|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 28, 2017 17:24:20 GMT
No, DC fans like the X-verse because, similar to DC themselves, they're pretentious. Their ambition lies in going for that creatively bankrupt "grounded" approach that shows how ashamed they are of comics and how they want their audiences to be ashamed of comics as well. Fixed. And tell me, what was so memorable about Logan's villain hm? There's enough comic book elements in the movies. Other than costumes, I dont know what you want from these films to qualify them as not being "grounded". And Donald Pearce is a charismatic villain whose allowed enough screentime and dialogue to establish a presence. He isn't a forgettable throwaway like Kaecellius or Darren Cross and not a punching bag like Ronan. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 28, 2017 17:49:58 GMT
Fixed. And tell me, what was so memorable about Logan's villain hm? Other than costumes, I dont know what you want from these films to qualify them as not being "grounded". And Donald Pearce is a charismatic villain whose allowed enough screentime and dialogue to establish a presence. He isn't a forgettable throwaway like Kaecellius or Darren Cross and not a punching bag like Ronan. Really really reluctant ones that Singer clearly wasn't happy about.
What I want? I want the movies to be about the X-Men and not Magneto's latest scheme, I want them to move past this worn out "Mutant Registration" Stuff, I want the Sentinel stuff to not be some future world that got erased, I want stuff like Krakoa, etc.
Pierce was pathetic, but as always a FoX-Man movie simply doesn't know how to make the protagonist the star. Kaecilius had better motivation and presence than him, the DS writers just didn't forget the movie was about Strange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 18:49:40 GMT
really can't compare their first three or four movies with DC's current four right now Yes, we can. It's more valid to compare them at equal points (both after 4 movies or both after 5 movies) rather than compare them when 1 has 15 movies and the other has only 4 movies. But wasn't Green Lantern supposed to kick start the DCEU? Oh but that piece of shit flopped... It dosen't count... MOS is the start they say... Yeah right. And some DC properties are super bankable like Batman and Superman, they have been around in movies forever. It's a fucking disgrace that a movie pitching those two against each other didn't even break the billion mark! It's a fucking disgrace because the movie was shit, that movie alone should have had the same BO as the avengers at least. DC after 4 (or 5) movies should be several billions ahead of the first 4 or 5 MCU movies with a bunch of non-household names. I don't even know why I bother with you... |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 29, 2017 10:13:12 GMT
Really really reluctant ones that Singer clearly wasn't happy about.What I want? I want the movies to be about the X-Men and not Magneto's latest scheme, I want them to move past this worn out "Mutant Registration" Stuff, I want the Sentinel stuff to not be some future world that got erased, I want stuff like Krakoa, etc. Pierce was pathetic, but as always a FoX-Man movie simply doesn't know how to make the protagonist the star. Kaecilius had better motivation and presence than him, the DS writers just didn't forget the movie was about Strange. The original trilogy was successfull because they chose to go with the X-mens most unique and relevant base story that would appeal to general audiences worldwide, which was the idea that superheroes were not seen as idols but as outcasts where parallels to real world issues could be drawn. After X3, they could have gone to more fantastical features like Asteroid M, The Shi'ar/The Brood, The Savage Land etc, which would mean rebooting the whole series from scratch. I think they chose the safe option in soft rebooting it whilst keeping the "grounded" mutant persecution baseline because attempting to do some of the more out-there stuff I mentioned before would have been too much of a risk for the studio at that point follwing failures of X3 and Origins. Also acknowledging that successful CBMs around that time were all grounded too like Dark Knight and Iron Man 1/2. Its easy to say MCU takes risk with films like Doctor Strange and Guardian's if you ignore the positive track record for the films before. They can afford to take the gamble, its not about having the guts to. And Fox chose the right option with First Class and sticking to the grounded approach. Now we see a return point in history as Apocalypse was a miss just like X3, but now they are going in a different direction by introducing cosmic and more magical elements. As for Kaecellius he may have had a more defined motivation but never got enough screentime to explore his personality. Hes also treated like a Bugs Bunny villain the way he's handlded in certain scenes like the interrogation one. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 29, 2017 11:41:01 GMT
