Do you want the X-Men in the MCU?

If Fox grows some balls and actually allows other characters to flourish then no, keep these brands seperate, if they keep stifling characters whilst relying on 1 or 2 then yes give them back to Marvel, as is Deadpool's their new centrepiece so they have a while so I'm going to say maybe in 2030 or something but not anytime soon.

I would love to see a joint film from both studios maybe sometime in the next decade that would be awesome but I doubt it will happen, but so long as I keep getting fun CBM's I really don't give a monkey's.

BUT WHAT ABOUT JUBILEE?!?!!!11

And they're the ones who truly makes formulaic films, especially X-Men.

And how many times will Magneto betray the X-Men and bring up Wolverine's origin?

I have especially big hopes for Adam Warlock.

I was mostly just tryna spark conversation, but I can see that perspective. The MCU, broadly speaking, changed (blockbuster) filmmaking, marketing, and distribution completely. So that's bold AF. On the other hand, I see really no risk-taking or innovation from the formerly fine folks at Lucasfilm in any of the stuff they've done thus far or have in the pipeline. It all seems focus-grouped, calculated, and creatively antiseptic. So maybe I should've qualified that with the assertion that I'm weighing their work in a galaxy far, far away much more heavily because I flat-out still care a lot more about Star Wars than any of the comic book movie studios in spite of my damn self.

Stripping away Star Wars and being serious for a second? You can cut any way you want. All the studios have decent enough arguments for either being innovative or not. My basic, Cliff Notes argument for and against each would be:

MCU -- pros: willing to make movies about actual D-list superheroes (not Iron Man and Cap and them -- I mean, like, Guardians; that was a bottom-barrel property circa 2013, and I'm not using the term as an insult here; actually, the exact opposite) and to throw the entire weight of their marketing machine behind them to get them over; pulled the trigger on a Civil War angle when they could've just skipped it and gone straight to Thanos; the Doc Strange and Captain Marvel projects show they can diverge from the "usual fare" of Iron Man, Cap, et. al....

MCU -- cons: tonal and visual similarities between all of the films, from dialogue to humor to special effects; leads to "seen one, seen them all" barbs from critics

DCEU -- pros: they've made explicit attempts to visually and tonally differentiate themselves from what some perceive to be the cons of the MCU (see above); steadfast commitment to the DC brand despite multiple setbacks

DCEU -- cons: critics would say they had to "go full MCU" with Wonder Woman, in terms of tone and effects, to achieve its box office success; the DCEU movies get horrible press, and this seems to permeate mainstream conceptions of their movies and cinematic "universe"

FoX-Men -- pros: by far willing to make the most diverse array of movies, from Apocalypse to Deadpool to Logan, you simply cannot find that disparity from the other two studios

FoX-Men -- cons: by far willing to make the most diverse array of movies, which means that not everyone likes them all; they can be hit-or-miss, and this might detract from their ability to "build" a comparable cinematic universe that's reliably "bankable" with every outing.

What promises did they break? And don't bring in fan theories that were debunked.

I didn't mention Star Wars because that argument can just go round 'n' round endlessly, so I'll just leave that at the door. As for the superhero films:


Well said.

Its called "being consistent", and they do basically have a lot of the same crowd of behind-the-scenes people working on these, but there is a lot more difference than similarity between the various series than this statement gives them credit for. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't look like any of the other Marvel films. Neither did Doctor Strange, and Black Panther is shaping up to be very visually different as well. As for tone, there is variety there, too, even if they do focus more on being fun. The Captain America films are very different tonally from the Ironman films.

That also counts as a con, because they went several steps too far with it. They could have distanced themselves visually and tonally without Nolanizing and then Snyderizing everything. Instead of just letting the characters be themselves and speak for themselves, they felt like they needed to "fix" them and we ended up with a morose perpetually frowning Superman who cares nothing for the casualties his battles leave in his wake and murderous, psychopathic, and xenophobic Batman who cares just as little for the damage he causes when he's ruthlessly tearing through Gotham racking up quite the civilian body count in his right when he's mowing down criminals. Hell, the Suicide Squad were more believable as superheroes by the time their film came out, because neither Supes nor Batsy had any moral high ground over the bad guys.
Seriously, Hack Snyder has basically recreated the 90s Dark Age of Comic Books on the big screen with no hint of self-awareness or irony, and apparently no knowledge of how that ended up hurting the medium and genre as a whole.

So you're saying people generally want their superheroes to act like superheroes instead of the 90s Dark Age. They earned every ounce of flack that they've taken.


No. Just. First of all, all the main X-Men films are exactly the same. They've just been following the X-Men 2 outline since 2003. Deadpool and Logan are the only diversity the series has and one of those was a one-off.

More "hit-or-miss-miss-miss-miss-miss-hit-miss-miss-miss-miss."

What what promises did they made?