|
Post by charzhino on Jun 2, 2017 10:31:40 GMT
You could say the Xmen OT has aged better but possibly only because Raimis Spiderman series uses more special effects which is a prisoner to the time it was created in so naturally would seem more aged. I still think however that X2 and Spiderman 2 are 2 of the best comic book films ever made and put to shame some of the newest films that are released today.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 2, 2017 18:02:32 GMT
I forgive either series for the fx being dated. That can't be helped. However, I would say how striking it is that they aged in the exact same manner in terms of reception. Think about it:
Both the first installments were an introduction to their respective character. They both used familiar supporting characters and the most iconic villain(s) from their rogues gallery. The story was simple but broad enough to examine the two series' themes.
Then the second films upped the ante. They added emotional depth and more intimidating villains to the mix. They ended on a strong dramatic note. Both X2 and Spider-Man 2 were hailed as the best superhero movies in years.
But suddenly and without warning, the terrible duo ended both trilogies and left such a bad taste in audiences' mouths that both film series were rebooted. They suffered the same complaints with too many subplots, action overkill, campy acting, and a perceived decline in quality from the earlier films in each series.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 2, 2017 19:54:16 GMT
It's a push for me. I feel the installments are extremely similar in terms of quality (both go 2, 1, 3) and have aged about equally. Sorry for punting, but I really love both trilogies.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jun 13, 2017 21:19:22 GMT
I disagree. The Spider-Man trilogy has aged better IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 22:47:11 GMT
The X-Men original trilogy hadn't aged well even by 2008. Now they're just prehistoric.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 14, 2017 1:29:35 GMT
X-Men, hands down - and its not even close:
Even as an adult, I can still watch that trilogy, whereas I'm barely able to make it through the Spiderboy features anymore.
Tellingly, the original X-Men I even appreciate more than when I was a kid, as it is one of the few CBM with good allegorical content (minority treatment etc) and a solid character/human drama.
Also, the acting in X-Men (especially Picard, Gandalf and Australia) is superb. Did I mention the score yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 1:35:13 GMT
X-Men, hands down - and its not even close: Even as an adult, I can still watch that trilogy, whereas I'm barely able to make it through the Spiderboy features anymore. Tellingly, the original X-Men I even appreciate more than when I was a kid, as it is one of the few CBM with good allegorical content (minority treatment etc) and a solid character/human drama. Also, the acting in X-Men (especially Picard, Gandalf and Australia) is superb. Did I mention the score yet? Agreed, no one in the Raimi Trilogy gave a performance that came close to anyone in the X Men trilogy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 1:36:10 GMT
The X-Men original trilogy hadn't aged well even by 2008. Now they're just prehistoric. Well agree to disagree on that Raptor, still no disrespect that's your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 14, 2017 3:36:02 GMT
The X-Men original trilogy hadn't aged well even by 2008. Now they're just prehistoric. What do you think about X2 specifically? I know the CGI in X3 hasn't aged especially well, though I don't mind it, and the first one looks way older than the other two (not unlike Star Wars/Empire/Jedi) -- but: I feel like the second one looks especially good by today's standards. What say you? Personally, I think they all look great, but I would put the second flick a few notches above other other two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 3:43:49 GMT
The X-Men original trilogy hadn't aged well even by 2008. Now they're just prehistoric. What do you think about X2 specifically? I know the CGI in X3 hasn't aged especially well, though I don't mind it, and the first one looks way older than the other two (not unlike Star Wars/Empire/Jedi) -- but: I feel like the second one looks especially good by today's standards. What say you? Personally, I think they all look great, but I would put the second flick a few notches above other other two. A decent Wolverine movie that kind of had some X-Men in it and also started the process of completely butchering the Phoenix saga story because no one had the balls to let Marvel go into outer space back then. It also started the trend of screwing Cyclops over every chance they got simply because they didn't think a straight-laced boyscout-type character could be marketable (and would be proven wrong not even a decade later with the advent of Evans' Steve Rogers). It also ignored the most fascinating character traits and stories about Mystique and Lady Deathstrike in favor of having them both continue to just be nothing characters. No wonder Alan Cumming left after only one outing. The man obviously saw the scripting wasn't worth going through the torturous makeup job for. If they weren't even going to develop Mystique and Nightcrawler's connection, eventually revealing her to be his mother, they might as well have not included him.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 14, 2017 3:50:32 GMT
What do you think about X2 specifically? I know the CGI in X3 hasn't aged especially well, though I don't mind it, and the first one looks way older than the other two (not unlike Star Wars/Empire/Jedi) -- but: I feel like the second one looks especially good by today's standards. What say you? Personally, I think they all look great, but I would put the second flick a few notches above other other two. A decent Wolverine movie that kind of had some X-Men in it and also started the process of completely butchering the Phoenix saga story because no one had the balls to let Marvel go into outer space back then. It also started the trend of screwing Cyclops over every chance they got simply because they didn't think a straight-laced boyscout-type character could be marketable (and would be proven wrong not even a decade later with the advent of Evans' Steve Rogers). It also ignored the most fascinating character traits and stories about Mystique and Lady Deathstrike in favor of having them both continue to just be nothing characters. No wonder Alan Cumming left after only one outing. The man obviously saw the scripting wasn't worth going through the torturous makeup job for. If they weren't even going to develop Mystique and Nightcrawler's connection, eventually revealing her to be his mother, they might as well have not included him. But it looks pretty good, right? Compared to the other two?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 3:57:47 GMT