Really really reluctant ones that Singer clearly wasn't happy about.What I want? I want the movies to be about the X-Men and not Magneto's latest scheme, I want them to move past this worn out "Mutant Registration" Stuff, I want the Sentinel stuff to not be some future world that got erased, I want stuff like Krakoa, etc. Pierce was pathetic, but as always a FoX-Man movie simply doesn't know how to make the protagonist the star. Kaecilius had better motivation and presence than him, the DS writers just didn't forget the movie was about Strange. The original trilogy was successfull because they chose to go with the X-mens most unique and relevant base story that would appeal to general audiences worldwide, which was the idea that superheroes were not seen as idols but as outcasts where parallels to real world issues could be drawn. After X3, they could have gone to more fantastical features like Asteroid M, The Shi'ar/The Brood, The Savage Land etc, which would mean rebooting the whole series from scratch. I think they chose the safe option in soft rebooting it whilst keeping the "grounded" mutant persecution baseline because attempting to do some of the more out-there stuff I mentioned before would have been too much of a risk for the studio at that point follwing failures of X3 and Origins. Also acknowledging that successful CBMs around that time were all grounded too like Dark Knight and Iron Man 1/2. Its easy to say MCU takes risk with films like Doctor Strange and Guardian's if you ignore the positive track record for the films before. They can afford to take the gamble, its not about having the guts to. And Fox chose the right option with First Class and sticking to the grounded approach. Now we see a return point in history as Apocalypse was a miss just like X3, but now they are going in a different direction by introducing cosmic and more magical elements. As for Kaecellius he may have had a more defined motivation but never got enough screentime to explore his personality. Hes also treated like a Bugs Bunny villain the way he's handlded in certain scenes like the interrogation one. The original trilogy worked because they had no competition. The "safe" option? No, they chose the cowardly option because the people in charge of the FoX-Men hate all that wondrous stuff. The entire MCU was one big gamble, and they've repeatedly pulled it off. Fox has no courage for that stuff. So you want them to take the lazy way out and make the villain the true star of the movie, totally overshadowing Dr Strange? That's the lazy way out. X-Men had over 10 years to evolve, and they're only bothering now that everyone else did all the work for them. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jun 29, 2017 13:27:48 GMT
The "safe" option? No, they chose the cowardly option because the people in charge of the FoX-Men hate all that wondrous stuff. It was the safe option from a financial perspective and in hindsight it worked well to re-establish what made X1 and X2 great. If X3 was good as First Class or DOFP, it would have been an appropriate closing chapter from which then maybe they could have introduced the more wondrous elements. But since Brett Ratner screwed it up (along with origins), they had no choice to correct it and revert to what made them successful in the 1st place. It's not cowardly, its just smart business. You can ignore all the context you want but if the phase 1 films of the MCU failed you can guarantee theyd be rebooting them in the same manner just like Spiderman and Fantastic Four. The MCU simply got lucky in phase 1 and Avengers, its not dealt with adversity but when it does then we'll see how they react. The MCU have had the added benefit of observing other studios mistakes and learning from them to fine tune their own franchise. The Xmen films didnt have the same luxury at the time. They were pioneers and much as you wont admit it, the MCU and Feige owe a lot to Fox in that regard. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 29, 2017 19:01:47 GMT
The "safe" option? No, they chose the cowardly option because the people in charge of the FoX-Men hate all that wondrous stuff. It was the safe option from a financial perspective and in hindsight it worked well to re-establish what made X1 and X2 great. If X3 was good as First Class or DOFP, it would have been an appropriate closing chapter from which then maybe they could have introduced the more wondrous elements. But since Brett Ratner screwed it up (along with origins), they had no choice to correct it and revert to what made them successful in the 1st place. It's not cowardly, its just smart business. You can ignore all the context you want but if the phase 1 films of the MCU failed you can guarantee theyd be rebooting them in the same manner just like Spiderman and Fantastic Four. The MCU simply got lucky in phase 1 and Avengers, its not dealt with adversity but when it does then we'll see how they react. The MCU have had the added benefit of observing other studios mistakes and learning from them to fine