|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2018 1:31:28 GMT
They took a chance attempting a cinematic universe without their biggest properties - X Men and Spiderman BULLSHIT!!!
MCU did NOT take a chance attempting to create a cinematic universe without X-Men and Spider-Man. If MCU had a choice, they would've used X-Men and Spider-Man for their cinematic universe and would never have made a Iron Man or Hulk or Captain America or Thor movie, but Marvel had NO CHOICE because they signed away the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man.
Saying that Marvel took a chance creating a cinematic universe without X-Men and Spider-Man is as silly as saying the Philadelphia Eagles took a chance starting a backup QB (Nick Foles) in the Super Bowl. The Eagles had no choice because their starting QB (Carson Wentz) got injured so the Eagles had to start their backup QB in the Super Bowl. Likewise, MCU had to use Iron Man and Captain America and Hulk NOT because they wanted to but because they had no choice after signing away the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man.
Doesn't matter what reasons they did them, they still made the movies. In short, they made risks. Far bigger risks than anything DC/WB and Fox/X-Men ever did.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 1:39:29 GMT
BULLSHIT!!!
MCU did NOT take a chance attempting to create a cinematic universe without X-Men and Spider-Man. If MCU had a choice, they would've used X-Men and Spider-Man for their cinematic universe and would never have made a Iron Man or Hulk or Captain America or Thor movie, but Marvel had NO CHOICE because they signed away the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man.
Saying that Marvel took a chance creating a cinematic universe without X-Men and Spider-Man is as silly as saying the Philadelphia Eagles took a chance starting a backup QB (Nick Foles) in the Super Bowl. The Eagles had no choice because their starting QB (Carson Wentz) got injured so the Eagles had to start their backup QB in the Super Bowl. Likewise, MCU had to use Iron Man and Captain America and Hulk NOT because they wanted to but because they had no choice after signing away the rights to X-Men and Spider-Man.
Doesn't matter what reasons they did them, they still made the movies. In short, they made risks. Far bigger risks than anything DC/WB and Fox/X-Men ever did.I mean. This is a manifestly ludicrous statement. If anything, the MCU stood on the shoulders of giants and took the LEAST amount of risk of any series of comic book movies.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 11, 2018 1:53:27 GMT
Doesn't matter what reasons they did them, they still made the movies. In short, they made risks. Far bigger risks than anything DC/WB and Fox/X-Men ever did.I mean. This is a manifestly ludicrous statement. If anything, the MCU stood on the shoulders of giants and took the LEAST amount of risk of any series of comic book movies. In Bizarro world. As it is on THIS planet, they've taken the Shared Universe concept that DC totally wasted and built a palace out of it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 2:00:24 GMT
I mean. This is a manifestly ludicrous statement. If anything, the MCU stood on the shoulders of giants and took the LEAST amount of risk of any series of comic book movies. In Bizarro world. As it is on THIS planet, they've taken the Shared Universe concept that DC totally wasted and built a palace out of it. But to say the predecessors of the MCU didn't take risks is patently false. Warner took a risk with Superman. And again with Batman. Hell, they took a risk with Batman and Robin. X-Men (2000) took incredible risks by virtue of its existence. And so on. Your memory is short, mang. The MCU took the medium to the next level, no question, but the path was laid out for them by others, including the failures (and implied risks!) of those others. The greatest teacher, failure is.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Feb 11, 2018 2:13:55 GMT
All I want from Marvel Studios is this: A hardcore R rated Punisher movie that uses a controversial story, like The Slavers, and is unapologetic with it's violence. Just do that with one character, no need to change the other film's. Just give me that, an awesome bloody balls to the wall Punisher film where he kills rapist and pedophiles. Punisher War Zone was R rated and made by Marvel Studios with Lionsgate. Also, they have the R rated Punisher series on Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2018 2:35:29 GMT
Doesn't matter what reasons they did them, they still made the movies. In short, they made risks. Far bigger risks than anything DC/WB and Fox/X-Men ever did.I mean. This is a manifestly ludicrous statement. If anything, the MCU stood on the shoulders of giants and took the LEAST amount of risk of any series of comic book movies. The MCU had no giant shoulders to stand on when they started. They had no A-list character that they could use. They didn't have a lot of money. They created movie that bent a lot of traditional superhero movie standards. In short, they took far more risks than DC or Fox. If you think I'm wrong then please provide proof.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 2:43:37 GMT
