|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 19:25:32 GMT
You can actually soft reboot the MCU with all the Infinity Stones. Have them going through time in a bunch of time periods (even ancient) and mucking up the past with their battles. Not just on this planet, but a bunch of other galaxies. With this you can say that they created beings like Galactus and the Shi'ar and such. Imagine a battle where they keep falling into "space" and "time" portals. They show a planet how it is today, with people with spears and living in huts. They fall through a portal and a piece of Tony's suit gets knocked off. They fall through a portal again and the civilization is heavily advanced. Same thing for Earth's distant past and a group of neanderthal gets caught in the Power stone energy burst. When they fall back through a portal it lingers on the group for a few seconds looking at their body (maybe glowing) amazed. That could work, but they'd have to play the cards just right. They'd just have to give 1 or 2 quick examples. And have it during a big action scene. That way you can show and not tell. Maybe on the neanderthals have one shoot an energy beam by mistake and they all go running and hiding from him/her (funny moment). That way you know that person got powers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 19:27:51 GMT
That could work, but they'd have to play the cards just right. They'd just have to give 1 or 2 quick examples. And have it during a big action scene. That way you can show and not tell. Maybe on the neanderthals have one shoot an energy beam by mistake and they all go running and hiding from him/her (funny moment). That way you know that person got powers. Excellent point, and that would justify Nathaniel Essex/Mr. Sinister having superpowers in the 1860s.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 19:29:06 GMT
They'd just have to give 1 or 2 quick examples. And have it during a big action scene. That way you can show and not tell. Maybe on the neanderthals have one shoot an energy beam by mistake and they all go running and hiding from him/her (funny moment). That way you know that person got powers. Excellent point, and that would justify Nathaniel Essex/Mr. Sinister having superpowers in the 1860s. And Selene and Apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 16, 2017 19:31:58 GMT
I'm so happy that the X-Men will never be in the MCU. ^^ I personally would rather describe it as a celestial blessing for the X-franchise, fans of grown up cinema and all mankind. Marvel would absolutely ruin this. Leave your dirty paws off the X-Men you damn lousy Marvel apes. Hear me? Only from our dead, cold hands!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 19:33:24 GMT
Excellent point, and that would justify Nathaniel Essex/Mr. Sinister having superpowers in the 1860s. And Selene and Apocalypse. Them, too. Oh, what I wouldn't give to see how Marvel Studios would have handled Mr. Sinister and Apocalypse.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Aug 16, 2017 19:36:22 GMT
I'm so happy that the X-Men will never be in the MCU. ^^ I personally would rather describe it as a celestial blessing for the X-franchise, fans of grown up cinema and all mankind. Marvel would absolutely ruin this. Leave your dirty paws off the X-Men you damn lousy Marvel apes. Hear me? Only from our dead, cold hands! Probably.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 20:52:56 GMT
No, it wouldn't. It doesn't innovate or bring anything new to the table. It took no risks the way the MCU films (and even some DCEU films) took. It had a nonsensical ending, it took the lazy way out many times, it had plenty of unexplained stuff that needed explanation. Logan wasn't that good either, people just went easy on it because it was Jackman's swan song and because they killed Logan in the end. Deadpool worked because it was low budget so it could easily make the money back and because it had skin and gore to attract people. In fact, Deadpool WAS an MCU film with the exception of the wanton skin and gore. You're ignoring the time period context X2 was released, back then it was innovative. The reason it still holds up is because of the great writing, editing and character arcs played throughout the film, which is sorely lacking in the average comic book movie today. Add modern day visuals and CGI technology to some of X2s action scene like Pyro blowing up the police cars and you would have a near flawless CBM and that transcends any other external factor of competition, release year or nostalgia. Its like saying the original Superman or Batman are actually average since they didn't have competition - release both with modern day aesthetics and they would stand out just as well. Majority of X fans have X2 in their top 3 films of all the franchises installments - because its a great movie, period.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:08:16 GMT