tune their own franchise. The Xmen films didnt have the same luxury at the time. They were pioneers and much as you wont admit it, the MCU and Feige owe a lot to Fox in that regard. Or, they could've just acknowledge how the MCU had worked hard to show that the wondrous could work and gone that way. Instead they just wussed out (as always) and went the way Singer had, and then went so far as to let him retcon out every last little thing he didn't like because he's a prima donna who didn't want to accept anything else someone had done with X-Men except him. The Phase 1 movies didn't fail though. The bucked the trends and worked hard to show that CBMs that are unashamed of themselves can be good commercially and critically, which X-Men has never done. It's been an uphill battle the whole way through, thanks to the damage Singer and Nolan did with their "Only Grounded films can work!" stance. Fox had it easy that there was no competition at the time, and that people were as ashamed of comics as Singer was. Release X1 today and odds are it wouldn't be as well-received. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 22:47:38 GMT
Here you go DC-Fan. Your claims of him hitting him in the head are complete bullshit. Not surprising. Doesn't matter what dc-fan says, Ultron killed him. It's in the movie. End of story. |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jul 2, 2017 23:04:19 GMT
MCU wiki marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Assassination_of_Wolfgang_von_StruckerWar Ultron Offensive Date May 2, 2015 Result (Outcome) Ultron kills Wolfgang von StruckerAssassination "Ultron killed Strucker." ―Steve Rogers[src] After tracking down Strucker, Ultron forced him to reveal the location of several major Vibranium caches, which the artificial intelligence deemed necessary to carry out his plan to preserve peace. Strucker provided Ultron with the location of Ulysses Klaue, a notorious gangster and black market arms dealer whose base of operations was a Salvage Yard located on the coast of Africa. A now-satisfied Ultron proceeded to smash Strucker's head against the wall of his cell, instantly killing the high-ranking HYDRA operative. Before escaping, Ultron took Strucker's blood and used it to paint the word "peace" across the wall, leaving it for the Avengers to find. wikipedia Escaping with the scepter, Ultron uses the resources in Strucker's Sokovia base to upgrade his rudimentary body and build an army of robot drones. Having killed Strucker, he recruits the Maximoffs, who hold Stark responsible for their parents' deaths by his weapons, and go to the base of arms dealer Ulysses Klaue to obtain Wakandan vibranium. this is such a dumb argument. dcfan has to be the only person alive to think Cap killed Strucker. Honestly I can't tell if he's dead or not. I could see either way. I think a strong case can certainly be made that he's dead. We can clearly see that Cap's shield hits Strucker with such violent force that he bounces off the wall behind him. So he absorbed 2 huge collisions - 1 from the shield (which is made of the hardest metal on Earth and which was hard enough to stop Thor's hammer in The Avengers) and 1 from the wall. And after he drops to the floor, he just lies there lifeless, with no movement at all. Certainly looks dead. was this part in the theatrical release? I don't recall it at all. I only saw Civil War once, but I do remember seeing this scene because when I saw it, the 1st thing I thought was that Captain America just killed an unarmed man. ...Civil War? You mean Age of Ultron? Shit you don't even know what movie you're talking about. Speaking of Civil War, you didn't even know how Tony knew where Cap and Bucky were going. You said "The only way that Iron Man knew when and where Captain America and the Winter Soldier were going was if Captain America called him and said "Hey Tony, even though we're fugitives from the law and even though you've been assigned to arrest us and take us in, we're going to tell you exactly when and where we'll be so that you can show up and try to arrest us and take us in. It sounds stupid, but the scriptwriter was dumb enough to put that in the script so that's what we're supposed to do."" Even though, in reality, it was shown that Tony got Sam to tell him where Cap/Bucky were going when they (Tony and Sam) were on The Raft.  |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jul 2, 2017 23:49:58 GMT
Here you go DC-Fan. Your claims of him hitting him in the head are complete bullshit. Not surprising. You know, if you turn up the volume and listen, you can actually hear Strucker groan when he's on the ground. Dead people don't groan. He's not even unconscious let alone dead. Maria Hill shows Cap that Strucker is dead   He's on a bed in a cell. DC-Fan, do you think Cap killed Strucker then stuck him on a bed and wrote PEACE on the wall with his blood? Or did Ultron find him dead and write PEACE with his blood? That's not much of a message, writing something with the blood of someone your enemy already killed... |
|