I mean. This is a manifestly ludicrous statement. If anything, the MCU stood on the shoulders of giants and took the LEAST amount of risk of any series of comic book movies. The MCU had no giant shoulders to stand on when they started. They had no A-list character that they could use. They didn't have a lot of money. They created movie that bent a lot of traditional superhero movie standards. In short, they took far more risks than DC or Fox. If you think I'm wrong then please provide proof. The proof is that superhero movies existed decades before the MCU. Do you not understand the concept of the Newton quote I referenced? It's self-evident.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 11, 2018 2:44:20 GMT
In Bizarro world. As it is on THIS planet, they've taken the Shared Universe concept that DC totally wasted and built a palace out of it. But to say the predecessors of the MCU didn't take risks is patently false. Warner took a risk with Superman. And again with Batman. Hell, they took a risk with Batman and Robin. X-Men (2000) took incredible risks by virtue of its existence. And so on. Your memory is short, mang. The MCU took the medium to the next level, no question, but the path was laid out for them by others, including the failures (and implied risks!) of those others. The greatest teacher, failure is. They'd been doing Superman serials decades before Donner's film (and only the first Superman movie was good, the others all had major problems. Even Superman II), so a big budget movie was inevitable. Same with Batman. X-Men was good for 2000, but the problem is that the series hasn't moved on from that point.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 2:51:09 GMT
But to say the predecessors of the MCU didn't take risks is patently false. Warner took a risk with Superman. And again with Batman. Hell, they took a risk with Batman and Robin. X-Men (2000) took incredible risks by virtue of its existence. And so on. Your memory is short, mang. The MCU took the medium to the next level, no question, but the path was laid out for them by others, including the failures (and implied risks!) of those others. The greatest teacher, failure is. They'd been doing Superman serials decades before Donner's film (and only the first Superman movie was good, the others all had major problems. Even Superman II), so a big budget movie was inevitable. Same with Batman. X-Men was good for 2000, but the problem is that the series hasn't moved on from that point. None of that means that those films weren't risks for their time. The risks were taken decades -- and, in particular, the decade -- before the dawn of the MCU. Exhibit A: they made a Hulk movie people generally didn't like, noted those failures, and then MADE ANOTHE ONE for the MCU. Derp. I love how you guys will just argue anything with anybody for the sake of arguing. This isn't even a point of contention, but a matter of fact.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 3:07:11 GMT
All I want from Marvel Studios is this: A hardcore R rated Punisher movie that uses a controversial story, like The Slavers, and is unapologetic with it's violence. Just do that with one character, no need to change the other film's. Just give me that, an awesome bloody balls to the wall Punisher film where he kills rapist and pedophiles. Rumor has it that The Slavers is going to be the 2nd season.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 3:14:41 GMT
But to say the predecessors of the MCU didn't take risks is patently false. Warner took a risk with Superman. And again with Batman. Hell, they took a risk with Batman and Robin. X-Men (2000) took incredible risks by virtue of its existence. And so on. Your memory is short, mang. The MCU took the medium to the next level, no question, but the path was laid out for them by others, including the failures (and implied risks!) of those others. The greatest teacher, failure is. They'd been doing Superman serials decades before Donner's film (and only the first Superman movie was good, the others all had major problems. Even Superman II), so a big budget movie was inevitable. Same with Batman. X-Men was good for 2000, but the problem is that the series hasn't moved on from that point. Was X-men good for 2000? No one liked how the characters were treated and Storm... Oh boy. Only thing people liked about X-men was Magneto, Wolverine on screen, Patrick Stewart as Xavier, Mystique was naked and that it was an adaption of X-men.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 3:19:14 GMT
