|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 22:47:28 GMT
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. Whoa there. You saying that the Lady Deathstrike from X2... The one with only one line of dialogue... That Lady Deathstrike? Was a quality villain? You mean the one that didn't have a past with Logan. The one that didn't hate him because of what he did to her father? That Lady Deathstrike? The one that was merely a mindless henchwoman? And Sebastian Shaw. The mutant that wanted to rule the world by being the richest most powerful man? The one that basically had a cabal that was the mutant Illuminati? Or do you mean the one that was basically the 1st incarnation of Magneto. Oh that one. Trask? Wait, what did he do again? Sold weapons to the enemy at the signing of a peace accords after a war that his country lost? What did Stryker do in DoFP? Was he only memorable because of Cox? Cox Stryker... Was he only memorable because of Cox? Was he like 3-4 characters merged into one? They just got a bunch of mutant hating humans and made one character. Hell, he was only Stryker in name only. They could have at least made him a little religious. The thing you guys still don't get, and are now indoctrinated to think so, is that the movies aren't about the villains. Ever sine Batman '89 they have been pushing the villains in your face. I'm glad that Thor 2 was about Thor and Loki and not have Malekith over them. Or that Guardians was about the Guardians and that Ronan was a small part of it. I want more movies like that. Apocalypse was a secondary villain just like Shaw (was basically the same character but with a better director), Trask/Stryker, Worthington, II, and Kelly.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 16, 2017 22:52:10 GMT
Oh and the funny thing about Trask is that he didn't do anything. He died before he built the Sentinels in the dark time line. His company built them for him. He only built the crappy Sentinels that were in the 70s in the new time line and the mutant tracker.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 23:06:33 GMT
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. Preach it, bro! Beautifully said. So was your other recent post on this topic. Sadly, you making all the sense will be lost on a dullard like Tristan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2017 23:10:35 GMT
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. Whoa there. You saying that the Lady Deathstrike from X2... The one with only one line of dialogue... That Lady Deathstrike? Was a quality villain? You mean the one that didn't have a past with Logan. The one that didn't hate him because of what he did to her father? That Lady Deathstrike? The one that was merely a mindless henchwoman? And Sebastian Shaw. The mutant that wanted to rule the world by being the richest most powerful man? The one that basically had a cabal that was the mutant Illuminati? Or do you mean the one that was basically the 1st incarnation of Magneto. Oh that one. Trask? Wait, what did he do again? Sold weapons to the enemy at the signing of a peace accords after a war that his country lost? What did Stryker do in DoFP? Was he only memorable because of Cox? Cox Stryker... Was he only memorable because of Cox? Was he like 3-4 characters merged into one? They just got a bunch of mutant hating humans and made one character. Hell, he was only Stryker in name only. They could have at least made him a little religious. The thing you guys still don't get, and are now indoctrinated to think so, is that the movies aren't about the villains. Ever sine Batman '89 they have been pushing the villains in your face. I'm glad that Thor 2 was about Thor and Loki and not have Malekith over them. Or that Guardians was about the Guardians and that Ronan was a small part of it. I want more movies like that. Apocalypse was a secondary villain just like Shaw (was basically the same character but with a better director), Trask/Stryker, Worthington, II, and Kelly. All this beatiful and thoughtful posting, wasted on a dullard like charzino who will just reject it all and still insist he's right. Sigh... You are right, though. None of the X-Men villains have been great. I'll take your average MCU villain over any of these dinguses.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 0:39:01 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. A gang of people gathering around to enforce political change on an unwilling populace. That's terrorism. Especially with how disposable Magneto saw them as. Humans are not, they're the ones in danger of being wiped out. Especially because Xavier refuses to let Humans do ANYTHING about renegade mutants, he basically wants them to roam around free with no real punishment or deterrents made to protect helpless humans. Like how he broke into the White House and demanded the President not do a damn thing in X2, like a terrorist. Yes, they do understand them too well. Take your average Human Psychopath or even street criminal, now give them vast powers. Now multiply that by a few million. Not a pretty sight. That Xavier refuses to come to a compromise with the Government doesn't help. You want short and to the point? Look at that scene where Dr Erskine reminded the audience that not ever German in WWII was a baby eating Nazi. You'd never see something like that in X-men. The Accords plot wasn't a one and done thing, it's continuing in the other movies. Civil War had a lot on its plate and juggled them all pretty well. Too little too late.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 0:44:18 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. I'm not ignoring it. Even by 2003 standards it wasn't innovative. It holds up solely because of the nostalgia. Nothing more. Your worship of it is proof. The first Superman movie? It does have it's silly moments that even its fans will admit to (Lois' character, for one thing) and the Burton Batman film has its flaws as well. FoX-men fans cling to X2 because they're desperate to remain relevant in today's climate.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 0:45:22 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. Depends if you think the villains should totally 100% overshadow the heroes and be the real main characters. You know, the lazy way out.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 17, 2017 9:10:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 9:10:02 GMT