A decent Wolverine movie that kind of had some X-Men in it and also started the process of completely butchering the Phoenix saga story because no one had the balls to let Marvel go into outer space back then. It also started the trend of screwing Cyclops over every chance they got simply because they didn't think a straight-laced boyscout-type character could be marketable (and would be proven wrong not even a decade later with the advent of Evans' Steve Rogers). It also ignored the most fascinating character traits and stories about Mystique and Lady Deathstrike in favor of having them both continue to just be nothing characters. No wonder Alan Cumming left after only one outing. The man obviously saw the scripting wasn't worth going through the torturous makeup job for. If they weren't even going to develop Mystique and Nightcrawler's connection, eventually revealing her to be his mother, they might as well have not included him. But it looks pretty good, right? Compared to the other two? I'd have to see it again if you want to talk CGI, but in terms of practical effects/makeup, the prosthetics on Alan Cumming are the single best-looking thing the X-Men movie franchise has ever produced.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 14, 2017 4:05:01 GMT
But it looks pretty good, right? Compared to the other two? I'd have to see it again if you want to talk CGI, but in terms of practical effects/makeup, the prosthetics on Alan Cumming are the single best-looking thing the X-Men movie franchise has ever produced. I agree. The opening ("White House") scene in particular and, to a somewhat lesser extent, some of the later shit at Alkali Lake look really good; the rest doesn't quite hold up to that standard throughout, but it's still one of my personal favorites. It has the feel of either an overlong episode of the animated series or a graphic novel or bit of both. I think X2 is, as Paul McCartney once said of the Fab Four's catalogue, "work well done."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2017 4:18:32 GMT
I'd have to see it again if you want to talk CGI, but in terms of practical effects/makeup, the prosthetics on Alan Cumming are the single best-looking thing the X-Men movie franchise has ever produced. I agree. The opening ("White House") scene in particular and, to a somewhat lesser extent, some of the later shit at Alkali Lake look really good; the rest doesn't quite hold up to that standard throughout, but it's still one of my personal favorites. It has the feel of either an overlong episode of the animated series or a graphic novel or bit of both. I think X2 is, as Paul McCartney once said of the Fab Four's catalogue, "work well done." That said, I had a sinking feeling when it was announced Cumming would not be returning as Nightcrawler. I know he absolutely hated the makeup process they put him through, but a good script paired with a hot franchise like the X-Men should have easily made it worth it. He couldn't have suffered as much as John Rhys-Davies did during the production of Lord of the Rings given how that poor man was freaking ALLERGIC to the Gimli makeup, but endured it for the entire year and a half production. I have a suspicion Cumming might have known all wasn't well behind the scenes. I can't prove it, but well... I do have the third movie to point at.
|
|
|
Post by lukelovesfilm34 on Jul 2, 2017 21:44:13 GMT
I wish people would learn to forget Spider-Man 3 even exists since they hate it so much. Spider-Man 2 is so fcking good, it can stand on it own, solid and complete. It's the second best CBM ever made IMO. But, X-Men: Days of Future Past is the best CBM I've ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on May 15, 2018 18:42:42 GMT
It's a close one as I love both trilogies in different ways but I'll go with Spider-Man overall.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on May 15, 2018 22:03:11 GMT
X-Men 1 was my favourite movie as a kid, but it has aged about as badly as a movie could in my opinion. I still like Spider-Man 1 & 2 tho.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on May 16, 2018 1:03:53 GMT
I forgive either series for the fx being dated. That can't be helped. However, I would say how striking it is that they aged in the exact same manner in terms of reception. Think about it:
Both the first installments were an introduction to their respective character. They both used familiar supporting characters and the most iconic villain(s) from their rogues gallery. The story was simple but broad enough to examine the two series' themes.
Then the second films upped the ante. They added emotional depth and more intimidating villains to the mix. They ended on a strong dramatic note. Both X2 and Spider-Man 2 were hailed as the best superhero movies in years.
But suddenly and without warning, the terrible duo ended both trilogies and left such a bad taste in audiences' mouths that both film series were rebooted. They suffered the same complaints with too many subplots, action overkill, campy acting, and a perceived decline in quality from the earlier films in each series. No, they didn’t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2018 1:11:05 GMT
I have to disagree. I like the first X-Men movie, but it felt more like a TV pilot than a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on May 16, 2018 1:48:21 GMT
Ironically they're kinda the same in terms of quality.
The first films are good, but some of the effects are a bit dated.
The second films are equally great, the best of the genre
The third films are terrible.
Blade trilogy also fits in this as well.
|
|