They'd been doing Superman serials decades before Donner's film (and only the first Superman movie was good, the others all had major problems. Even Superman II), so a big budget movie was inevitable. Same with Batman. X-Men was good for 2000, but the problem is that the series hasn't moved on from that point. Was X-men good for 2000? No one liked how the characters were treated and Storm... Oh boy. Only thing people liked about X-men was Magneto, Wolverine on screen, Patrick Stewart as Xavier, Mystique was naked and that it was an adaption of X-men. Pretty unfair and useless contribution. It's easy to apply the standards of 2018 to something and shit all over it. Like how I'm doing here and now viz. your needlessly smug response to one of the times formersamhmd was being the least bit conciliatory, diplomatic and -- frankly -- cool. That's weak sauce, mang.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 3:21:13 GMT
The MCU had no giant shoulders to stand on when they started. They had no A-list character that they could use. They didn't have a lot of money. They created movie that bent a lot of traditional superhero movie standards. In short, they took far more risks than DC or Fox. If you think I'm wrong then please provide proof. The proof is that superhero movies existed decades before the MCU. Do you not understand the concept of the Newton quote I referenced? It's self-evident. So you are saying that no superhero movies are taking risks nowadays because there have been superhero movies before now? So you can not say that movies like Logan are risk takers because there have been superhero movies already (even though Logan was R because Deadpool was a hit and Fox didn't care about Deadpool). And by that logic Blade was already an R rated comic book movie. So Logan is just following movies that came before it. Fascinating.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 3:26:51 GMT
The proof is that superhero movies existed decades before the MCU. Do you not understand the concept of the Newton quote I referenced? It's self-evident. So you are saying that no superhero movies are taking risks nowadays because there have been superhero movies before now? So you can not say that movies like Logan are risk takers because there have been superhero movies already (even though Logan was R because Deadpool was a hit and Fox didn't care about Deadpool). And by that logic Blade was already an R rated comic book movie. So Logan is just following movies that came before it. Fascinating. Uh, no? I'm not saying that; rather, you are inferring that. So let me kindly disabuse you of your ignorance: that's not what I said nor is it what I meant. But if you go back and reread my comments I will consider a follow-up response for partial credit. Just try to be less intellectually oafish, dichotomous, and simple. You know? Nuance, buddy. Something isn't white just because it's not black. Innit?
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 3:28:07 GMT
Was X-men good for 2000? No one liked how the characters were treated and Storm... Oh boy. Only thing people liked about X-men was Magneto, Wolverine on screen, Patrick Stewart as Xavier, Mystique was naked and that it was an adaption of X-men. Pretty unfair and useless contribution. It's easy to apply the standards of 2018 to something and shit all over it. Like how I'm doing here and now viz. your needlessly smug response to one of the times formersamhmd was being the least bit conciliatory, diplomatic and -- frankly -- cool. That's weak sauce, mang. I'm not applying 2018 standards to it. I'm applying 2000 standards to it. X-men was following on what The Matrix did. The coloring, the camera work, the costumes. People complained about what Singer and crew did with X-men. They complained about how all the characters was treated. They complained about how bad Halle Berry was as Storm. Her failed joke line at the end of the movie is the stuff of legends (it was meant to be a running joke told by Toad like the Quicksilver line in AoU). X-men went over because it was an X-men movie. X2 is really what made X1 look good.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 3:30:04 GMT
So you are saying that no superhero movies are taking risks nowadays because there have been superhero movies before now? So you can not say that movies like Logan are risk takers because there have been superhero movies already (even though Logan was R because Deadpool was a hit and Fox didn't care about Deadpool). And by that logic Blade was already an R rated comic book movie. So Logan is just following movies that came before it. Fascinating. Uh, no? I'm not saying that; rather, you are inferring that. So let me kindly disabuse you of your ignorance: that's not what I said nor is it what I meant. But if you go back and reread my comments I will consider a follow-up response for partial credit. Just try to be less intellectually oafish, dichotomous, and simple. You know? Nuance, buddy. Something isn't white just because it's not black. Innit? Yes, and I read those comments before making that post.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 3:31:54 GMT
