Disney in talks with FOX to purchase 21st Century Fox

[Jaddor]

Xmen is about the heroes, not the villains. Not Magneto, Mystique, etc

X-Men is about heroes and villains and more.

heroes : logan, charles, iceman, kitty pryde, jean, storm.

villains or grey characters = magneto, mystique.

I am sorry but i find this whole.....let's rewrite or ignore the xmen mythos troubling. even further troubling is the defense of MCU weak villains by saying it is not about villains, um it is based on comic books where good guys fight bad guys at the core of everything. fantasy even

X-Men vs Magneto

Superman vs Lex Luther

Batman vs Joker

Spiderman vs Green Goblin

Luke vs Vader

Harry vs Voldermort

all are essential to every journey of the hero. that is fact.
X-Men will not be were it is today if not for their amazing rogues gallery and that is a fact too.

gosh even the personal xman had personal epic villains to deal with. i.e

Cable vs Styfe and Apoclapyse

Xavier vs shadow King and juggernaut

wolverine vs sabertooth

Scott vs Sinister

angel vs arcangel

hope vs bishop

Jean vs dark phoenix


there are no good heroes without good villains and it is fact.

[Wiccan]

/\ Maybe that would make sense if Mystique was actually a villain. She's barely even a grey character.

[ClanAskani]

Also, it has seriously low production values with subpar animation, especially compared to the Dini/Timm Batman cartoons.

This is completely true, but I wanted to post part of an interview with Fox Kids' Margaret Loesch to explain why, which actually comes into play with the Fox/Disney talks:

BFTP: One thing that X-Men was always criticized for was its often sloppy foreign animation, which even led to production delays with numerous episodes. Was there any specific reason why X-Men was never given the same high quality animation that was shown in Batman the Animated Series, which also premiered around the same time?

Margaret Loesch: Yes, there are a couple of reasons. We paid the top licensing fee we could afford for X-Men, but remember when that started, the network was very young. We didn’t have a lot of revenue. On top of that, X-Men was more difficult to do than a lot of shows because it had so many characters. This of course was before computer animation had been perfected, so everything was hand drawn. So what you saw on the screen was every single penny that we could pay. However, what a lot of people don’t know is that we paid a licensing fee for Batman too, but Warner Brothers supplemented and put a lot more money into the production themselves. Warner Brothers supplemented our license fees in such a tremendous way that they stepped up to the plate and invested in it. Additionally, they realized that they were making so much money from licensing and merchandising from the Batman movies that they could literally pour money into the program. In those days, Marvel didn’t quite have the same deep pockets. Look, Warner Brothers is a studio that produces and Marvel is a comic book company. Thus, they didn’t put the same resources into the production that Warner Brothers was able to do and that’s the difference. I would say that each Batman episode had at least $150,000-$200,000 more per episode spent and that’s because Warner Brothers had made the investment.

In addition, you have Saban doing the production and they wanted to do things as cheap as possible to maximize profits. There were great animators involved who did the best they could with their budget. And honestly, Batman TAS was able to do stylized animation that cut corners without seeming cheap. Gargoyles has been also used as an example of a show with better animation and Disney TV Animation was throwing money at that show left and right. Their budget was higher than Batman TAS. Animation was far far more expensive to do in the 90s than in the 80s because overseas animation had become far expensive and the voice actor strike in 1987 made large casts like shows like Smurfs and Transformers had impossible.

I thought this was a good example of what behind the scenes happens with networks and licencing fees for properties. With the Fox/Disney deal, these are the types of situations that would be avoided.

[Carabas]

Why are some of you still arguing with Jaddor? They are obviously using their opinoins as facts , just like they do every time a topic of the X-Men in the MCU comes up as they obviously have a great hatred for the MCU's many successes.

Idle hope he'll say something that'll get him banned again so we can talk about something else than the goddamn X-Men cartoon in movie threads?

Not feeding the troll doesn't really help. He feeds himself.

[Carabas]

This is completely true, but I wanted to post part of an interview with Fox Kids' Margaret Loesch to explain why, which actually comes into play with the Fox/Disney talks:

Marvel are cheap. Also, grass is generally green. It is known.

How does this relate to Disney in any way at all?

[Divine Spark]

If that’s the case I feel sorry for you because that’s the worst version.

