|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on May 20, 2017 4:14:36 GMT
A third Wolverine film was indeed on the cards, but things didn't really take off dramatically till Deadpool was coming out, then everything was in high gear, rest is history.
It remains to be seen how close they're sticking to their original structure for the franchise, as said before Fox put all their chips on Apocalypse and didn't really think much about Deadpool but as things turned out Deadpool was the bigger success and Ryan Reynolds at this point is probably looking to be their new face of the franchise now that Hugh Jackman's no longer Wolverine( And its gonna be a while before another one wears those claws). We all knew another take on Dark Pheonix was to be expected because they were reintroducing the characters in their younger years and the set up for it was there in Apocalypse. Personally think its too soon, but then again its Fox.
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 20, 2017 4:26:54 GMT
A third Wolverine film was indeed on the cards, but things didn't really take off dramatically till Deadpool was coming out, then everything was in high gear, rest is history. It remains to be seen how close they're sticking to their original structure for the franchise, as said before Fox put all their chips on Apocalypse and didn't really think much about Deadpool but as things turned out Deadpool was the bigger success and Ryan Reynolds at this point is probably looking to be their new face of the franchise now that Hugh Jackman's no longer Wolverine( And its gonna be a while before another one wears those claws). We all knew another take on Dark Pheonix was to be expected because they were reintroducing the characters in their younger years and the set up for it was there in Apocalypse. Personally think its too soon, but then again its Fox. Even a broken clock...
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on May 20, 2017 9:20:49 GMT
A third Wolverine film was indeed on the cards, but things didn't really take off dramatically till Deadpool was coming out, then everything was in high gear, rest is history. It remains to be seen how close they're sticking to their original structure for the franchise, as said before Fox put all their chips on Apocalypse and didn't really think much about Deadpool but as things turned out Deadpool was the bigger success and Ryan Reynolds at this point is probably looking to be their new face of the franchise now that Hugh Jackman's no longer Wolverine( And its gonna be a while before another one wears those claws). We all knew another take on Dark Pheonix was to be expected because they were reintroducing the characters in their younger years and the set up for it was there in Apocalypse. Personally think its too soon, but then again its Fox. The ship was sealed long before Deadpool. The only effect it had on Logan was the R-Rated.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 20, 2017 9:46:55 GMT
And Hillary Clinton hoped to be the first female POTUS. But neither will ever happen (Hillary won't be the first female POTUS and MCU won't reacquire the X-Men or the Fantastic Four).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 10:43:24 GMT
And Hillary Clinton hoped to be the first female POTUS. But neither will ever happen (Hillary won't be the first female POTUS and MCU won't reacquire the X-Men or the Fantastic Four). Fuck Off, scumbag.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 20, 2017 11:23:52 GMT
Dude, Fox didn't even want to support Deadpool originally, they didn't think it would even have half of the success it would later have. They only greenlit it because there was serious demand after the test footage leaked online and because Reynolds and Miller could get it done cheaper. They had all their chips on X-Men: Apocalypse being their biggest tentpole of the year but Deadpool garnered far bigger critical and financial success, it practically rewrote the structure of the X-Men franchise. It wasn't long after Deadpool's success that Logan was announced. aha, so with this business-history lesson you are essentially confirming his argument; by saying that Fox with "Apocalypse" wanted to play-it-save a la Marvel, but still allowed an out-of-the-formula project. Which in the end gave us two innovative, R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool, Logan), while Disney-Marvel despite their big output have none so far. I usually don't do this at home, but in this regard I and everybody who is sick of stale formula products must concur with "Fuck Disney"
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 20, 2017 13:15:49 GMT
Ah yes, this ever-present "formula" no one can ever identify.