Whoa there. You saying that the Lady Deathstrike from X2... The one with only one line of dialogue... That Lady Deathstrike? Was a quality villain? You mean the one that didn't have a past with Logan. The one that didn't hate him because of what he did to her father? That Lady Deathstrike? The one that was merely a mindless henchwoman? And Sebastian Shaw. The mutant that wanted to rule the world by being the richest most powerful man? The one that basically had a cabal that was the mutant Illuminati? Or do you mean the one that was basically the 1st incarnation of Magneto. Oh that one. Trask? Wait, what did he do again? Sold weapons to the enemy at the signing of a peace accords after a war that his country lost? What did Stryker do in DoFP? Was he only memorable because of Cox? Cox Stryker... Was he only memorable because of Cox? Was he like 3-4 characters merged into one? They just got a bunch of mutant hating humans and made one character. Hell, he was only Stryker in name only. They could have at least made him a little religious. The thing you guys still don't get, and are now indoctrinated to think so, is that the movies aren't about the villains. Ever sine Batman '89 they have been pushing the villains in your face. I'm glad that Thor 2 was about Thor and Loki and not have Malekith over them. Or that Guardians was about the Guardians and that Ronan was a small part of it. I want more movies like that. Apocalypse was a secondary villain just like Shaw (was basically the same character but with a better director), Trask/Stryker, Worthington, II, and Kelly. I never said they were memorable villains - they don't have to be. You can count the number of true memorable villains that outshine their counterparts in all of comic book movie history on 1 hand. There is a balance to be struck. I quoted in saying "solid villains" i.e/ ones that have sufficient screen time to reflect their motivations, a personality that prevents them being 2 dimensional and treated with respect in not being made goofy punching bags for the hero. Most MCU villains fall into these failings. Why do you think critics are constantly espousing that the MCU have weak villains? Dont buy into this rhetoric that having respectable villains will diminish the quality of the hero. You can have both, its just about balance. Even one of the worser villains like Apocalypse got a whole origin introduction and enough screentime to establish him as a credible threat. If they gave him a better look and allowed him to showcase his wit a little more he would be perfect. Makes Ronan look like a little b****.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 9:16:39 GMT
All this beatiful and thoughtful posting, wasted on a dullard like charzino who will just reject it all and still insist he's right. Sigh... You are right, though. None of the X-Men villains have been great. I'll take your average MCU villain over any of these dinguses. The average MCU villain is written for kids...
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 17, 2017 9:35:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 9:35:28 GMT
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. Ok Die Hard isnt the best example since it came off the top of my head. You can substitute any other generic action film, Predator for example. The point I was making, which youve unknowingly supported anyway, is that if the fundamentals of creating a film are in check like good characters/direction/writing then whether the themes of the film are original or not doesn't matter on the how well it will recieved in decades down the line. It didnt matter that Die Hard showed a common man being the hero for a change, thats not what makes the movie memorable. Self contradictory. Those themes of rejection and outcast ARE timeless, so why dismiss them in the very same sentence? Which is exactly the arguments Im putting forward in saying that X2 is a great film and would still hold up if released today. Is that why Logan and Wonder Woman have been the best comic films of the year? Well have to agree to disagree then. I think if X2 was released today, it would get a very positive response because its appeal is there is a balance within the movie that separates it from other properties today. Its not too dark, and not too light. There is humour but its not overkill. The villain is menacing and the basic storyline is well presented. And people who complain about Hugh Jackman not having the yellow suit make up a minuscule percentage of the movie going audience.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 9:46:42 GMT
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. I know its not strictly natural evolution, but the mechanics of how their powers originate is more believable than magic crystals which is a complete Macguffin like the infinity stones. The original Fantastic 4 origin of them being exposed to cosmic radiation in outer space was a better origin than the one we saw in Fan4stic where they go to some unknown expolanet and touch some random, undefined green goo.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 12:21:20 GMT
Whoa there. You saying that the Lady Deathstrike from X2... The one with only one line of dialogue... That Lady Deathstrike? Was a quality villain? You mean the one that didn't have a past with Logan. The one that didn't hate him because of what he did to her father? That Lady Deathstrike? The one that was merely a mindless henchwoman? And Sebastian Shaw. The mutant that wanted to rule the world by being the richest most powerful man? The one that basically had a cabal that was the mutant Illuminati? Or do you mean the one that was basically the 1st incarnation of Magneto. Oh that one. Trask? Wait, what did he do again? Sold weapons to the enemy at the signing of a peace accords after a war that his country lost? What did Stryker do in DoFP? Was he only memorable because of Cox? Cox Stryker... Was he only memorable because of Cox? Was he like 3-4 characters merged into one? They just got a bunch of mutant hating humans and made one character. Hell, he was only Stryker in name only. They could have at least made him a little religious. The thing you guys still don't get, and are now indoctrinated to think so, is that the movies aren't about the villains. Ever sine Batman '89 they have been pushing the villains in your face. I'm glad that Thor 2 was about Thor and Loki and not have Malekith over them. Or that Guardians was about the Guardians and that Ronan was a small part of it. I want more movies like that. Apocalypse was a secondary villain just like Shaw (was basically the same character but with a better director), Trask/Stryker, Worthington, II, and Kelly. Why do you think critics are constantly espousing that the MCU have weak villains? Because CBM villain have traditionally been the real stars of the movie, and when the MCU first started critics weren't used to the idea that the hero could actually lead the movie without the villain stealing the show. That's why they complained the villains were "weak", because the heroes were stronger than usual in a CBM.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 12:21:39 GMT
