|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jun 21, 2018 20:59:11 GMT
Says Disney ruined Spider-Man and Star Wars, and would ruin X-Men, Well, first off, SONY distributed and financed while Marvel Studios co-distributed, but I digress. Marvel gets their hands on Spider-Man, becomes the best reviewed movie since Spider-Man 2 and the biggest Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 3 Disney ruined Star Wars, 3 Star Wars movies make $1 billion, 1 even made $2 billion. You know what happened to Spider-Man, Star Wars, and X-Men before Disney? We had Jar Jar Binks, Hayden Christensen, poorly written romance, emo Peter, Topher Grace as Venom, Jamie Foxx as Electro, Barakapool, X3, X-Men Origins, Apocalypse, etc. And now we have Jar Jar Finn, MarySue Rey, rehash overkill and mystery box/dead end storylines. In other words, SW that's just as poorly written - actually worse.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 21, 2018 21:29:41 GMT
Look I love X1, X2, DOFP, and Deadpool (really liked Logan and DP2 not loved) but I'm more inclined to agree with scabab on this. The series that Fox has kind of haphazardly ran is at a good stopping point. The one thing I hated about Fox's X-men was the series never seemed to have a direction. Some of that is by necessity. When X-men was made It was a huuuugeee gamble, so they didn't know if another movie was going to come out. Because of this they could only make one movie at a time not look for future movies. Xmen didn't blow the doors off the box office it showed people that Comic Book films can make money again, and it could be realistic (as compared to the abortion that is Batman and Robin although I do go back and watch it from time to time). X1, Spiderman, X2, and Spiderman 2 showed that comic books didn't have to be silly they could be serious and make money. Now Spiderman and Spiderman 2 had the colorful outfits and campy humor (seriously go back and watch them Sam used dutch angles, zoom shots, and other things he learn from Evil Dead. Fuck Spiderman 3 is full of it) Xmen ditched the uniforms and grounded a lot of the more fantastical elements. And it worked. They plowed the way for the MCU to be more visually fantastical. Shit got side tracked Percocet is a helluva drug. The current X-men is at a stopping point. Hugh is gone. The actors from the first 3 movies could have one more movie in them I suppose but they are aging out. And plus the continuity from DOFP ending and the beginning of Logan leaves them only a few years to play with anyway. So maybe you could shoe horn in one more movie with the old actors in between. With the Prequel Movies Dark Phoenix is set in the 90's if there were going to be a 5 movies following the same time line you would be in the 00's and you are back to where the original trilogy is. Yeah you reset the future with DOFP but it seems like we are retreading a tire here. I'm am so tired of Mystique being a reluctant hero its almost sickening. She's supposed to die in Dark Phoenix anyway. And we run into another problem in Dark Phoenix Xavier, Magneto, Beast and Mystique should be 50+ years. (assuming Xavier, Magneto, Beast and Mystique were in their 20's in First Class set in 1962. Dark Phoenix is in 1992 Mystique is saved this from the line in First Class about her looking young) IF part 5 is in 2002 they'd be 60+. All this means whoever gets them will have to reboot soon. Deadpool is problematic as it's doing great and fresh. New Mutants while the concept is interesting I am not as hopeful about it and it seems like a one off. So if they are going to reboot anyways I would like to see what fresh minds could come up with. I want to see what Marvel could do with them. Winter Soldier proves they can make a serious film. I don't know if the first Marvel owned X-men movie should be in the MCU. They will have to explain the sudden presences of Mutants anyway. I think the first movie should be X-men in their own world. Then have them Cross over to Earth-199999 in sequels. As for Deadpool if Marvel keeps production companies running under the Disney Banner, like Marvel Studios, have one of them produce Deadpool. Disney does release R rated movies under Buena Vista. Part of the reason, other than IP acquisition, Disney is trying to buy Fox is to diversify. They want to have company's to make smaller films, more adult centric films, indie type films. Like how Miramax did for them in the 90's. Fox Search Light would do that for them. If they keep 21st Fox running, peared down obviously, they could still release the Deadpool movies. Now eventually do I want Deadpool in the MCU? Yeah just so DP can take the piss out of MCU/Characters like he has in his movies too their face. That would be his job. Don't get me wrong I've liked/loved a lot of the MCU movies, but they are faaaaar from perfect and DP is the natural foil for them. A forth wall break where he notices he can't curse with bleeps ala Tony Goldwyn character in Kuffs would fix that part. I mean the worse that could happen with a Marvel X-men movie would be to create something that was on par with X3 or Xmen Origins. They weren't abortions but they were miscarriages. Also if Deadpool is in the MCU eventually I can finally see this happen:
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 21, 2018 21:37:48 GMT
Kuffs cursing scene that should happen in MCU if Deadpool was in it. Only difference would be DP is aware of it.