No, because it came too late in the series and wasn't explored properly. It was less a Mutant Supremacy Cult and more just a terrorist group. No, it was mutant supremacy as the basic principles of Magneto. The terrorism came from the likes of Apocalypse and Shaw. Humans are the dominant players in all of the films. From Senator Kelly, to Stryker, to Warren Worthington in the original trilogy. No significantly powerful mutant faction to oppose them exist outside Magnetos small circle of henchmen. Your interpretations of these movies are beyond deluded. They understand them too well? How do you figure that since from X1 mutants are forced to hide their identities in public. And its funny now your asking for depth regarding Nightcrawlers arc but when an X-film does go deeper on another issue you label it pretentious. Nightcrawlers scene with Storm is short, subtle and to the point. And something that wasn't given much depth was the Sokovia accords in Civil War. It was a cheap plot device given barely any substance other than a quick presentation by Ross. And now you will with the new entries.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 16, 2017 21:20:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:20:53 GMT
Always an excuse with you. Whatever makes you sleep at night. He has a point though, there were not many quality comic based movies out at the time, in 2003 its only competition for "best comic book movie" was Ang Lee's Hulk, Daredevil, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. X-2 is clearly the better of the four, and no American Splendor doesn't count as its not a superhero movie. The market now is full of superhero movies and few of them turn out to be stinkers, there's a lot more quality releases now than in 2003. I see you've ignored my post about how The Last Stand is viewed as poor by a lot of people and not because it was a Spider-Man 3 type of scenario where it just couldn't live up to its amazing second. No he doesn't have a point, its just an excuse from his other recycled mantra like artificial boosters and swan songs. Films dont need competition to be heralded as great. No one says Die Hard was a average film which had no competition. Its nonsensical. X2 released today would be better than 70% of the other CBMs because its writing is on a higher level and thats a skill outside the constraints of time. The Last Stand has problems im not denying that but its far better than Origins.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 16, 2017 21:21:10 GMT
I'm so happy that the X-Men will never be in the MCU. ^^ I personally would rather describe it as a celestial blessing for the X-franchise, fans of grown up cinema and all mankind. Marvel would absolutely ruin this. Leave your dirty paws off the X-Men you damn lousy Marvel apes. Hear me? Only from our dead, cold hands! What have the X-Men movies done that honors and respects the source material so much that it schools Marvel on how to do it proper, the very same Marvel that CREATED them to refresh memory. It's been 17 years we've had X-Men movies from Fox and not one of them did Pyro, Kitty Pryde, Storm, Cyclops, Ice Man, or Rogue any justice - Even Anna Paquin agrees her version is weak compared to her comic counterpart.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 16, 2017 21:24:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:24:34 GMT
Its simply better to use a basis in evolutionary biology within real science rather than some magic crystal. Real science? Both of them are magic. Magic DNA and magic crystals. A basis* in science which fits the grounded tone. There is nothing grounded in science about crystals.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 16, 2017 21:26:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:26:21 GMT
And Selene and Apocalypse. Them, too. Oh, what I wouldn't give to see how Marvel Studios would have handled Mr. Sinister and Apocalypse. Judging by their track record with Villains dont think youl be wanting to give much.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 21:30:22 GMT
Real science? Both of them are magic. Magic DNA and magic crystals. A basis* in science which fits the grounded tone. There is nothing grounded in science about crystals. So you are saying that something crystallized by time and turned back into it's gaseous state can't alter a person in no way? Not even to get them "high" or even knock them out? You saying if there is nuclear fallout that the gas in the air can't affect a person? That what you are saying? Basis in science indeed.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 21:35:39 GMT
Them, too. Oh, what I wouldn't give to see how Marvel Studios would have handled Mr. Sinister and Apocalypse. Judging by their track record with Villains dont think youl be wanting to give much. Well... Judging by Fox's track record with villains don't think you'll get much with them in the X-men movies, either. The X-men movies have had... 2 memorable* villains? Magneto and Mystique. And they keep them for every movie. And they play them off as heroes. *I mean good memorable. Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix are memorable for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 16, 2017 21:43:04 GMT
