thenolan
Sophomore
@thenolan
Posts: 778
Likes: 162
|
Post by thenolan on Jun 2, 2020 20:25:09 GMT
There seem to be this keen move from some MCU fans to act like Apocalypse hurt Logan. does anyone find this desperate and silly for the fact that it is not even accurate or true.  Apocalypse was released in 2016 and was suppose to be a new timeline that DOFP could have changed set in 1980, it was also prequel to logan and how he got his claw. Logan was set in the future. Logan was released next year in 2017 and in the timeline was set more than 40 years after apocalypse . it was also the last time we see hugh jackman in the xmen role and the last time we saw the possibly original timeline with Stewart as Xavier. But some MCU fans want so badly to ignore logan that they are convincing themselves apocalypse has hurt LOGAN that is like saying batman and robin hurt batman begins or captain marvel hurt herself in endgame, though she was much better in endgame. I think this could be a bigger fear for the MCU that no mcu movie will come close to the greatness of logan so it is better to think apocalypse is the last hugh jackman film and factually it isn't. what is this about? I think some mcu fans can face facts and be more accurate. But why cant a few accept Logan is officially the perfect send off for jackman and the first cast. Why are they insisting Apocalypse is after logan and was jackman's last role. it so insane, a lie and quite funny. But when I first join this board, i think this were the same people that were also saying wonder woman was copying captain america when that cannot be possible because her story was first written. lmao |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2020 17:37:06 GMT
I don't think Apocalypse hurt Logan. If we're being honest, the only character I thought was hurt was Apocalypse himself.
I liked that they toyed with the idea that he could be the inspiration behind parts of the Bible. That's cool food for thought to play with. It was not that good though. I saw cos players online with better Apocalypse costumes. It did some things right but it wasn't very good.
Batman and Robin didn't hurt Batman Begins, but (I believe) it's been noted that film didn't do the Batman franchise or Joel Schumacher any favors.
There's also a lot to be said for the parallels between Captain America and Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman had a lot more character development though, build up and tension. Captain America was very montage heavy. On one hand it gives us less one on one time with the characters, especially the Howling Commandos, but it also moved quite breezy like a comic book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jun 3, 2020 18:45:22 GMT
"X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" is a terrific superhero movie with a genuine sci-fi flavour. They turned En Sabah Nur into a Cronenbergesque character, and it was a wise and brilliant move.
That said, "APOCALYPSE" is the most X-Men-ish entry in the series; it features a very eighties X-Men comic books vibe from start to finish.
The final fight was top notch, and the last minutes were chilling.
To me, "APOCALYPSE" is a genre masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 3, 2020 21:09:01 GMT
They turned En Sabah Nur into a Cronenbergesque character, OK I'll take the bait...how exactly is he "Cronenberg-esque"? |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 4, 2020 11:46:25 GMT
Batman and Robin didn't hurt Batman Begins, but (I believe) it's been noted that film didn't do the Batman franchise or Joel Schumacher any favors. Financially I think B&R did hurt Batman Begins, no way Begins deserved to be a box office flop like it was, this is obvious by how huge it did on home media, and how big the sequels were, B&R soured the Batman brand that people almost a decade later weren't optimistic about a new movie and it went under a lot of peoples radar, Begins had to begin again and build the fans love of the franchise back up because Batman & Robin had taken such a huge shit on it and the fans. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 4, 2020 11:56:57 GMT
Haven't really heard this argument before, I think the one I hear more is Dark Phoenix hurt the X-Men brand and took away what Logan set the franchise up to end on, if Logan was the final outing for the FoX-Men series it goes out on an epic high, and as we all know how you end a story is key, you end on a masterpiece like Logan and the franchise is remembered as one of the greats, you end it on an undisputable failure like Dark Phoenix on the other hand and the legacy is tarnished greatly.
I think Apocalypse ruins what good came out of DOFP, as well as DOFP also undercuts some of the tension in the following movies because we see the future at the end of DOFP we see how Xavier, Beast, Storm, Cyclops. Jean, Rogue, Iceman, Logan all survive and thrive into the 2020's so how are you supposed to care about the danger they face in the 1980's? we know none of those characters die, but Logan does take away from the ending of DOFP, that happy ever after ending seemingly doesn't last so it's kind of like what was the point? they survive the Sentinels just to be almost wiped out anyway a few years later, for some that can be seen as a depressing addition to the DOFP story, personally I like it however but I get others feeling differently.
But this Apocalypse ruins Logan thing, I dunno sounds more like Thenolan's typical lies but if not then yeah those people are stupid, dunno if they are fans of the MCU however, again sounds more like thenolan's usual these people are stupid they must be MCU fans bollocks, when look at some of the most ardent XCU fans some of them are certified window lickers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2020 0:15:35 GMT
Batman and Robin didn't hurt Batman Begins, but (I believe) it's been noted that film didn't do the Batman franchise or Joel Schumacher any favors. Financially I think B&R did hurt Batman Begins, no way Begins deserved to be a box office flop like it was, this is obvious by how huge it did on home media, and how big the sequels were, B&R soured the Batman brand that people almost a decade later weren't optimistic about a new movie and it went under a lot of peoples radar, Begins had to begin again and build the fans love of the franchise back up because Batman & Robin had taken such a huge shit on it and the fans. I guess I wouldn't completely rule it out. It was definitely before I thought about things like box office and sales. I still try not to.
