|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2022 12:53:09 GMT
Dear Skaatar,
I know that you're a well-known MCU fanboy here, and you're not lucid and clear. There's no reckoning with MCU fans accustomed to childish and puerile superhero movies aimed at a child audience. That's alright, we know that.
As simple as that, the X-MEN MOVIE/TV SAGA is based on very powerful, developed and fleshed out characters, which had been given great stories and story-arcs:
Wolverine Professor X Magneto Jean Grey/Phoenix - the most pivotal character after Wolverine Mystique Beast Legion Polaris Thunderbird
Cyclops and Storm are the icons of the X-Men, the living symbols of the team. However, Storm is a central character in X2 and X3, while Cyclops is a central character in Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix.
That's it. They are brilliant and bleak superhero movies. Masterpieces.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 6, 2022 2:00:47 GMT
The debate is open.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 5, 2022 19:36:36 GMT
1- She appeared in X2, and her writing as well as Famke's performance were acclaimed. It was one of the strong points of the movie. The movie was a MILESTONE of the superhero genre, long time before the MCU cartoon movies.
X1 just introduced the characters. You need a TV series. Like it or not, she was the focus of X3, so the character had a PROMINENT ROLE.
2- In regards to DARK PHOENIX, she was absolutely the main character of the movie. On the other hand, Captain Marvel in her Captain Marvel movie had no "deep development", but simply a story-arc and a character-arc LMAO. Sophie Turner was nicely portraying a woman who had lost control on herself and her immense power. There was the theme of the family - the family which she accidentally killed, the family of the X-Men whom she belongs to now. It was a very poignant story-arc. So again, you're just trolling and hacking the discussion just for the love of Disney LOL.
Thor had no character development. And he had been given four solo movies where he acts as a comic relief LOL. Can you even accurately describe his personality? Can you tell me what makes his tick? How is his personality different from the rest of her team? BIG JOKE.
Fact of the matter is, majority of superhero movies outside the MCU are plot-driven (though there's a few outliers like Logan, Batman Begins, etc.). The MCU is really the only studio that consistently made character-driven movies. That you even compare Thor's character development to Jean Grey's is laughable. Thor got more character development in just his first movie than Jean Grey did in all her movies combined. In just the first movie, we got to know that Thor was an arrogant hot-headed who still had decent intentions that were muddled by his trigger-happy ways. The entire story of that first movie was focused on him learning humility, figuring out what really mattered to him, and being an overall better person and leader. And yes, it's far easier to describe Thor as a character rather than it is to describe Jean. Trust me, this isn't a hill you should choose to die on.
You're obviously a fanboy. Okay. You lies dead on a very dangerous hill, the "MCU nerd hill". Which is crumbling down nowadays. You can't compare child superhero movies (like most of the MCU ones) to the serious and brilliant X-Men movies. At all. THOR is a laughable parody cartoon figure in all 4 solo movies. Even worse, in the AVENGERS series, where he feels like a third rate 2D character. There's nothing epic or royal in the MCU THOR. He looks, acts and speaks like an American footballer playing jokes and drinking beer. Zero development.
X2, X-MEN ORIGINS (like it or not), FIRST CLASS, THE WOLVERINE, DAYS, APOCALYPSE, DARK PHOENIX are either character-driven and plot-driven movies. Most of all, they are serious movies aimed at an adult, grown up audience. They mixes the superhero genre with bleak sci-fi and social themes.
X1, THE LAST STAND and THE NEW MUTANTS are collective efforts, plot-driven. There's nothing wrong about it. And still, JEAN is a pivotal figure in X3.
X2 has been always addressed as a superhero genre masterpiece, and Famke did a great job with Jean. The writing was superb. Maybe you're a kid and can't remember anything about 2003. X2 paved the way to a new phase in the superhero genre. That's undeniable.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 5, 2022 13:57:57 GMT
Absolutely false.