I think most people prefer the prequel films over the early pre-Claremont X-books(that got canned) that they are partly based on.

[ClanAskani]

Marvel are cheap. Also, grass is generally green. It is known.

How does this relate to Disney in any way at all?

Marvel wasn't cheap, they just didn't have the resources that WB did. Saban was cheap and cut every corner possible, but that's a different topic.

In the 90s, Marvel wanted to make money off of selling properties like X-Men for high fees. They weren't yet making the type of licensing deals so they could make money off of X-Men toys or games or underoos or whatever else. It was short term, get the money now and if the tv show or movie fails who cares. But in the end the lack of a high enough quality product made the X-Men cartoon less profitable in the long term.

Studios now want to limit risks - big blockbusters or even tv series are expensive and they want to spread that risk. Studios are also essentially playing blockbuster roulette. Maybe their new superhero movie will be the next Deadpool or GotG or it may fizzle so the risk/reward is much greater.

I know people who worked at Fox theatrical marketing and they just found it bizarre that Marvel (essentially Disney) wasn't helping them promote X-Men movies because that's what IP owners do - help promote their movie. That may sound strange - why would Disney help Fox? But there's far less of a line when the fact that international distribution for movies means that a Fox movie in the US may be released by Sony in Europe. You have the domestic marketing team from one studio working with the international marketing team from another studio on releases.

What WB did with Batman TAS is what works now - make a long term successful show, get the network to help you promote it and work together to make the show successful.

Also, I don't know why the cartoon thread was merged into this thread.

[WebLurker]

ah, iconic superhero tv shows. looks, its not my fault that TAS had more adult content than the mcu movies. that is something you should discuss with disney, you not admitting it is an iconic superhero tv show that changed everything as cbr said does not stop it from been true.

It might be iconic to the X-Men franchise (however, considering that X-Men: Evolution has arguably had more impact on the franchise as a whole, I don't know how much that means). As far as animated superhero, as pointed out before, history seems to have remembered Batman and '80s TMNT more than X-Men. In terms of superhero TV in general, I'd wager a guess that '60s Batman is more iconic (it's made it's comeback in terms of being in the public eye, something that animated X-Men hasn't exactly done).

Yeah, it did defined the 90s for comic book shows. marvel had xmen tas , DC had batman TAS and that is factual.

Maybe, but that was then, this is now. How does it hold up in the hear and now? Granted, I haven't done a case study, but it seems like it's better remembered as a gateway to the franchise/superheroes/whatever, not so much as high-water mark of animation in and of itself, like other things of the era (e.g. Batman, Pinky and the Brain, DuckTales, Darkwing Duck, etc.). (Also, bear in mind, in animation in general, it's a footnote, at best, in the history of the medium). In terms of pop culture overall, forget about it; it's not even on the radar (beyond being a piece of the X-Men franchise, which is on the radar, to be fair).

Um, another try to dismiss TAS,Even before the web, things that were memorable always got remembered.its has nothing to do with web, its has everything to do with QUALITY and SUBSTANCE.

Maybe, however I do think that the Internet has played a role in keeping things in the public eye; it's easier to talk about stuff and things that may be more cult than mainstream can find an audience much easier. Also, considering the level of animation and acting, I'm taking it that its ambitions outstripped it's means?

TMNT sure, but in the 90s X-Men TAS was bigger...want more proof? the adult fan base it brought in because of the stories. unlike TMNT that stayed mostly for kids and TMNT had movies then.

Target audience isn't relevant to place in pop culture. X-Men has nothing on '80s TMNT. Put it this way, X-Men in animated form may have been successful in its day, been a gateway for some or many, and may inspire a ringtone in-joke often on. However, TMNT single-handedly took a small indie comic and made it a franchise capable of rivaling X-Men in terms of its place in pop culture. Not only that, it defined what the franchise was about, by and large; the different-colored masks, Michelangelo's jokster personality, pizza, Krang, Dimension X, the Technodrome, rules of ooze-based mutation, Shredder being involved with his rivalry with Splinter from the beginning instead of getting involved because of a brother, Splinter and Hamato Yoshi being the same person instead of two characters, Bebop and Rocksteady, Foot Bots, the "Cowabunga," "heroes in a half shell," and "turtle power" catchphrases, the embracing of the goofier aspects of the franchise (although it can go very dark when need be -- see the Nick cartoon) -- all that was codified in the '80s cartoon, and even adaptations that try to hew closer to the original Mirage comics often borrow some or many of these elements (the masks, at this point, are a given in any retelling).