All this beatiful and thoughtful posting, wasted on a dullard like charzino who will just reject it all and still insist he's right. Sigh... You are right, though. None of the X-Men villains have been great. I'll take your average MCU villain over any of these dinguses. The average MCU villain is written for kids... No, just not as the star of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 12:24:10 GMT
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. Ok Die Hard isnt the best example since it came off the top of my head. You can substitute any other generic action film, Predator for example. The point I was making, which youve unknowingly supported anyway, is that if the fundamentals of creating a film are in check like good characters/direction/writing then whether the themes of the film are original or not doesn't matter on the how well it will recieved in decades down the line. It didnt matter that Die Hard showed a common man being the hero for a change, thats not what makes the movie memorable. Self contradictory. Those themes of rejection and outcast ARE timeless, so why dismiss them in the very same sentence? Which is exactly the arguments Im putting forward in saying that X2 is a great film and would still hold up if released today. Is that why Logan and Wonder Woman have been the best comic films of the year? Well have to agree to disagree then. I think if X2 was released today, it would get a very positive response because its appeal is there is a balance within the movie that separates it from other properties today. Its not too dark, and not too light. There is humour but its not overkill. The villain is menacing and the basic storyline is well presented. And people who complain about Hugh Jackman not having the yellow suit make up a minuscule percentage of the movie going audience. Because the way X-Men does it is very 1-Dimensional and hamfisted, especially since as stated the Mutants aren't some helpless minority but are something where fear is justified. They asked a important question like "What if the Majority weren't wrong to fear a minority?" and did nothing with it. X2 wouldn't do well today, people would be more willing to point out its flaws. Logan got a good reception because it was Jackman's swan song. WW got a good reception because of the artificial boost from being the first decent DCEU film.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 17, 2017 12:26:00 GMT
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. I know its not strictly natural evolution, but the mechanics of how their powers originate is more believable than magic crystals which is a complete Macguffin like the infinity stones. No it isn't. Being mutated by crystals/substances that induce these types of things is just as believable as just randomly being born that way. Especially since Inhumans bothered exploring it in ways X-Men never explored "Mutant Only" environments.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 17, 2017 13:05:31 GMT
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. I know its not strictly natural evolution, but the mechanics of how their powers originate is more believable than magic crystals which is a complete Macguffin like the infinity stones. The original Fantastic 4 origin of them being exposed to cosmic radiation in outer space was a better origin than the one we saw in Fan4stic where they go to some unknown expolanet and touch some random, undefined green goo. The X-gene itself is the MacGuffin. The X-gene takes the place of the crystals. A character randomly gets powers or it is inherited from a mutant parent. Hell, sometimes the kid could be completely normal. And unless the mutation is a physical appearance like Nightcrawler, then they won't get powers until some kind of event hits them. And there is nothing evolutionary about it at all. Mutants have been there since the beginning of man. Some people have a higher X-gene count that would allow them to access powers. I think that's why they kept the alien part out of Apocalypse. It goes against what they have been saying mutants are from the beginning of the series. And since Singer made mutants an allegory for homosexuality, saying that aliens made them mutants would say that gays were created by outside forces. Yes, it was. That's why in a post about adding the F4 into the MCU, I kept that original idea of them working for a military organization (SHIELD this time), seeing the phenomenon in space, stealing a shuttle and going into space.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 17, 2017 13:18:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 13:18:36 GMT
Because CBM villain have traditionally been the real stars of the movie, and when the MCU first started critics weren't used to the idea that the hero could actually lead the movie without the villain stealing the show. That's why they complained the villains were "weak", because the heroes were stronger than usual in a CBM. No, phase 1 had the same mould of villains as appeared in CBMs before it in Stane and Red Skull. After the disney takeover, post phase 1 they retarded all the subsequent villains and made them a self-parody. Putting weak in quotation marks wont hide the fact they are shown with minimal inventiveness and lazy writing.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Aug 17, 2017 13:31:55 GMT
This thread is such a low moment in the history of imdb 2.0. some brain dead mcu fans think xmen should have any link with the mcu movies.