She first appeared in X-Men. She was developed in X2. She was further developed in The Last Stand and Apocalypse. She was the lead character in Dark Phoenix (movie named after her).
Yeah she further appeared in X2, but I bet you couldn't tell me how exactly she was developed further in this movie. Yeah she was the main character in DP, yet for some reason she still ended up getting barely any character development.
1- She appeared in X2, and her writing as well as Famke's performance were acclaimed. It was one of the strong points of the movie. The movie was a MILESTONE of the superhero genre, long time before the MCU cartoon movies.
X1 just introduced the characters. You need a TV series. Like it or not, she was the focus of X3, so the character had a PROMINENT ROLE.
2- In regards to DARK PHOENIX, she was absolutely the main character of the movie. On the other hand, Captain Marvel in her Captain Marvel movie had no "deep development", but simply a story-arc and a character-arc LMAO. Sophie Turner was nicely portraying a woman who had lost control on herself and her immense power. There was the theme of the family - the family which she accidentally killed, the family of the X-Men whom she belongs to now. It was a very poignant story-arc. So again, you're just trolling and hacking the discussion just for the love of Disney LOL.
Thor had no character development. And he had been given four solo movies where he acts as a comic relief LOL. Can you even accurately describe his personality? Can you tell me what makes his tick? How is his personality different from the rest of her team? BIG JOKE.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 5, 2022 1:15:06 GMT
We got three movies focused on Jean Grey.
X-Men need a TV series. Too many characters.
She was treated more like a plot point rather than a character.
Absolutely false.
She first appeared in X-Men. She was developed in X2. She was further developed in The Last Stand and Apocalypse. She was the lead character in Dark Phoenix (movie named after her).
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 21:55:58 GMT
Interdimensional counterparts. Deadpool 2 is set in 2018, not 1992.
Deadpool 1 & 2, as well as "Logan", are alternate universes.
That argument might mean something if it were the first and last time this franchise had gaping timeline errors.
The continuity is clear. Ask me, try me. I will solve any doubt you get.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 21:46:47 GMT
Quicksilver is fun.
Deadpool belongs to another universe.
He is shown onscreen with the X-Men in Deadpool 2.
Interdimensional counterparts. Deadpool 2 is set in 2018, not 1992.
Deadpool 1 & 2, as well as "Logan", are alternate universes.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 21:38:38 GMT
No jokes or comic relief? What do you call Quicksilver and Deadpool?
Quicksilver is fun.
Deadpool belongs to another universe.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 20:17:39 GMT
Terrific movies, great stories, fleshed-out and compelling characters. Most of all: character-driven.
The saga of the X-Men Movies is centered upon:
Logan/Wolverine Charles Xavier/Professor X Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto Jean Grey/Phoenix Raven Darkholme/Mystique Hank McCoy/Beast
Scott Summers/Cyclops and Ororo Munroe/Storm are "used" as symbols and icons.
Lorna Dane/Polaris, John Proudstar/Thunderbird, Clarice Fong/Blink, David Haller/Legion and the New Mutants have been extensively developed through 2 series and 1 movie.
Contrary to the popular belief, it's a character-driven saga.
No jokes or comic reliefs. It's not Disney.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 20:14:56 GMT
Outside of Xavier, Magneto and Wolverine (and a little bit of Rogue), the original movies had ridiculously bad character development. The newer movies focused more on Xavier, Magneto, Mystique and Hank but they still gave the rest of the team the same horrible development.
We got three movies focused on Jean Grey.
X-Men need a TV series. Too many characters.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 14:11:13 GMT
Terrific movies, great stories, fleshed-out and compelling characters. Most of all: character-driven.
The saga of the X-Men Movies is centered upon:
Logan/Wolverine Charles Xavier/Professor X Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto Jean Grey/Phoenix Raven Darkholme/Mystique Hank McCoy/Beast
Scott Summers/Cyclops and Ororo Munroe/Storm are "used" as symbols and icons.