could definitely see the powers that be in no rush to do another Batman movie for a while afterwards, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 9, 2020 18:22:52 GMT
They turned En Sabah Nur into a Cronenbergesque character, OK I'll take the bait...how exactly is he "Cronenberg-esque"? C'mon Martin Brundle - Martinfly ....I am genuinely intrigued to hear your answer |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jun 9, 2020 18:36:32 GMT
OK I'll take the bait...how exactly is he "Cronenberg-esque"? C'mon Martin Brundle - Martinfly ....I am genuinely intrigued to hear your answer Eons ago, Cronenberg launched this cold, thrilling sci-fi (SCANNERS and even its less known predecessors, or also the successor VIDEODROME) dealing with mysterious body mutations as well as intriguing ways to connect minds each to other. En Sabah Nur felt more sci-fi than comic book fantasy, and he looked and felt mysterious and fascinating. He reminded me of many Cronenberg characters, like Daryl Revok (Michael Ironside), the archenemy in "Scanners". By the way, there are several hints about "Logan" being a standalone universe. The real ending of the Mainstream Universe is the positive future of DOFP (2023). In the "Logan" universe: 1- At the end of "Dark Phoenix", mutants are no more seen in a "friendly" way. I doubt that humans would issue comic books about them in the 2000s/2010s or so. 2- Old Man Logan killed the scientists in his version of the WX Program. Our Logan never did that in "Apocalypse", he slaughtered the soldiers. 3- There was no Transigen-Alkali in "Apocalypse". 4- There was no adamantium bullet in "Apocalypse". In the original timeline, the adamantium bullet had been already used anyway, and it wasn't available anymore. 5- There are mutant children at the school in the ending of DOFP (2023). This means that mutant births didn't stop in 2004, I mean in the mainstream X-Men universe. 6- In DOFP, Phoenix is alive. In the deleted scene of "Logan", Old Man Logan talks about killing Jean and his remorse. That said, I doubt that Phoenix wouldn't be able to stop Xavier from killing the X-Men. 7- They never talk about the time-travelling issue. 8- Caliban is totally different. 9- Logan is supposed to have been "masked and costumed" in his X-Man days, wearing the comic book costume. 10- Charles is 90 years old in "Logan" (2029). In the mainstream X-Men universe, he is born in 1932. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 9, 2020 19:12:24 GMT
Eons ago, Cronenberg launched this cold, thrilling sci-fi (SCANNERS and even its less known predecessors, or also the successor VIDEODROME) dealing with mysterious body mutations as well as intriguing ways to connect minds each to other. En Sabah Nur felt more sci-fi than comic book fantasy, and he looked and felt mysterious and fascinating. He reminded me of many Cronenberg characters, like Daryl Revok (Michael Ironside), the archenemy in "Scanners". I'm fully aware of Cronenberg's films, having seen all but a few of the later ones and all the pre-Scanners ones. The telekenisis/telepathy on show in Scanners bares little resemblance to that on show in Apocalypse. In fact why isn't it DePalma-esque considering Fury came out 3 years before Scanners and exhibited almost identical powers to Scanners. Cronenberg is known for his "body horror"...in fact the chief purveyor of it. The main themes of most of his films is the fear of (and joy from) corruption of the flesh and the physical manifestation of psychological trauma. I don't see that in Apocalypse. At a stretch the Marvel character that could fall in that category is The Hulk. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Jun 9, 2020 19:27:11 GMT
Eons ago, Cronenberg launched this cold, thrilling sci-fi (SCANNERS and even its less known predecessors, or also the successor VIDEODROME) dealing with mysterious body mutations as well as intriguing ways to connect minds each to other. En Sabah Nur felt more sci-fi than comic book fantasy, and he looked and felt mysterious and fascinating. He reminded me of many Cronenberg characters, like Daryl Revok (Michael Ironside), the archenemy in "Scanners". I'm fully aware of Cronenberg's films, having seen all but a few of the later ones and all the pre-Scannners ones. The telekenisis/telepathy on show in Scanners bares little resemblance to that to that on show in Apocalypse. In fact why isn't it DePalma-esque considering Fury came out 3 years before Scanners and exhibited almost identical powers to Scanners. Cronenberg is known for his "body horror"...in fact the chief purveyour of it. The main themes of most of his films is the fear of (and joy from) corruption of the flesh and the physical manifestation of psychological trauma. I don't see that in Apocalypse. At a stretch the Marvel character that could fall in that category is The Hulk. SCANNERS was far more groundbreaking than FURY, because it introduced ideas as "mind hive", Internet (!), fusion among personalities/consciences and the power of ruthless corporations over genetics and human kind. I wasn't saying that in a LITERAL way, however. I was saying that En Sabah Nur felt like a Cronenbergesque character, a character taken from that cold, visceral sci-fi "APPROACH". I wasn't being literal at all. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 9, 2020 19:42:36 GMT
I'm fully aware of Cronenberg's films, having seen all but a few of the later ones and all the pre-Scannners ones. The telekenisis/telepathy on show in Scanners bares little resemblance to that to that on show in Apocalypse. In fact why isn't it DePalma-esque considering Fury came out 3 years before Scanners and exhibited almost identical powers to Scanners. Cronenberg is known for his "body horror"...in fact the chief purveyour of it. The main themes of most of his films is the fear of (and joy from) corruption of the flesh and the physical manifestation of psychological trauma. I don't see that in Apocalypse. At a stretch the Marvel character that could fall in that category is The Hulk. SCANNERS was far more groundbreaking than FURY, because it introduced ideas as "mind hive", Internet (!), fusion among personalities/consciences and the power of ruthless corporations over genetics and human kind. I wasn't saying that in a LITERAL way, however. I was saying that En Sabah Nur felt like a Cronenbergesque character, a character taken from that cold, visceral sci-fi "APPROACH". I wasn't being literal at all. Well I am struggling to see any similarity to any Cronenberg characters/characteristics to warrant the label |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2020 14:22:40 GMT
To be honest, I wasn't a real big fan of Logan and liked Apocalypse better.
|
|