And you do get one fuck in PG-13s (actually MPAA actually allowed 2 fucks in The Martian.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2018 22:07:15 GMT
Sounds you're ashamed of Dormammmmamanamu. I'd love to see a movie that embraced the wondrousness of Dormamamammmmamaammmmu. I'd say it did, even with his limited screentime. But they made Dormammammamagramamu the star of the movie. Kaisealiass was just a puppet of his. And all of Doctor Strange's ideas were given to him by The Ancient One. So he's not the star of the movie. Innit?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Jun 21, 2018 22:07:17 GMT
there is no such thing as an xmen formula because it is down to the director and writers and every xmen movie varies in style, direction and tone. you cannot compare bryan singer's xmen, to tim miller's xmen, to brett ratner's xmen, to mathew vaughn's xmen to james mangold's xmen. all the mcu movies are the same and look the same. There is no Tim Miller or James Mangold X-men. They didn't make an X-men movie. The X-men movies do look the same and have the same style. Does Guardians of the Galaxy look anything at all like The Incredible Hulk? Did Black Panther look anything like Ant-man? Did Thor Ragnarok look like Winter Solider? They're nothing alike. And what depth did X-men Apocalypse have? All these X-men movies have explosions. Whether people like them is all that really matters and people love these MCU movies. That doesn't even make sense because at the same time X-men 3 completely butchered the Dark Phoenix storyline from the comic. Completely butchered Deadpool from the comic on first try. They're doing the Dark Phoenix story for now the second time and if the rumours are true then that is also nothing like the comic. If they were stale then people would have stopped seeing them just as they do with other series. X-men has become stale by repeating the same plot points over and over. From 2018 and going backwards and besides Fantastic Four which was also from Fox, X-men Apocalypse was the least successful Marvel/DC movie domestically since The Wolverine which was 5 years ago, also from Fox. If they wanted to yes they could. Fox might be making a horror X-men movie...but nobody cares about it. Can Fox make an X-men movie that can make $2 billion or even $1 billion? Can they make a string of movies that are consistently successful critically and financially? No they can't. They can't even be more successful than their spin off movies anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jun 21, 2018 22:35:14 GMT
X-Men: ending huge CGI wave of Mutant making Radiation sorta like a big explosion. Cgi'ed Wolverine Matrix spin cutting through Statue of Liberties Crown. Cgi'ed spinny Radiation Maker explodes when wolverine hits it. They would've had more but they kind of ran out of money. X2 ending Cgi'ed dam break with cgi'ed water rushing split by Jean with cgi'ed lifting of the X-Jet. X3 ending Cgi'ed Goldengate Bridge moved and ending in a Cgi'ed Water Wall and panoramic shot of soldiers buldings towers mutants being ripped apart. X-men Origins Wolverine. Cgi'ed Battle and Destruction of the cooling towers at 3 Mile Island. Also the shittiest cgi I've seen in a blockbuster movie in a while: Wolverine cutting the falling Fire Escape. X-men First Class: Cgi'ed boats, x-jet, lifting of the sub, missiles fired and exploded. The Wolverine: Awkward Cgi fight with a poor version of Silver Samurai with a flaming sword. Days of Future Past: Larg cgi'ed deconstruction of the stadium, kind of hokey cgi of the Sentinels (that maybe by design though they were prototypes and it was 70's tech). Cgi'ed lifting of the Safe Room through the front of the White House. Deadpool: Cgi'ed destruction of the "Heliecarrier" and explode-y firey hero run by Colossus. The Cgi was decent here but more money would've helped X-Men Apocalypse: Cgi creation of