Pretty unfair and useless contribution. It's easy to apply the standards of 2018 to something and shit all over it. Like how I'm doing here and now viz. your needlessly smug response to one of the times formersamhmd was being the least bit conciliatory, diplomatic and -- frankly -- cool. That's weak sauce, mang. I'm not applying 2018 standards to it. I'm applying 2000 standards to it. X-men was following on what The Matrix did. The coloring, the camera work, the costumes. People complained about what Singer and crew did with X-men. They complained about how all the characters was treated. They complained about how bad Halle Berry was as Storm. Her failed joke line at the end of the movie is the stuff of legends (it was meant to be a running joke told by Toad like the Quicksilver line in AoU). X-men went over because it was an X-men movie. X2 is really what made X1 look good. Ardent fans have always had issues with filmic adaptations of comic stuff. That's neither unique to X-Men nor was the first movie gratuitously bad in this regard FOR ITS TIME, which brings us back to the main point at hand. Innit? I'm not saying it was fucking Batman '89 in terms of cultural impact, either. Again, there's a lot of middle ground between it being dog shit and Best Picture.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 11, 2018 3:41:01 GMT
The MCU had no giant shoulders to stand on when they started. They had no A-list character that they could use. They didn't have a lot of money. They created movie that bent a lot of traditional superhero movie standards. In short, they took far more risks than DC or Fox. If you think I'm wrong then please provide proof. The proof is that superhero movies existed decades before the MCU. Do you not understand the concept of the Newton quote I referenced? It's self-evident. Yes and? I didn't say the other studios didn't take any risks, I said they didn't take risks more than what the MCU did. So far you have not presented any proof to back up your claim. There being comicbook movies decades ago has got nothing to do with the discussion of risks.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 11, 2018 3:53:01 GMT
The proof is that superhero movies existed decades before the MCU. Do you not understand the concept of the Newton quote I referenced? It's self-evident. Yes and? I didn't say the other studios didn't take any risks, I said they didn't take risks more than what the MCU did. So far you have not presented any proof to back up your claim. There being comicbook movies decades ago has got nothing to do with the discussion of risks. Sure it does. First of all, every business venture has a degree of risk, but that's beside the point. Look: why can't the MCU owe literally any creative debt whatsoever on any fucking level at all to the other movies like the ones in its pantheon that preceded it, be it in terms of costumes, framing, sound design, direction, cinematography, etc etc etc etc etc? Why is that the boldest assertion anyone's ever made and even worth arguing over? It seems like a banal statement of objective fact, even in the instances where the MCU diverged from those prior movies. I feel like I'm trying to explain to child why it has to piss in the toilet rather than on the floor. Work with me, like, the slightest bit. If you really, critically understood what Newton meant and agree that it applies in this case, which it quite academically and in point of fact does, then we've no argument.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Feb 11, 2018 4:16:41 GMT
I'm not applying 2018 standards to it. I'm applying 2000 standards to it. X-men was following on what The Matrix did. The coloring, the camera work, the costumes. People complained about what Singer and crew did with X-men. They complained about how all the characters was treated. They complained about how bad Halle Berry was as Storm. Her failed joke line at the end of the movie is the stuff of legends (it was meant to be a running joke told by Toad like the Quicksilver line in AoU). X-men went over because it was an X-men movie. X2 is really what made X1 look good. Ardent fans have always had issues with filmic adaptations of comic stuff. That's neither unique to X-Men nor was the first movie gratuitously bad in this regard FOR ITS TIME, which brings us back to the main point at hand. Innit? I'm not saying it was fucking Batman '89 in terms of cultural impact, either. Again, there's a lot of middle ground between it being dog shit and Best Picture. And it was below that middle ground. And again, for its time, it wasn't really all that good. And it's not about having issues with adaptations. Spider-man made a lot of changes and the only issues fans had with it were the webshooters and Goblin's costume. I'd say the only "good for its time" on X-men would be that there wasn't much around it to really compare it to.
|
|