^^ I personally would rather describe it as a celestial blessing for the X-franchise, fans of grown up cinema and all mankind. Marvel would absolutely ruin this. Leave your dirty paws off the X-Men you damn lousy Marvel apes. Hear me? Only from our dead, cold hands! What have the X-Men movies done that and honors and respects the source material so much that it schools Marvel on how to do it proper, the very same Marvel that CREATED them to refresh memory. It's been 17 years we've had X-Men movies from Fox and not one of them did Pyro, Kitty Pryde, Storm, Cyclops, Ice Man, or Rogue any justice - Even Anna Paquin agrees her version is weak compared to her comic counterpart. I just know I would defend their independence with my life. These films - especially X2 - are the template for MCU, but an allegorical template the level of which MCU could never reach. Paquin's alleged opinion is irrelevant - just look at the legion of actors/artist bitching about MCU. MCU would be like the government in X-3 injecting some medicinal MCU-formula into the franchise and it's characters to make them average, kiddy-friendly and forgettable. Wolverine would probably be downgraded to clean up raccoon turds, and Magneto would have to caress Caps sensibel nipples, and Prod X would have to treat IM's mommy issues...yikes.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 16, 2017 21:50:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:50:36 GMT
A basis* in science which fits the grounded tone. There is nothing grounded in science about crystals. So you are saying that something crystallized by time and turned back into it's gaseous state can't alter a person in no way? Not even to get them "high" or even knock them out? You saying if there is nuclear fallout that the gas in the air can't affect a person? That what you are saying? Basis in science indeed. No. Mutation from natural phenomenon is more believable in a grounded-fantasy fiction just like Spiderman from genetically engineered spiders and Hulk gaining powers by altering DNA from gamma exposure.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 16, 2017 21:58:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 16, 2017 21:58:04 GMT
Judging by their track record with Villains dont think youl be wanting to give much. Well... Judging by Fox's track record with villains don't think you'll get much with them in the X-men movies, either. The X-men movies have had... 2 memorable* villains? Magneto and Mystique. And they keep them for every movie. And they play them off as heroes. *I mean good memorable. Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix are memorable for all the wrong reasons. Magneto, Mistique, Lady Deathstrike, all incarnations of Stryker, Sebastian Shaw, Trask are solid villains who pose a credible threat to the hero. Dont need memorable villains like Joker as long as the villain gets enough screen time and characterisation which doesnt happen consistently in the MCU. And Apocalypse was an MCU type villain but still handlded better than duds like Ronan and Malketh.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 16, 2017 22:03:53 GMT
He has a point though, there were not many quality comic based movies out at the time, in 2003 its only competition for "best comic book movie" was Ang Lee's Hulk, Daredevil, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. X-2 is clearly the better of the four, and no American Splendor doesn't count as its not a superhero movie. The market now is full of superhero movies and few of them turn out to be stinkers, there's a lot more quality releases now than in 2003. I see you've ignored my post about how The Last Stand is viewed as poor by a lot of people and not because it was a Spider-Man 3 type of scenario where it just couldn't live up to its amazing second. No he doesn't have a point, its just an excuse from his other recycled mantra like artificial boosters and swan songs. Films dont need competition to be heralded as great. No one says Die Hard was a average film which had no competition. Its nonsensical. X2 released today would be better than 70% of the other CBMs because its writing is on a higher level. The Last Stand has problems im not denying that but its far better than Origins. I'm afraid your Die Hard comparison doesn't quite work. Die Hard was released at a time when the go-to action heroes were supermen who had muscles upon muscles and could handle any situation that stood in their way, grit and edge were present but even a dose of believability and logic were thrown out the window - Think "McBain" from The Simpsons. Die Hard offered an unconventional take on the modern action hero by having Bruce Willis as the lead - Who represented the common man, which people wanted to see. In addition to that, Willis was mostly known for being the male lead in a sitcom and having some musical success but he was not proven to be leading man material, let alone an action star. Die Hard wasn't exactly a sophisticated movie but it played upon action film stereotypes of the time and grounded it enough that the action wasn't all flash - the hero, John McClane, actually got hurt and became a mess towards the end. The appeal of Die Hard had a lasting effect and its influence still continues to this day, it has a timeless appeal of seeing the common person tackling such a high stakes situation. X-2 and its predecessor do not tell timeless stories outside of the use of theme of "feeling different" and the isolation/rejection from the rest of society , they are very much products of the aftermath of Batman & Robin where superhero films had to take themselves very seriously and "ground" the material so people wouldn't reject them and think they were hokey and cheesy. Spider-Man was the only one to be released in that period to full embrace