Except maybe, as success.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 13:38:13 GMT
Dude, Fox didn't even want to support Deadpool originally, they didn't think it would even have half of the success it would later have. They only greenlit it because there was serious demand after the test footage leaked online and because Reynolds and Miller could get it done cheaper. They had all their chips on X-Men: Apocalypse being their biggest tentpole of the year but Deadpool garnered far bigger critical and financial success, it practically rewrote the structure of the X-Men franchise. It wasn't long after Deadpool's success that Logan was announced. aha, so with this business-history lesson you are essentially confirming his argument; by saying that Fox with "Apocalypse" wanted to play-it-save a la Marvel, but still allowed an out-of-the-formula project. Which in the end gave us two innovative, R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool, Logan), while Disney-Marvel despite their big output have none so far. I usually don't do this at home, but in this regard I and everybody who is sick of stale formula products must concur with "Fuck Disney" The thing is, R-rated is not innovation. people seem to think only R-rated are the biiiiizniz. That's shit. If the storie or the execution are shit. In those two instances it was not, but that's not a guarantee of anything. Guardians was innovative, iron-man was innovative, avengers. heck the fucking idea of the MCU was innovative. Fucking colombus egg...
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 20, 2017 14:00:02 GMT
I can't imagine Peter having anal with MJ would automatically make a Spidey movie a hit.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 20, 2017 14:44:59 GMT
aha, so with this business-history lesson you are essentially confirming his argument; by saying that Fox with "Apocalypse" wanted to play-it-save a la Marvel, but still allowed an out-of-the-formula project. Which in the end gave us two innovative, R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool, Logan), while Disney-Marvel despite their big output have none so far. I usually don't do this at home, but in this regard I and everybody who is sick of stale formula products must concur with "Fuck Disney" The thing is, R-rated is not innovation. people seem to think only R-rated are the biiiiizniz. That's shit. If the storie or the execution are shit. In those two instances it was not, but that's not a guarantee of anything. Nobody ever claimed that R-rated equals innovation, especially not me. Reading comprehension, dude: there is a tiny punctuation character I used in order to prevent any misinterpretation or false cause misconceptions in this regard. Homework: Can you find it? Bold, very bold, you are the first I ever encounter speaking of innovation in this context. No, MCU is not considered that, quite the contrary, and you neglect to provide any sustainable evidence in this regard. I do not care to discuss the obvious, but only that: Extended Universes exist since decades, centuries and millennia in literature, mythology, opera and other art forms (fantasy pulp like LotR etc). Thus, the mere claim is absurd and uninformed. My favorites current pop-EUs are Star Trek, BG and StarWars: in Trek characters from movies (13 so far), shows (5 so far), book and games intersect and meet each other all the time (even from parallel realities), even for shameful promotion and teasing purposes like in the MCU. And: These MCU movies are not innovative, neither on a writing nor a cinematography level. Like most genre films they follow a formula, e.g., formula character/story arcs: Guardians has the Avengers-arc of several selfish and different jerks having to learn to work as a team to fight a common (weak) villain. Most of these movies have the same "flawed jerk goes through character crisis and becomes hero by learning something (Dr Strange, Thor, Ironman, Antman). It's the oldest formula arc in literature. There are countless essays on what exact elements constitute MCU formula; truth is formulas are per definition flexible and changed in the progress, e.g. Bond has a formula but it is partially abandoned in some films. The MCU formula is more strict (so far), but, importantly, no element of this formula is new or innovative. Everything has been there before (yeah even post credit scenes, don't even try!). Lol, that story is a fake. MCU is the Egg of Columbus same as Transformers, Pirates & Co. Only the most shallow will find it deep. Only the most naive will find it innovative.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 20, 2017 14:56:12 GMT
I can't imagine Peter having anal with MJ would automatically make a Spidey movie a hit. Better make it Gwen, then...