the Pyramid, Cgi'ed Magneto powers world wide destruction cgi. Cgi'ed big fight against Apocalypse. Firey Phoenix final kill (Eluding to Phoenix Force is part of Jeans natural powers... Let Go!!! Hate that insinuation just like x3 flat out saying it was part of Jean's power) DeadPool 2: A subdued cgi'ed final battle (which was surprising seeing how much money that had compared to first one). But still get Cgi battle between Colossus and Juggernaut . And a little bit of firey destruction. I would argue every X-men movie has the same firey, explosiony, cgi'ed 3rd act that beleaguers most superhero movies in varying degrees. Except for one Logan.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 22, 2018 0:48:36 GMT
Ra's trained Bruce in combat, but everything else Bruce taught himself. Sounds like you wanted a Gary Stue Batman. Ra's story didn't take up the whole film. Hell he didn't return until the final battle. OR it means you have a great villain to explore. Marvel did this with Thanos, did you hate that? Bruce's approach came from Ra's philosophies, the idea of dressing up and being an Icon rather than a Man, his techniques, etc. It's all from Ra's.
Yeah, but everything about Scarecrow was Ra's behind the scenes too.
Marvel waited until all their heroes were established and developed to do this. As opposed to always making the villain the star of every movie.
"A hero is only as good as their villain." Not sure why you want poor and unmemorable villains who are just there to serve the story. You must really hate Thanos in Infinity War because it was basically a Thanos movie. Pretty sure he even got more screen time than Captain America. You need a good villain who has a good and (preferably ominous) presence to the characters to really established a conflict and obstacle for the hero, otherwise, it'd just be like a Steven Seagal movie where there are very little stakes because he can't be beaten, let alone even be punched at least once. It's why the likes of Doc Ock, Magneto and the Joker (both Ledger and Nicholson) are so great. They're given amazing performances by their respective actors with a good presence throughout the story and provide stakes a threat to the hero of the story. And that's what helps elevates the hero and their conflict with the villain and their actions and motivations for stopping the said villain. It's why the likes of the original Terminator, Hans Gruber, Hannibal Lecter, the T-1000, Anton Chigurh, Alonzo Harris, just to name a few, are fantastic villains and really drive and push the story and the conflict with their respective hero, thus elevating the hero when they overcome the villain. The MCU has been doing better recently with their villains, but they don't live up to the story all the time, and it's not because they're not the sole focus of the story, but because they lack the presence that really gives the hero the proper stakes to the story. A lot of them just serve as a basic obstacle to the story. Who cares if everything Bruce does comes from his teachings from Ra's. That's kinda the point and brings it to a full circle by the climax. That's how you write a story and make it interesting. And Ra's was hardly a big focus of the story and we didn't even know he was the one behind Scarecrow's plan till the end anyway.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 22, 2018 9:28:48 GMT
X-Men: ending huge CGI wave of Mutant making Radiation sorta like a big explosion. Cgi'ed Wolverine Matrix spin cutting through Statue of Liberties Crown. Cgi'ed spinny Radiation Maker explodes when wolverine hits it. They would've had more but they kind of ran out of money. X2 ending Cgi'ed dam break with cgi'ed water rushing split by Jean with cgi'ed lifting of the X-Jet. X3 ending Cgi'ed Goldengate Bridge moved and ending in a Cgi'ed Water Wall and panoramic shot of soldiers buldings towers mutants being ripped apart.