|
|
|
X-Men MCU
Aug 17, 2017 13:32:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by charzhino on Aug 17, 2017 13:32:17 GMT
I know its not strictly natural evolution, but the mechanics of how their powers originate is more believable than magic crystals which is a complete Macguffin like the infinity stones. The original Fantastic 4 origin of them being exposed to cosmic radiation in outer space was a better origin than the one we saw in Fan4stic where they go to some unknown expolanet and touch some random, undefined green goo. The X-gene itself is the MacGuffin. The X-gene takes the place of the crystals. A character randomly gets powers or it is inherited from a mutant parent. Hell, sometimes the kid could be completely normal. And unless the mutation is a physical appearance like Nightcrawler, then they won't get powers until some kind of event hits them. And there is nothing evolutionary about it at all. Mutants have been there since the beginning of man. Some people have a higher X-gene count that would allow them to access powers. I think that's why they kept the alien part out of Apocalypse. It goes against what they have been saying mutants are from the beginning of the series. And since Singer made mutants an allegory for homosexuality, saying that aliens made them mutants would say that gays were created by outside forces. Yes, it was. That's why in a post about adding the F4 into the MCU, I kept that original idea of them working for a military organization (SHIELD this time), seeing the phenomenon in space, stealing a shuttle and going into space. The explanation for the X gene isnt discussed in the films because its unnecessary exposition so its irrelevant. Marvel own Celestial property so they couldn't outright link it to Apocalypse's origin although they stressed his armour was a key component. Look at the end of the day, Id rather have the X-gene be an explanation of mutant powers that has a firm foundation in mutants being the next stage of evolution. Introducing a crystal, which has no connection to Darwinism whatsoever is pointless and reduces them to Power Range type characters who get their morphing ability from some magic coloured gems.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Aug 17, 2017 14:20:36 GMT
The X-gene itself is the MacGuffin. The X-gene takes the place of the crystals. A character randomly gets powers or it is inherited from a mutant parent. Hell, sometimes the kid could be completely normal. And unless the mutation is a physical appearance like Nightcrawler, then they won't get powers until some kind of event hits them. And there is nothing evolutionary about it at all. Mutants have been there since the beginning of man. Some people have a higher X-gene count that would allow them to access powers. I think that's why they kept the alien part out of Apocalypse. It goes against what they have been saying mutants are from the beginning of the series. And since Singer made mutants an allegory for homosexuality, saying that aliens made them mutants would say that gays were created by outside forces. Yes, it was. That's why in a post about adding the F4 into the MCU, I kept that original idea of them working for a military organization (SHIELD this time), seeing the phenomenon in space, stealing a shuttle and going into space. The explanation for the X gene isnt discussed in the films because its unnecessary exposition so its irrelevant. Marvel own Celestial property so they couldn't outright link it to Apocalypse's origin although they stressed his armour was a key component. Look at the end of the day, Id rather have the X-gene be an explanation of mutant powers that has a firm foundation in mutants being the next stage of evolution. Introducing a crystal, which has no connection to Darwinism whatsoever is pointless and reduces them to Power Range type characters who get their morphing ability from some magic coloured gems. They didn't explain the X-gene because they want to leave it at magic. It's basically the Force with there being Jedi (X-men) and Sith (any villain) and a bunch of Force sensitives (neutral mutants). The crystal is a catalyst the same as a mutant unlocking his/her powers at puberty (as said in the movies). There is no Darwinism to the X-gene. Mutants and Inhumans are the same thing just different catalysts: high levels of stress or terrigen mist. Saying that one is over the other just shows bias. Hell, both are created by alien (different species, though).
|
|