Lorna Dane/Polaris, John Proudstar/Thunderbird, Clarice Fong/Blink, David Haller/Legion and the New Mutants have been extensively developed through 2 series and 1 movie.
Contrary to the popular belief, it's a character-driven saga.
No jokes or comic reliefs. It's not Disney.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 4, 2022 1:05:03 GMT
Even if some of it lined up, it may have been blind luck. Fox had no real understanding of how to maintain a shared universe. Deadpool, Xmen Origins, even prequel trilogy all had anachronistic red flags all over the place. They didn’t care, and that worked fine for them (for the most part).
That worked super-fine, because there's a continuity indeed. You must fill the gaps by yourself, it's cool and entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 1, 2022 1:05:12 GMT
Theatrical or Extended? And why?
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 1, 2022 0:47:43 GMT
It’s very well-loved in America. If anything, I figured it’d be the only place it’d be really popular in.
Yes.
Generally speaking, nowadays people tend to forget that ARMY was a big cult movie in the nineties, and it became extremely successful with the general viewers who never ever watched the first two Evil Dead movies before it. Ash turned into a cult hero because of ARMY. Then, people rediscovered the first two Evil Dead movies, and the entire "cult" started in the early 2000s.
In Europe, it went differently (I'm Italian). The Evil Dead was a huge success back in 1983-1984. Evil Dead II was a big hit too, either theatrical and video (VHS). Army wasn't so well-received, here in Europe. It's an "All American Movie", after all... despite the setting LOL.
In America, that was the pattern. ARMY became a big cult success in the late nineties. HBO and Duke Nukem largely benefitted the movie to previously-unpredictable levels. Most Americans rediscovered ED1 and ED2 with the countless DVD editions which popped up in the late nineties/early 2000s. Those went sold out almost instantaniously. Fan websites dedicated to the Evil Dead saga did the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 1, 2022 0:45:49 GMT
The Nazis love it, and there are plenty of them in America. Everyone else hates it.
WTF? Are you fine, man?
By the way, my theory is simple: In the first half of the movie, the Kandarian Demon behaves as it did in the first two movies. The Deadites are brutal.
When the demon fuses with Ash via the mirror (the Tiny Ashes being the very first step of the fusion), it becomes "intoxicated" by Ash's madness and his memories. That's why Bad Ash is acting as a cartoon, as well as the Deadite Skeletons do. They are all reflections of Ash's madness.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 30, 2022 0:59:04 GMT
This movie is pure magic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 28, 2022 23:46:27 GMT
The one scene that I would do differently (or cut) is the skeleton hands punching Ash in the Cemetery. It's a cool scene, but too comedic. I always thought it was Ash hallucinating.
Other than that, it's an epic, thrilling and marvellous fantasy/adventure/action/horror movie.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 25, 2022 18:59:49 GMT
"Fury Road" not included.
Mad Max? The Road Warrior? Thunderdome?
Tell me. This is the greatest action saga in history.
Mad Max Timeline madmaxtimeline.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 25, 2022 18:55:56 GMT
A masterpiece and a classic of the Eighties. Epic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Oct 5, 2022 10:32:19 GMT
"Logan" (the movie) was right about it.
As simple as that, the time stamp in "FIRST CLASS" is wrong, the final credits are right.
The sequence in which Charles and Raven meet for the very first time is NOT set in 1944, but 1950. Charles is 12 years old (according to the final credits) and Raven is 10 years old (according to the final credits). This means that Charles was 24 years old in 1962. It makes sense. Charles is a genius. He just took his doctorate at 24, not 30.
And Raven's quote in "Apocalypse" finally makes sense. Raven claimed (to Jean) that she was very young at the time of her first mission as X-Man (1962, "First Class"). Indeed, she was 22 years old. Even if Jean was 17/18 in "Apocalypse" (1983), Raven was "rounding it" in order to relate to her and create a genuine connection.
That would also explain why Erik was treating Raven as a little girl in "First Class". Erik was 32 years old.
|
|