect (blaming them for Star Wars is silly, because the people making those movies are the Lucasfilm employees who came over from Lucasfilm. Lucas' own people) but their way offers a more interesting, inventive approach than self-contained, one-shot films.
Marvel was built on the characters interacting with one another, not being separate.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 21, 2018 12:03:53 GMT
Narvel was built on the characters interacting with one another, not being separate. As summers8 said, there have been many A.U and solo stories of the character's unrelated to the main roster or timelines. This stupid belief that every comic film now should maintain a strict timeline and do constant crossovers is whats making individual MCU movies feel like set ups and advertising promos for the next ensemble instead of great standalones like Logan or Deadpool
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 12:05:55 GMT
Narvel was built on the characters interacting with one another, not being separate. As summers8 said, there have been many A.U and solo stories of the character's unrelated to the main roster or timelines. And? That doesn't mean they all have to be standalone with no connection. That just limits things. Logan was a crossover, it relied on his past history with Xavier and stuff. As for Deadpool, he's starting to team up with other characters from the X-Verse as well.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 21, 2018 12:12:24 GMT
Logan was a crossover, it relied on his past history with Xavier and stuff. As for Deadpool, he's starting to team up with other characters from the X-Verse as well. Logan was a solo story, just like The Wolverine. Both stories depend very little on past or potential future set ups unlike a Ragnarok or Doctor Strange is.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 12:16:04 GMT
Logan was a crossover, it relied on his past history with Xavier and stuff. As for Deadpool, he's starting to team up with other characters from the X-Verse as well. Logan was a solo story, just like The Wolverine. Both stories depend very little on past or potential future set ups unlike a Ragnarok or Doctor Strange is. Dr Strange was pretty standalone, with that last scene with Mordo being the only future setup (and even then that's self-contained).
Logan needed his past with Xavier for their relationship to have any poignancy. And the entire film was the result of X-Men Apocalypse and that scientists' dad being killed by Logan. And it set up any future adventures for Laura.
Ragnarok, same thing. It relied on a lot of past stuff and set up future things. And that isn't bad, because that's how the comics work.
The only way Logan is a "Solo" story is that it was set in the future, but it really does tie into a lot of other stuff and set up other things.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 21, 2018 12:46:42 GMT
Logan was a solo story, just like The Wolverine. Both stories depend very little on past or potential future set ups unlike a Ragnarok or Doctor Strange is. Dr Strange was pretty standalone, with that last scene with Mordo being the only future setup (and even then that's self-contained).
Logan needed his past with Xavier for their relationship to have any poignancy. And the entire film was the result of X-Men Apocalypse and that scientists' dad being killed by Logan. And it set up any future adventures for Laura.
Ragnarok, same thing. It relied on a lot of past stuff and set up future things. And that isn't bad, because that's how the comics work.
The only way Logan is a "Solo" story is that it was set in the future, but it really does tie into a lot of other stuff and set up other things.
That's a valid point. Otherwise, Logan was as much a standalone film as you're going to find featuring Marvel characters. Even Deadpool relies heavily on your understanding of the events of the other films; hell, most of the humor consists of references to other comic book movies. But all you really need to enjoy Logan is a basic understanding of the characters. You could be a comic book fan and have never seen another X-Men movie in your life and still be blown away by how good Logan was. There are pros and cons to shared universes and stand alones. What makes the MCU great are the endless possibilities. You never know who might show up and how this story might connect to something else down the road. It truly is a connected comic book universe on screen. On the other hand, Nolan's Batman Trilogy was a separate entity and it (at least the first two, I didn't care for TDKR) was brilliant. I'm sure filmmakers prefer a standalone because they can focus on the story they want to tell instead of worrying about how this will fit into the larger universe; but that's the price you pay with long form storytelling. A television show can't just throw out the season before like it never happened (unless it's Dallas or Lost). The real issue is choosing which you prefer to make as a studio and sticking to it. Marvel relies so heavily on continuity that it would be incredibly difficult for them to produce a one-off type film separate from the main universe. Conversely, audiences will be asking how these films fit together when WB/DC starts putting out multiple Joker films and still trying to connect their central DCEU flicks, or when the X-Men timeline eventually catches up to Logan (which I suppose won't be an issue if the Disney deal goes through). Like I said, I don't know if one is better than the other, they both have their advantages and their pitfalls.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 12:53:16 GMT
I think Hugh Jackman more or less stated that Logan was an AU timeline and none of the other films would be connected to its events.
But DOFP kind of messed things up too, because it showed all the X-Men alive and well in that future which is clearly the "proper" future...meaning that there's no chance of anyone dying in Dark Phoenix. Or there being lasting consequences.
This mess with the two Joker movies is another sign of why "auteur" directors are a bad idea for bigger shared Universes. Scorcese doesn't want to work with Leto or tell a story that ties into anything else, and WB isn't willing to put their foot down and tell him they won't do it for the mess it'll created.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Jun 21, 2018 13:13:57 GMT
Don't be so dramatic. Marvel Studios could do a really good job with X-men.
The X-men series under Fox has begun to play itself out. It's been going on for 18 years now.
All the original main cast are finished with. There's going to be no more Wolverine who was the main character.
They've had Magneto as a villain three times. They've had Stryker has a villain two times. They're going to have Dark Phoenix for the second time. They've done the Sentinels. They've done Apocalypse. They've done the Cure storyline. They've done the prequels.
X-men Apocalypse wasn't well received and wasn't that successful. X-men Dark Phoenix will likely be even less successful because the interest has waned and people are sick of Mystique.