The issue isn't the use of CGI on its own, it would be ludicrous to think that a major action themed films couldn't have no CGI at all. The differences highlighted were that MCU (and DCEU) almost always go for bombastic, over the top CGI finales for their end fights with little in terms of resolving character-story developments. I've seen @forceghostackbar complain about this in a thread he made recently, that it does get boring just seeing CGI concrete flying everywhere and superheros punching baddies in front of green screens just for the sake of it. It was spectacular when the first Avengers did it, but how many more times can you see that kind of thing before it gets tedious and repetitive? Only Civil War and Winter Soldier have distinct, personal endings where the full focus is on characters and plot. Winter Soldiers conclusion has CGI explosions with the helicarriers but the main point of focus is on the emotional conflict between Cap and Bucky and is personalised through their 1 on 1 fight. Civil War ends similarly, a personal conflict between 2 characters that the story has progressed to achieve a tense fight. Almost every other MCU film goes for the lazy, excessive CGI big action set pieces with no real care for the plot. DCEU is even worse, every one of their films have ended this way, even the good ones like Wonder Woman have been criticised for the final act where its just CGI in your face non-stop.
Those Xmen films don't suffer the same problem with the exception of Apocalypse. The CGI is very minimal and the focus is on story and character.
X1 has a critical moment where Rogue is thought to have died but Wolverine is willing to sacrifice himself to save her through his healing factor that almost killed him earlier in the film. That's strong character focus.
X2 has very little CGI and focuses on Jean Grey willing to die to save the Xmen.
X3 has the most CGI but the even then the conclusion is Wolverine having to make an impossible decision to give up his romantic interest permanently in order to save Jean herself from the inside because she cant control the Phoenix. The CGI fights surrounding it is not the main focus or spectacle, the story always comes first as this scene shows
That scene in X3 is very similar to wintet soldier. Lots of CGI destruction happening in the background but the camera is zoomed and focused on the inner conflict of the 2 characters.
Compare it to Suicide Squad, Ragnarok, GotG, Antman, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, Age of Ultron, The Dark World, BvS, Homecoming, all mundane run of the mill CGI bonanzas with little at stake and no real care for plot, characters or themes.
Christopher Nolans Batman trilogy is a good comparison to Xmen in how he ends his films. Because the set up to his movies are so good in the first 2 acts, the CGI effects he uses in the final act are just supports to how he concludes his endings rather than the main star of the show themselves. When has MCU or DCEU ever ending a film so elegantly as this
Only Apocalypse does.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 22, 2018 11:42:40 GMT
Bruce's approach came from Ra's philosophies, the idea of dressing up and being an Icon rather than a Man, his techniques, etc. It's all from Ra's.
Yeah, but everything about Scarecrow was Ra's behind the scenes too.
Marvel waited until all their heroes were established and developed to do this. As opposed to always making the villain the star of every movie.
He got the idea of theatrics from Ra's and learn to fight from him, that's it. He built the suit himself. He study and taught himself, there's a scene where he is reading books about criminology. Ra's got a total of screen time off at least 20-25 minutes in a 2 hour film. How is that him being the main character? His philosophies and being an Icon for people instead of a man (which means not bothering to be a public figure as Bruce) came from Ra's. The idea for a costume came from Ra's. Him wanting to study those things were ineffectual until he met Ra's.
His minimal screentime doesn't change how the movie really revolves around Ra's.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 22, 2018 11:44:24 GMT
Bruce's approach came from Ra's philosophies, the idea of dressing up and being an Icon rather than a Man, his techniques, etc. It's all from Ra's.
Yeah, but everything about Scarecrow was Ra's behind the scenes too.
Marvel waited until all their heroes were established and developed to do this. As opposed to always making the villain the star of every movie.
"A hero is only as good as their villain." The excuse of every lazy writer who doesn't really care about the hero.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 22, 2018 11:48:32 GMT
X-Men: ending huge CGI wave of Mutant making Radiation sorta like a big explosion. Cgi'ed Wolverine Matrix spin cutting through Statue of Liberties Crown. Cgi'ed spinny Radiation Maker explodes when wolverine hits it. They would've had more but they kind of ran out of money. X2 ending Cgi'ed dam break with cgi'ed water rushing split by Jean with cgi'ed lifting of the X-Jet. X3 ending Cgi'ed Goldengate Bridge moved and ending in a Cgi'ed Water Wall and panoramic shot of soldiers buldings towers mutants being ripped apart.
The issue isn't the use of CGI on its own, it would be ludicrous to think that a major action themed films couldn't have no CGI at all.