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 20, 2017 15:05:26 GMT
The thing is, R-rated is not innovation. people seem to think only R-rated are the biiiiizniz. That's shit. If the storie or the execution are shit. In those two instances it was not, but that's not a guarantee of anything. Nobody ever claimed that R-rated equals innovation, especially not me. Reading comprehension, dude: there is a tiny punctuation character I used in order to prevent any misinterpretation or false cause misconceptions in this regard. Homework: Can you find it? Bold, very bold, you are the first I ever encounter speaking of innovation in this context. No, MCU is not considered that, quite the contrary, and you neglect to provide any sustainable evidence in this regard. I do not care to discuss the obvious, but only that: Extended Universes exist since decades, centuries and millennia in literature, mythology, opera and other art forms (fantasy pulp like LotR etc). Thus, the mere claim is absurd and uninformed. My favorites current pop-EUs are Star Trek, BG and StarWars: in Trek characters from movies (13 so far), shows (5 so far), book and games intersect and meet each other all the time (even from parallel realities), even for shameful promotion and teasing purposes like in the MCU. And: These MCU movies are not innovative, neither on a writing nor a cinematography level. Like most genre films they follow a formula, e.g., formula character/story arcs: Guardians has the Avengers-arc of several selfish and different jerks having to learn to work as a team to fight a common (weak) villain. Most of these movies have the same "flawed jerk goes through character crisis and becomes hero by learning something (Dr Strange, Thor, Ironman, Antman). It's the oldest formula arc in literature. There are countless essays on what exact elements constitute MCU formula; truth is formulas are per definition flexible and changed in the progress, e.g. Bond has a formula but it is partially abandoned in some films. The MCU formula is more strict (so far), but, importantly, no element of this formula is new or innovative. Everything has been there before (yeah even post credit scenes, don't even try!). Lol, that story is a fake. MCU is the Egg of Columbus same as Transformers, Pirates & Co. Only the most shallow will find it deep. Only the most naive will find it innovative. I agree about the MCU (really, more so Disney) being staid/static in its formulaic presentations of character and story, as there is sort of an antiseptic, glossy sheen on everything in their movies. To dovetail this with the OP, then -- and, obviously, as a fan of the FoX-Men movies, I'm playing devil's advocate here, sir, but -- wouldn't the X-Men, who are inherently more nuanced characters that work on allegorical levels beyond, "He's literally the actual Norse God of Thunder! Get it?!" and the like, essentially compel Disney/Marvel to at least modify that formula to account for their inclusion? It would've made Civil War, you know, much closer to the actual 2006 Marvel story of same name, etc., and added a degree of nuance thus far absent in the MCU. Wouldn't it? Therefore, wouldn't it benefit both the X-Men AND their Marvel "brethren," as someone else called them, to be reunited -- both creatively and financially? (FWIW, my fear/counterpoint to this would be that Disney would just shoehorn them into their preexisting paradigm and they would basically be another Guardians-type side team.)
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 20, 2017 15:34:26 GMT
I agree about the MCU (really, more so Disney) being staid/static in its formulaic presentations of character and story, as there is sort of an antiseptic, glossy sheen on everything in their movies. To dovetail this with the OP, then -- and, obviously, as a fan of the FoX-Men movies, I'm playing devil's advocate here, sir, but -- wouldn't the X-Men, who are inherently more nuanced characters that work on allegorical levels beyond, "He's literally the actual Norse God of Thunder! Get it?!" and the like, essentially compel Disney/Marvel to at least modify that formula to account for their inclusion? It would've made Civil War, you know, much closer to the actual 2006 Marvel story of same name, etc., and added a degree of nuance thus far absent in the MCU. Wouldn't it? Therefore, wouldn't it benefit both the X-Men AND their Marvel "brethren," as someone else called them, to be reunited -- both creatively and financially? (FWIW, my fear/counterpoint to this would be that Disney would just shoehorn them into their preexisting paradigm and they would basically be another Guardians-type side team.) beats me, but gut feeling says count 2 would apply: In doubt the Mouse always panders to the lowest common denominator (TFA!), and would thus subject the X-People to their own Disney formula paradigm; nobody stands above the formula in the MCU! Just think Spiderboy who after some truly bland films, was reinvented in Cap 3. They said that only Marvel can do the character justice. Yeah? So, I was exited as Spidey was really lame lately. But wtf? To my horror in he was even more juvenile, annoying and quip-y than in the horrible Sony films....cringefest galore...
