Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 17:37:15 GMT
What what promises did they made? You must have a short memory, because we've already gone over this point before and you were proven wrong, then, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 17:39:35 GMT
What what promises did they made? Oh, by the way, weren't the new X-Men films supposed to start honoring their source material more? Well, that hasn't happened, and won't happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 17:40:32 GMT
What what promises did they made? And didn't Singer admit to screwing up Cyclops? Well, he's not doing any better with him this time, so another promise broken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 17:42:22 GMT
What what promises did they made? And wasn't Fox blabbing about starting to give other characters their proper dues? And yet I still only see Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique getting any real... well, I can't call it character development, because no one ever gets actual character development in the FoX-Men films. Um... screentime. Yes, yet I still only see Xavier-Magneto, and Mystique getting any real screentime.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 7, 2017 17:44:58 GMT
Luckily, they will never claw the IP back again.
As you said, in MCU we would not get Logans, Deadpool or the better X-Men films. They would dumb it down, make it formulaic and for the little kiddies.
Better let the franchise die than humiliate it this way.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 7, 2017 17:45:42 GMT
I don't think they would fit in the current version of the MCU, so I'd say no. But 10-15 years from now, let's see where we're at. It'll be well past time for a new version of X-Men by then anyway, and I suspect they might be ready something new with Marvel as a whole anyway.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 7, 2017 17:59:50 GMT
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. If you're a big fan and want to explore the nuances of those films, sure. But you and I both know that a lot of people find that consistency to be a negative as well. I think this comes down to one's willingness to "buy in" or not. I don't find (the installments I've seen of) those two series to be different whatsoever in terms of tone or effects. It's just that one has RDJ and the other one doesn't, and he's so ridiculously charismatic as to lend a lot of weight that really isn't there. But that's my take, and clearly yours varies. Conversely, I think you'd have to be crazy or stoned to seriously argue that Days of Future Past is similar to X3 or Apocalypse or First Class beyond being "a movie about the X-Men." I mean: to a non-fan the distinctions you and I are drawing are totally worthless, and they're "all just superhero movies," so it just depends on how far you want to "zoom out," in terms of your perspective. Meh. I'm still considering their conscious intent to create something new and different to be a "pro," and Snyder's not working on the films anymore anyway. (But just so we're clear: I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, either.) I'm saying Wonder Woman's success undermines the credibility of my point about their "pros." Kinda already addressed this. I love the X-flicks and see them all as unique and different takes on X-Men, whereas every MCU movie I've seen that's not called The Avengers has honestly been a forgettable C-list outing that felt exactly like the same paint-by-numbers origin story we've all seen a thousand times, except Iron Man 3 where I had to watch RDJ have panic attacks for two hours, which gave ME panic attacks as a sufferer of chronic anxiety. I mean, I found myself reading the god damn Wall Street Journal halfway through the first Cap movie, and I'm not even kidding nor do I know jack shit about the financial world around me. I was just BORED! So it's a matter of personal taste, is my best guess. Nah, this one's going to get a Bullshit call from your old pal. You know I respect you, but I don't see how one could substantiate this claim. The X-movies make pretty good money for Fox! Not, you know, Avengers or Dark Knight money (let's just be upfront about that) but decent returns on the investments the studio makes in them. They're solid superhero films, and they make money for Fox and are generally well-received. The only movie that was rejected outright was Last Stand, while -- yes-- Apocalypse got middling reviews and slightly underperformed the studio's expectations at the box office. The rest? Varying degree of success. So that's: "Hit, hit, miss, hit, hit, hit, miss, hit" [X1, X2, X3, FC, DOFP, Deadpool, Apocalypse, which I'm being generous in even calling a "miss," and Logan] 6-2 is a good. Shit, if my poor pathetic Chicago Bears were that good every week they'd go 12-4... and then embarrass themselves in the playoffs, but that's beside the point...