its roots and do it well without the fear or alienating the audience, it reminded people that you don't need to worry about staying true to the material's campy roots as long as its well directed, written, and acted. The trend of trying to darken up superhero films and "ground" them is done and few want to see it make a come back and want to revisit that era. Do not get me wrong, X-2 is a very good movie all in all but if released today I don't think reception would be that stellar, I can already see people of today saying "well, its not very fun..." and complain about the costume designs, "in a world where we see a comic accurate Captain America costume we can't get a comic accurate Wolverine suit..." So what is The Last Stand is better than Origins? That's not exactly a reasonable defense given that Origins is pretty much the Batman & Robin of the franchise - and arguably worse when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 22:07:16 GMT
So you are saying that something crystallized by time and turned back into it's gaseous state can't alter a person in no way? Not even to get them "high" or even knock them out? You saying if there is nuclear fallout that the gas in the air can't affect a person? That what you are saying? Basis in science indeed. No. Mutation from natural phenomenon is more believable in a grounded-fantasy fiction just like Spiderman from genetically engineered spiders and Hulk gaining powers by altering DNA from gamma exposure. But mutations were never natural. Even in the comics before millennia old mutants came about it came from some kind of radiation exposure that was passed from parent to child. When older mutants like Selene and Apocalypse came about, it was from aliens. It was never from just regular evolution. Mutants are the same as the child of Spider-man and the child of the Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Aug 16, 2017 22:39:36 GMT
What have the X-Men movies done that and honors and respects the source material so much that it schools Marvel on how to do it proper, the very same Marvel that CREATED them to refresh memory. It's been 17 years we've had X-Men movies from Fox and not one of them did Pyro, Kitty Pryde, Storm, Cyclops, Ice Man, or Rogue any justice - Even Anna Paquin agrees her version is weak compared to her comic counterpart. I just know I would defend their independence with my life. These films - especially X2 - are the template for MCU, but an allegorical template the level of which MCU could never reach. Paquin's alleged opinion is irrelevant - just look at the legion of actors/artist bitching about MCU. MCU would be like the government in X-3 injecting some medicinal MCU-formula into the franchise and it's characters to make them average, kiddy-friendly and forgettable. Wolverine would probably be downgraded to clean up raccoon turds, and Magneto would have to caress Caps sensibel nipples, and Prod X would have to treat IM's mommy issues...yikes. Paquin's opinion is rooted by comparison to her character's comic counterpart, and she has a point there - Comic Rogue is a total bad-ass and has way more abilities than what the movies portray. In the movies she's rarely stands out from everybody else and despite the screen time she has in the first two films she doesn't leave a strong impression other than "If I kiss you, you go into a coma..." They could've done a lot more wit Rogue but instead they kept downplaying her importance after the first one and put more emphasis on Wolverine. Her argument has a lot more merit than Mickey Rourke's were for Iron Man 2 because unlike that situation the movie is actually intended to be an ensemble and the character she's playing is far more recognizable and important. Paquin still did the movies and doesn't have sour feelings to the people involved, which is why her husband is one of the leads in The Gifted. The majority of the characters in the Fox produced X-Men films *have* been average and forgettable, why do you think they re-cast certain characters and pretend that they were not present in earlier installments? Caliban is in Apocalypse and is in Logan, and they're totally different characters with totally different actors in the role. There is literally no connective tissue that links them at all. Bobby in the comics is a wise cracking, fun loving, in your face kid in the movies he's equally as mopey as his girlfriend Rogue and only acts totally serious, you could replace him with another character and it wouldn't have made a difference story-wise. Really, the only thing he has in common with the comic is his ability to use ice. Kitty is a more integral part of the team and has shown on many occasions to be a competent leader and teacher, the storyline of DOFP was originally hers but they gave it to Logan because Hugh Jackman's popularity. Pyro and Angel Salvadore are pretty much your typical "Oh I'm kind of the rebel of the group and I'll join forces with the bad guy because he makes SOOO much sense although its obvious he's manipulating me..." You obviously have not read many X-Men comics, its not all "angst on top of angst meets angst", there are plenty of stories where the team has banter with one another and even with their enemies, not dissimilar from how Marvel has portrayed The Avengers and Guardians and soon Defenders in the MCU.
|
|