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 20, 2017 15:38:26 GMT
Nobody ever claimed that R-rated equals innovation, especially not me. Reading comprehension, dude: there is a tiny punctuation character I used in order to prevent any misinterpretation or false cause misconceptions in this regard. Homework: Can you find it? Bold, very bold, you are the first I ever encounter speaking of innovation in this context. No, MCU is not considered that, quite the contrary, and you neglect to provide any sustainable evidence in this regard. I do not care to discuss the obvious, but only that: Extended Universes exist since decades, centuries and millennia in literature, mythology, opera and other art forms (fantasy pulp like LotR etc). Thus, the mere claim is absurd and uninformed. My favorites current pop-EUs are Star Trek, BG and StarWars: in Trek characters from movies (13 so far), shows (5 so far), book and games intersect and meet each other all the time (even from parallel realities), even for shameful promotion and teasing purposes like in the MCU. And: These MCU movies are not innovative, neither on a writing nor a cinematography level. Like most genre films they follow a formula, e.g., formula character/story arcs: Guardians has the Avengers-arc of several selfish and different jerks having to learn to work as a team to fight a common (weak) villain. Most of these movies have the same "flawed jerk goes through character crisis and becomes hero by learning something (Dr Strange, Thor, Ironman, Antman). It's the oldest formula arc in literature. There are countless essays on what exact elements constitute MCU formula; truth is formulas are per definition flexible and changed in the progress, e.g. Bond has a formula but it is partially abandoned in some films. The MCU formula is more strict (so far), but, importantly, no element of this formula is new or innovative. Everything has been there before (yeah even post credit scenes, don't even try!). Lol, that story is a fake. MCU is the Egg of Columbus same as Transformers, Pirates & Co. Only the most shallow will find it deep. Only the most naive will find it innovative. I agree about the MCU (really, more so Disney) being staid/static in its formulaic presentations of character and story, as there is sort of an antiseptic, glossy sheen on everything in their movies. To dovetail this with the OP, then -- and, obviously, as a fan of the FoX-Men movies, I'm playing devil's advocate here, sir, but -- wouldn't the X-Men, who are inherently more nuanced characters that work on allegorical levels beyond, "He's literally the actual Norse God of Thunder! Get it?!" and the like, essentially compel Disney/Marvel to at least modify that formula to account for their inclusion? It would've made Civil War, you know, much closer to the actual 2006 Marvel story of same name, etc., and added a degree of nuance thus far absent in the MCU. Wouldn't it? Therefore, wouldn't it benefit both the X-Men AND their Marvel "brethren," as someone else called them, to be reunited -- both creatively and financially? (FWIW, my fear/counterpoint to this would be that Disney would just shoehorn them into their preexisting paradigm and they would basically be another Guardians-type side team.) X-Men never worked much as allegory, mainly due to the utter lack of nuance or really thinking things through. If they were in the MCU we'd spend more time on the X-Men and less time on Magneto and the villains, as well as point out that the Humans aren't really wrong for being afraid (which the X-Movies have always glossed over). As for Comics Civil War, it was a crap story that wouldn't have worked on the screen. The changes made were for the better, as it added nuance that wasn't there in the comics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2017 15:50:19 GMT
I'm sorry DC-Fan, I couldn't hear you. You need to speak up and stop rambling
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on May 20, 2017 17:23:37 GMT
aha, so with this business-history lesson you are essentially confirming his argument; by saying that Fox with "Apocalypse" wanted to play-it-save a la Marvel, but still allowed an out-of-the-formula project. Which in the end gave us two innovative, R-rated superhero movies (Deadpool, Logan), while Disney-Marvel despite their big output have none so far. I usually don't do this at home, but in this regard I and everybody who is sick of stale formula products must concur with "Fuck Disney" The thing is, R-rated is not innovation. people seem to think only R-rated are the biiiiizniz. That's shit. If the storie or the execution are shit. In those two instances it was not, but that's not a guarantee of anything. Guardians was innovative, iron-man was innovative, avengers. heck the fucking idea of the MCU was innovative. Fucking colombus egg... Isn't it fucking funny? Pre-adolescent humor, masturbation with the "little