The MCU Haters say otherwise. They way they act there should be no CGI. They go for both. Not especially, The CGI finale came right before that, it happened. Stupidly, they gave no reason she didn't just think of levitating the Blackbird out of there super fast. He barely knew Jean! Ragnarok had Thor realizing he had to sacrifice his home to save everyone, GOTG showed off the power of the Stone and the Guardians' growth from self-interested jerks to saving Xandar, BP and the war for Wakanda, Dr Strange and his evolution and willingness to die 1000 times over for people he previously didn't give a damn about, etc Predictable, hypocritical and repetitive.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 22, 2018 11:57:25 GMT
He got the idea of theatrics from Ra's and learn to fight from him, that's it. He built the suit himself. He study and taught himself, there's a scene where he is reading books about criminology. Ra's got a total of screen time off at least 20-25 minutes in a 2 hour film. How is that him being the main character? His philosophies and being an Icon for people instead of a man (which means not bothering to be a public figure as Bruce) came from Ra's. The idea for a costume came from Ra's. Him wanting to study those things were ineffectual until he met Ra's.
His minimal screentime doesn't change how the movie really revolves around Ra's.
He may have influence the plot, but the film still focus on Bruce Wayne and his journey. It's no different than what happened in Iron Man 1.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 22, 2018 12:47:35 GMT
"A hero is only as good as their villain." The excuse of every lazy writer who doesn't really care about the hero. Did you really just ignore everything I wrote?? And you must really hate Infinity War because it's basically a Thanos movie. You have no idea how to make a film or write characters. I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass if you really believe the villain just needs to be another red shirt in the story who is unmemorable
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 22, 2018 13:10:53 GMT
The excuse of every lazy writer who doesn't really care about the hero. Did you really just ignore everything I wrote?? And you must really hate Infinity War because it's basically a Thanos movie. You have no idea how to make a film or write characters. I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass if you really believe the villain just needs to be another red shirt in the story who is unmemorable Pale Rider, how memorable was the villain that Eastwood flick?
Death Wish, how memorable were the villains there?
Thanos was a big part of IW, but that was after 10 years of developing the protagonists.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jun 22, 2018 13:23:30 GMT
nice try, but it is mcu movies that are generic movies not xmen, the only people that call xmen generic are mcu fans who hate the fact that xmen is taken more seriously and respected while their mcu movies are seen as cgi disney jokes, even DC fans liked and respected what xmen movies did for comics especially after batman and robin, it was xmen movies that showed comic films can be smart, be more about story telling and drama, deep and intellectual and can address had hitting issues even with some set backs like X3. You cannot rewrite XMEN movies to make it fit the mcu generic formula that we know.
let me ask why did black panther take inspiration from xmen to look smart and less generic? you want to know how generic mcu is? they tried to copy xmen to look more authentic with black panther.
if you hate wolverine that much, how do you justify avengers 2012 that is just about cartoonish fights , explosions and blowing up cities for 1.5 hours and having fun with it..dumbed down. at least the samurai in wolverine was a threat to him, laslty you ignored my post. so I ask again, how will disney adapt inferno or the mutant massacre? this is what decides this debate. if you cant give me an answer then mcu cannot make a good xmen movie compared to what fox has done.
xmen is not about jokes and selling toys.
Inferno and Mutant Massacre were terrible stories, so I don't know why you're asking why the MCU would adapt terrible stories.
X-Men is about selling merchandise...they just suck at it.
The X-Movies want to be profound...but they're not. At all.
BP wasn't inspired by X-men, it was inspired by the BP comics. If anything, X-Men copied BP in the comics by trying to be more about issues.
Yes, they were terrible. Maybe 'Massacre' has some merit but, in general, these bloated crossovers were the start of the X-Men reaching their over-saturation point in the market.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jun 22, 2018 13:30:03 GMT
Did you really just ignore everything I wrote?? And you must really hate Infinity War because it's basically a Thanos movie. You have no idea how to make a film or write characters. I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass if you really believe the villain just needs to be another red shirt in the story who is unmemorable Pale Rider, how memorable was the villain that Eastwood flick?
Death Wish, how memorable were the villains there?