So, long story short, X-Men the cartoon is nowhere near the level of the '80s TMNT show in terms of its place in pop culture or legacy. They may be very different in tone, but that's no indication of which is better, any more than saying a well-made comedy is inferior to a well-made drama.

lol, Now I just need to laugh at the xmen theme but you see that cbr article does prove a lot about TAS, that theme of TAS is recognizable and parodied
this catach phrase: doo dedoo doo doo doo dedoo doo doo doo'.
or duh duh dudh dudh dudh dudh duhd eeh eerr eeh is well known, even used in many mixed tape dance tracks....sorry about that. the xmen movie theme is popuplar sure, bt not close to tas theme.

Is '90s X-Men on the same level as the '60s Spider-Man and Batman themes, though? Also, a good theme does not automatically a good show make (The Last Stand and Origins: Wolverine are arguably the worst of the movies, but they have really good soundtracks). A show can have both, but the X-Men having memorable theme music does not "prove" it's a classic, historical icon, or whatever you're arguing now by itself.

Hm, mickey mouse is not a superhero tv how right?

The point is, there's always a bigger fish. X-Men the cartoon might be more prolific in the sphere of the Marvel franchise, but it's not a heavyweight in the canon of animation. Mickey Mouse, for example, is much more of a big deal in that sphere (among many, many other things).

Spectacular spiderman was a good show but in terms of prociction and writng, its know where close to TAS.

I'd want to study the X-Men cartoon in full before rendering final judgement, but Spectacular had superior animation, better acting, and the show had no fat in terms of filler episodes (e.g. "Jubilee's Fairy Tale Theater"); the thing was lean, mean, and one of the best-paced shows I've seen period. While nostalgia is powerful thing, objectively how well does the X-Men cartoon hold up? Just because it came first and has historical importance doesn't make it automatically the best of the best.

the only show that can be argued to be better is batman TAS.

You weren't saying that earlier.

So we are still discussing xmen tas after 25 years and praising the depth and compelling stories it brought to cartoons. funny, mcu is doing the oppsite.

False analogy

X-MEN TAS brought respect and intellect to the genre.

Maybe, maybe not. That's really hard to prove and given your standards, I suspect that

MCU movies dumb, hurt and embarrasses the genre.

You do realize we've got stuff like Batman and Robin, the Superman sequels, the Halle Berry Catwoman movie, Green Lantern, Steel, and the pre-Wonder Woman DC Extended Universe around, right? There's worse than the MCU.

...the content of TAS is timeless. MCU, not so Much. that is what iconic means. TAS stopped airing 20 years ago and we still talk about it.

False analogy; the MCU is still ongoing, so we haven't had time to have any kind of historical perspective on it. Also, the latter has arguably become far more mainstream and been a bigger gateway into the franchise as a whole. So, will the MCU be timeless? Hard to say how well it'll age, but it will be remembered, dollars to dohnuts probably longer and more easily than the X-Men cartoon will.

...who will remember any single mcu movie when disney stops making them.

Avengers 1, Guardians of the Galaxy 1 (probably 2?, we'll see), and Winter Soldier will last for sure. Also, given that the MCU created and popularized the cinematic universe and did it right the first time (in terms of planning, pacing, and selling people on obscure non-mainstream stuff), it's significance in the history of

LOL, you think mcu is iconic?

Or on it's way. It did turn C-and D-listers like Iron Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy into superstars, raise the profile of others, and popularize the latest cinema obsession after all.

sure I do too like transformers and twilight. you know, the bad film making franchise that still made bank but no one takes seriously in the film business as a craft to be hailed or remembered.

So, why is the MCU loved by viewers, while the former two are either generally hated, love-to-hate, or very guilty pleasures?

Age of Ultron story arc in the comics is similar to the DOFP story arc. that is factual.

However, the movie was not based on the comic; it was an original tale based primarily on the Ultron origin story and other snatches of the character's history, according to Joss Whedon. So, if the complaint is that it's not like the comic of the same name or DOFP, there's a reason; it's not adapting those stories.