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Oct 7, 2017 18:03:04 GMT
What what promises did they made? And wasn't Fox blabbing about starting to give other characters their proper dues? And yet I still only see Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique getting any real... well, I can't call it character development, because no one ever gets actual character development in the FoX-Men films. Um... screentime. Yes, yet I still only see Xavier-Magneto, and Mystique getting any real screentime. You didn't look up the screentime did you? www.imdb.com/list/ls072544477/Check, don't guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 18:18:50 GMT
Since we could argue back and forth about you said about Ironman and Captain America all day long, I'll skip to "Days of Future Past": I didn't see anything different between "Days" and "X-Men 3". Its still just the government coming for the mutants and the mutants having to defend themselves. Oh, and look, Magneto's being a bastard again. They're adaptations. By their very nature, they're not "something new." It doesn't matter if Snyder's gone. The damage of is done and frankly, I don't want to give Cavil another chance as Supes, nor do I want to give The Batffleck another go. The Golden Razzies have been awarded, the people have spoken their dissatisfaction with DCEU, and the upcoming lineup of Batman spinoffs continues to baffle us all. Fair enough. If you mean "watered-down" versions of the X-Men, then sure. None of those are unique, except for Deadpool. 10 of the MCU films so far haven't been origin films, so I know you're just making stuff up now, and they're phasing Origin Films out at this junction, anyway. As for the Origin Films they did go: THEY HAD TO, because most of the characters are so unknown to the general public, they had to start at the beginning. And each of the origins is so different from the others, they don't blend together at all. Not to mention there is a huge imbalance in terms of who gets proper characterization and who doesn't. At least the MCU goes out of the its way to give everyone their dues. You're forgetting the shitty first two Wolverine films. X1: hit X2: hit X3: MAJOR MISS X:Origins: MAJOR MISS First Class: neither. Wolverine: miss Days: miss Apocalypse: miss Deadpool: hit Logan: hit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 18:19:31 GMT
And wasn't Fox blabbing about starting to give other characters their proper dues? And yet I still only see Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique getting any real... well, I can't call it character development, because no one ever gets actual character development in the FoX-Men films. Um... screentime. Yes, yet I still only see Xavier-Magneto, and Mystique getting any real screentime. You didn't look up the screentime did you? www.imdb.com/list/ls072544477/Check, don't guess. Meandering around in the background doesn't count.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 7, 2017 18:23:19 GMT
Hell no, never change a winning team. Logan, anyone? This is the only major franchise that is willing to give the audience some out-of-the-box surprise on the level of Dredd, Kick-Ass or Watchmen. Looking forward to what's coming, good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Oct 7, 2017 18:25:32 GMT
Meandering around in the background doesn't count. So Mystique shouldn't count. Since that's what she did in the last movie.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 7, 2017 18:33:03 GMT
Since we could argue back and forth about you said about Ironman and Captain America all day long, I'll skip to "Days of Future Past": I didn't see anything different between "Days" and "X-Men 3". Its still just the government coming for the mutants and the mutants having to defend themselves. Oh, and look, Magneto's being a bastard again. They're adaptations. By their very nature, they're not "something new." It doesn't matter if Snyder's gone. The damage of is done and frankly, I don't want to give Cavil another chance as Supes, nor do I want to give The Batffleck another go. The Golden Razzies have been awarded, the people have spoken their dissatisfaction with DCEU, and the upcoming lineup of Batman spinoffs continues to baffle us all. Fair enough. If you mean "watered-down" versions of the X-Men, then sure. None of those are unique, except for Deadpool. 