hand" and, acknowledging that you've been fucking up the franchise for decades with in-world commentary is "innovation." Fox deigns to give fanboys the R-rated Wolverine movie they've been clamoring for ages just as the lead is on his way out of the door - and that's "innovation." Fanboys are so caught up in corporate fetishizing that they celebrate studios over superheroes. They let their love/hatred of one corporate entity over another determine how the Marvel Universe gets carved up. They disgust me. They're poseurs, and I will never acknowledge them as fans. I would love it if Marvel could use the characters they licensed to third parties competitively. Let Fox and Marvel make X-Men films concurrently and see how that plays out. Casual fans would be free to see and glorify the "innovative" versions of these movies while real fans could enjoy a unified universe. God, I would love to see that happen.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 20, 2017 18:09:40 GMT
Extended Universes exist since decades, centuries and millennia in literature, mythology, opera and other art forms (fantasy pulp like LotR etc). Thus, the mere claim is absurd and uninformed. My favorites current pop-EUs are Star Trek, BG and StarWars: in Trek characters from movies (13 so far), shows (5 so far), book and games intersect and meet each other all the time (even from parallel realities), even for shameful promotion and teasing purposes like in the MCU. And: These MCU movies are not innovative, neither on a writing nor a cinematography level. Like most genre films they follow a formula, e.g., formula character/story arcs: Guardians has the Avengers-arc of several selfish and different jerks having to learn to work as a team to fight a common (weak) villain. Most of these movies have the same "flawed jerk goes through character crisis and becomes hero by learning something (Dr Strange, Thor, Ironman, Antman). It's the oldest formula arc in literature. There are countless essays on what exact elements constitute MCU formula; truth is formulas are per definition flexible and changed in the progress, e.g. Bond has a formula but it is partially abandoned in some films. The MCU formula is more strict (so far), but, importantly, no element of this formula is new or innovative. Everything has been there before (yeah even post credit scenes, don't even try!). Agreed. MCU is the Egg of Columbus same as Transformers, Pirates & Co. Only the most shallow will find it deep. Only the most naive will find it innovative. Agreed. droideka just got owned!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 20, 2017 18:15:55 GMT
wtf? To my horror in he was even more juvenile, annoying and quip-y than in the horrible Sony films....cringefest galore... Agreed. The Amazing Spider-Kid did more talking than fighting. And dumb MCU fans complain about the "Martha scene" when they didn't understand it at all, the Cap-Spider-Kid scene was even worse: Cap: "I'm from Queens." Spider-Kid: "I'm from the Bronx." Cap: "Really, kid? We're from the same city? OK, let's stop fighting." Stops fighting and walks away in the middle of the fight. That was almost as lame as Ronan the Big Bad Destroyer of Planets getting defeated by a Dance-Off. So in Infinity War, Thanos will probably be defeated by a karaoke challenge.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on May 20, 2017 18:40:20 GMT
I can't imagine Peter having anal with MJ would automatically make a Spidey movie a hit. That maybe so, but Homecoming won't get close to the way Raimi explored Peters transformation on the human level as was in Spiderman 2. From the trailers, Peters a punk kid who will be joking and wise cracking around with Stark hogging the screentime. I hope they try and develop Starks and Parkers relation but I expect the typical MCU glossed flavour of thin story with plenty of CGI drab against a underdeveloped villain, and the audience will eat it up.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on May 20, 2017 18:44:46 GMT
Agreed. The Amazing Spider-Kid did more talking than fighting. And dumb MCU fans complain about the "Martha scene" when they didn't understand it at all, the Cap-Spider-Kid scene was even worse: Cap: "I'm from Queens." Spider-Kid: "I'm from the Bronx." Cap: "Really, kid? We're from the same city? OK, let's stop fighting." Stops fighting and walks away in the middle of the fight. That was almost as lame as Ronan the Big Bad Destroyer of Planets getting defeated by a Dance-Off. So in Infinity War, Thanos will probably be defeated by a karaoke challenge. That was cringey by Spiderkid, not to mention the stupidity of Stark bringing him to a battle with the worlds most powerful superhumans after his supposed moral guilt dilemma of that student kid who died in Sokovia is swept under the rug. I really think MCU execs review fight scenes and say, "insert joke here, insert joke here". Its so predictable.
|
|