New Mutants has had two delays now and there's no interest in it. Dark Phoenix has been delayed. Gambit has been delayed maybe three or four times.
Nobody asked for a Multiple Man movie. Nobody asked for a Shadow Cat movie.
So they're running on their last legs anyway.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 13:21:43 GMT
From the sounds of it, the Multiple Man movie isn't really a Madrox film anyways. It's just Franco wanting to do his usual Sex comedy thing but with a sci-fi bent. He probably had a vision of having an orgy with clones of himself and then heard about Madrox and decided to co-opt the character for it.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 21, 2018 13:24:55 GMT
Don't be so dramatic. Marvel Studios could do a really good job with X-men. They could but they wont. Dumbing down villains, lightening stakes and recycling CGI garbage endings to sell merchandise is what theyl do. Yeah and the best decision would be to just reboot into the present if Comcast win. Il say again 6 of the last 7 Xmen based Fox films have been good. Apocalypse broke the trend which Dark Phoneix could restore. Bottom line is Disney films are too lighthearted to be dealing with Xmen stories. No one can deny this fact. Disney fans even admit it that people of all ages can enjoy their films, which is why they target the typical family audience of 2 adults with their 3 kiddies. Xmen content is not for all ages, its a mismatch and as shown by the backlash to Spiderman and Star Wars, fans wont accept the Disneyfication of well established IP.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 21, 2018 13:26:15 GMT
I Disney
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Jun 21, 2018 13:27:55 GMT
Dr Strange was pretty standalone, with that last scene with Mordo being the only future setup (and even then that's self-contained).
Logan needed his past with Xavier for their relationship to have any poignancy. And the entire film was the result of X-Men Apocalypse and that scientists' dad being killed by Logan. And it set up any future adventures for Laura.
Ragnarok, same thing. It relied on a lot of past stuff and set up future things. And that isn't bad, because that's how the comics work.
The only way Logan is a "Solo" story is that it was set in the future, but it really does tie into a lot of other stuff and set up other things.
That's a valid point. Otherwise, Logan was as much a standalone film as you're going to find featuring Marvel characters. Even Deadpool relies heavily on your understanding of the events of the other films; hell, most of the humor consists of references to other comic book movies. But all you really need to enjoy Logan is a basic understanding of the characters. You could be a comic book fan and have never seen another X-Men movie in your life and still be blown away by how good Logan was. There are pros and cons to shared universes and stand alones. What makes the MCU great are the endless possibilities. You never know who might show up and how this story might connect to something else down the road. It truly is a connected comic book universe on screen. On the other hand, Nolan's Batman Trilogy was a separate entity and it (at least the first two, I didn't care for TDKR) was brilliant. I'm sure filmmakers prefer a standalone because they can focus on the story they want to tell instead of worrying about how this will fit into the larger universe; but that's the price you pay with long form storytelling. A television show can't just throw out the season before like it never happened (unless it's Dallas or Lost). The real issue is choosing which you prefer to make as a studio and sticking to it. Marvel relies so heavily on continuity that it would be incredibly difficult for them to produce a one-off type film separate from the main universe. Conversely, audiences will be asking how these films fit together when WB/DC starts putting out multiple Joker films and still trying to connect their central DCEU flicks, or when the X-Men timeline eventually catches up to Logan (which I suppose won't be an issue if the Disney deal goes through). Like I said, I don't know if one is better than the other, they both have their advantages and their pitfalls. its more of a con now because its now about cross overs , team up, set ups than telling actual stories and sequels and more references to a cinematic universe.
whedon had to quit avengers because of this. they took out a good story telling part to set of IW and that was the last straw of whedon, he left after that.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 21, 2018 13:33:34 GMT
That's a valid point. Otherwise, Logan was as much a standalone film as you're going to find featuring Marvel characters. Even Deadpool relies heavily on your understanding of the events of the other films; hell, most of the humor consists of references to other comic book movies. But all you really need to enjoy Logan is a basic understanding of the characters. You could be a comic book fan and have never seen another X-Men movie in your life and still be blown away by how good Logan was. There are pros and cons to shared universes and stand alones. What makes the MCU great are the endless possibilities. You never know who might show up and how this story might connect to something else down the road. It truly is a connected comic book universe on screen. On the other hand, Nolan's Batman Trilogy was a separate entity and it (at least the first two, I didn't care for TDKR) was brilliant. I'm sure filmmakers prefer a standalone because they can focus on the story they want to tell instead of worrying about how this will fit into the larger universe; but that's the price you pay with long form storytelling. A television show can't just throw out the season before like it never happened (unless it's Dallas or Lost). The real issue is choosing which you prefer to make as a studio and sticking to it. Marvel relies so heavily on continuity that it would be incredibly difficult for them to produce a one-off type film separate from the main universe. Conversely, audiences will be asking how these films fit together when WB/DC starts putting out multiple Joker films and still trying to connect their central DCEU flicks, or when the X-Men timeline eventually catches up to Logan (which I suppose won't be an issue if the Disney deal goes through). Like I said, I don't know if one is better than the other, they both have their advantages and their pitfalls. its more of a con now because its now about cross overs , team up, set ups than telling actual stories and sequels and more references to a cinematic universe. So just like the comics then.
Uh, no. He quit because of Ike Perlmutter. Please get your facts straight.
As for your complaints about Disney...all that stuff applies to FOX too. They make their movies to appeal to everyone as well.
The X-Men is meant for all ages, always has been. I don't get why anyone would think otherwise. And the people making Star Wars now are the people Lucas chose to replace him, not Disney employees.
|
|