10 of the MCU films so far haven't been origin films, so I know you're just making stuff up now, and they're phasing Origin Films out at this junction, anyway. As for the Origin Films they did go: THEY HAD TO, because most of the characters are so unknown to the general public, they had to start at the beginning. And each of the origins is so different from the others, they don't blend together at all. Not to mention there is a huge imbalance in terms of who gets proper characterization and who doesn't. At least the MCU goes out of the its way to give everyone their dues. You're forgetting the shitty first two Wolverine films. X1: hit X2: hit X3: MAJOR MISS X:Origins: MAJOR MISS First Class: neither. Wolverine: miss Days: miss Apocalypse: miss Deadpool: hit Logan: hit I forgot about the first Wolverine movie; the second one, people seemed fine with if not blown away. First Class was a hit, and Days was a huge smash; this list seems disingenuous. But: adding in your "neutral" category and the solo Logan movies I would adjust it to: X1, X2, X3, Origins, First Class, Days, Wolverine, Deadpool, Apocalypse, Logan Hit, hit, miss, miss, hit, hit, neutral, hit, neutral, hit = 6-2-2; if pushed to kick the neutrals into one category or the other I'd put them both in the win column as they were both profitable. So that's 8-2. Even better. As far as those Phase One movies, they were absolutely unwatchable garbage except the first Iron Man, and the only reason people loved that was because it wasn't terrible and everyone was thrilled to see that RDJ hadn't overdosed behind a dumpster in Santa Monica. (Talk about your "artificial boosters," formersamhmd !) I get their significance in the broader context of the MCU, but I don't ever -- EVER -- want to see any of those films again, not even once. I'd rather watch Wolverine: Origins six times in a row than watch Incredible Hulk, Cap: TFA, and Thor; my god, Thor is a terrible film. It made me want to backhand the big lug who plays Thor and strangle Natalie Portman until she died of a broken heart. Again! And I'm prolly the only one alive who feels this way, but I prefer Batffleck to Bale, Clooney, or Kilmer. Seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 18:42:36 GMT
coldenhaulfield"As far as those Phase One movies, they were absolutely unwatchable garbage except the first Iron Man, and the only reason people loved that was because it wasn't terrible and everyone was thrilled to see that RDJ hadn't overdosed behind a dumpster in Santa Monica. (Talk about your "artificial boosters," formersamhmd !) I get their significance in the broader context of the MCU, but I don't ever -- EVER -- want to see any of those films again, not even once. I'd rather watch Wolverine: Origins six times in a row than watch Incredible Hulk, Cap: TFA, and Thor; my god, Thor is a terrible film. It made me want to backhand the big lug who plays Thor and strangle Natalie Portman until she died of a broken heart. Again!" Hey, the Phase One films are all solid. Um, no, everyone liked Ironman because its an excellent superhero film. It wouldn't have sparked Downey's comeback if it wasn't only "not terrible." "And I'm prolly the only one alive who feels this way, but I prefer Batffleck to Bale, Clooney, or Kilmer. Seriously." Please tell me its not because he ruthlessly kills his enemies.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 7, 2017 18:43:36 GMT
Unless Fox make 3 films in the low quality of Origins/Fan4stic in a row, the answer should be a resounding NO.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 7, 2017 18:45:41 GMT
What what promises did they made? And didn't Singer admit to screwing up Cyclops? Well, he's not doing any better with him this time, so another promise broken. Considering Tye Sheridan has only had 1 film appearance in Apocalypse, which was recieved very well and he was one of the positives of that film, I dont see how you can say this with confidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 18:48:41 GMT
And didn't Singer admit to screwing up Cyclops? Well, he's not doing any better with him this time, so another promise broken. Considering Tye Sheridan has only had 1 film appearance in Apocalypse, which was recieved very well and he was one of the positives of that film, I dont see how you can say this with confidence. Sheridan is a big load of nothing. Apocalypse was not received well and underperformed. It didn't even make $200 million in profits and was the the losing superhero film of 2016.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Oct 7, 2017 18:50:06 GMT
i chose yes, but X-Men are probably the one property that it makes the most sense as its own separate universe.
if they could consistently put out stuff as good as Deadpool, Logan, or Legion i might be more enthusiastic about Fox having the reins but i just don't trust them to. it feels like when they've made good-great stuff it has been happy accidents, which is counter to Marvel Studios' more regimented plan.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Oct 7, 2017 18:50:57 GMT
Considering Tye Sheridan has only had 1 film appearance in Apocalypse, which was recieved very well and he was one of the positives of that film, I dont see how you can say this with confidence. Sheridan is a big load of nothing. perfect Cyclops!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 18:52:54 GMT
Sheridan is a big load of nothing. perfect Cyclops! He was an excellent character in both the 90s animated series and X-Men: Evolution.
|
|