Thanos was a big part of IW, but that was after 10 years of developing the protagonists.
Never saw Pale Rider, so wouldn't know. And Death Wish was always more a character piece and watching a man slowly become a vigilant. All you're doing is picking and choosing from films with lesser villains to try and make a false point.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 22, 2018 14:21:31 GMT
Ragnarok had Thor realizing he had to sacrifice his home to save everyone, GOTG showed off the power of the Stone and the Guardians' growth from self-interested jerks to saving Xandar, BP and the war for Wakanda, Dr Strange and his evolution and willingness to die 1000 times over for people he previously didn't give a damn about, etc Predictable, hypocritical and repetitive. The Ragnarok moment of realisation would have worked if Korg didnt make the joke at the end. Gotg and Strange 3rd acts are cgi garbage with no depth. They purely exist to show off special effects and wow audiences to make up for weak villains and lack of depth for heros. BPs terrible CGI RHINOS along with a generic no tension power rangers fight? That should have been like the gritty, gruesome battle between Anakin and Obi Wan in the Lava river. Instead its just a boring cgi punch punch flip flip in green screen. Looks like a computer game with all the humanity sucked out. And Nolan is better for not resorting to a souless CGI pornfest in any of his endings. Go home Preacher.
|
|
palerider
Sophomore
@palerider
Posts: 120
Likes: 16
|
Post by palerider on Jun 22, 2018 15:00:45 GMT
Ragnarok had Thor realizing he had to sacrifice his home to save everyone, GOTG showed off the power of the Stone and the Guardians' growth from self-interested jerks to saving Xandar, BP and the war for Wakanda, Dr Strange and his evolution and willingness to die 1000 times over for people he previously didn't give a damn about, etc Predictable, hypocritical and repetitive. The Ragnarok moment of realisation would have worked if Korg didnt make the joke at the end. Gotg and Strange 3rd acts are cgi garbage with no depth. They purely exist to show off special effects and wow audiences to make up for weak villains and lack of depth for heros. BPs terrible CGI RHINOS along with a generic no tension power rangers fight? That should have been like the gritty, gruesome battle between Anakin and Obi Wan in the Lava river. Instead its just a boring cgi punch punch flip flip in green screen. Looks like a computer game with all the humanity sucked out. And Nolan is better for not resorting to a souless CGI pornfest in any of his endings. Go home Preacher. Your statements about GOTG and Dr Strange are just showing your bias against movies that need CGI for their basic premise (Space Opera and totally tripping Magical stuff) since I don't see how they could do Dormammu or the Infinity Stone thing with no CGI at all.
If you're thin skinned enough you let one comment like Korgs' ruin the moment you need thicker skin.
Obi Wan and Anakin's fight sucked. It had just as much CGI and terrible sword fighting at the same time, but if you think Killmonger and BP should've been fighting naked that's on you.
Nolan resorts to having repetitive endings where people stand around monologing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 17:55:19 GMT
He got the idea of theatrics from Ra's and learn to fight from him, that's it. He built the suit himself. He study and taught himself, there's a scene where he is reading books about criminology. Ra's got a total of screen time off at least 20-25 minutes in a 2 hour film. How is that him being the main character? His philosophies and being an Icon for people instead of a man (which means not bothering to be a public figure as Bruce) came from Ra's. The idea for a costume came from Ra's. Him wanting to study those things were ineffectual until he met Ra's.
His minimal screentime doesn't change how the movie really revolves around Ra's.
Dude. This is how most quest/hero based stories are written! You could say the same about The Ancient One, Doctor Erskon (Cap 1), Obi Wan Kenobi, Gandalf, Uncle Ben, Odin, Nick Fury.... ITS CALLED A MENTOR FIGURE! How many times do I have to tell you this?
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Jun 22, 2018 17:58:38 GMT
His minimal screentime doesn't change how the movie really revolves around Ra's. ITS CALLED A MENTOR FIGURE! How many times do I have to tell you this? It's also similar to how Admiral Raddus trained and inspired a young Ensign Ackbar in "Home One: An Ackbar Story: The Legend Begins: Part 1"
|
|