Ah, But X-Men movies need drama, that is fact based on xmen stories.

Maybe. Different kinds of stories need different tones. But being dramas does not automatically make X-Men and it's materials superior to others that balance things more or go for funnier materials. Case in point, Spider-Man arguably outstrips X-Men in terms of popularity and quality and comedy is an important part of his franchise. However, he can do both, proving that the two are not mutually exclusive.

[WebLurker]

maybe you have never heard this good joke in comics that xmen stories were like soap operas and more importantly xmen alone makes up 60% of the marvel best story lines with had hitting s themes and deep political commentary , so yeah that means drama is necessary.

Had not heard that one before, although not all good stories need "hitting s themes and deep political commentary" to be good.

sadly other mcu IP are lacking reason they make jokes and blow cities up for fun and the funny.

Comedy and depth are not mutally exclusive. Also, you'll have to point out which movies had cities being blown up for fun. While there is comic relief, the problems faced are usually treated seriously.

My opinion of Thor 3? Not really.. it is real evidence based on norse mythology.

The comics version of Thor has always played fast and loose with the actual myths.

Ah, TV and movies are different medium. so mcu has movies where they keep their zero depth stuff and the internet is where they keep their other adult stuff.

Straw man.

Street level characters? really. you know that is spiderman right and also batman.

Yes, I do, given that Spider-Man is my most favorite superhero of all.

funny DC has a world for films and tv were there are two of each characters. and it is working out fine for dc.

It's a different marketing strategy (having multiple continuities over a single one) and both have pros and cons.

Lol, did you not remember that daredevil and the punisher had mainstream films already? see the truth is these characters are seen as too gritty to make it to mcu movies so mcu dumped them on netflix because mcu appeals to kids first, XMEN TAS was not meant to appeal to kids, it was mean to be substitute for kids.

See the truth was the original Daredevil and Punisher movies were not that successful (and made by other people) and the MCU movies post-Avengers 1 shifted the film series to revolve around that team primarily, leaving stuff that didn't fit generally elsewhere (part of the reason why Runaways was made into a show despite a film script being written, although they would benefit from a serialized TV format).

Ah, but mcu movies are weaker as long as they make everything into jokes and have paper thin deviate plot. their movies will always be weaker than the xmen movies.

So sure are you?

GOTG 1 and 2 does not match X2 or DOFP because those movies are considered as a silly comedy not to be taken seriously with little depth. X2 and DOFP was serious drama and an intellect grounded take on the world with superheroes in it. and among the only few pg 13 movies we can call adult superhero movies and you can start with the drama styled the film is directed in.

They do match in terms of characterization. While comedies, the characters have depth. That's arguably the key difference; the X-Men movies may have more serious plots, but character development is much more spotty and limited (being a long-running series helps significantly, to be fair).

GOTG was the one with the dance off rand the parents must buy baby groot subliminal message toys? please. don't put that with X2 and DOFP were even kids are portrayed as villains in those xmen movies.

It's been done. They're different genres, so X-Men being more serious in tone is not a logical reason for it being "better." Guardians has well-done characters (although I will concede that the first one had weak villains, but that's the universal bane of the genre) and excellent production values and told it's brand of stories well. That's what makes them good movies and that level of quality in its specific kind of story is why it holds its own with the X-Men movies.

As for winter solider, 1 out of 17 mcu movies?

Just because you don't like a movie doesn't mean they are bad. As far as I can tell, the MCU is considered to have a better track record than the X-Men series in general.

...and this film DOFP did kick it ass when it was released.

So do Transformers movies when they're made.

want to see creative nature? ask why most film artists hate working for mcu movies. its not a coincidence. artist love their craft and they don't like it when it is taken away.

Appeal to authority.

So disney rejects the story in iron man 3 of substance abuse and turns terrorism into a big goofy joke. yeah that is worse...mcu movies do tend to get worse.

The critics didn't agree with you there.

Ah, solo films, you did think thor will have become like aragorn after two poor movies but he became a late night comedian.

The Thor movies were always light-hearted in tone generally. Consistency is generally helpful in movies.

Civi War is a better action movie than first class.

First Class is a better political and story telling driven movie than Civil War and you know what film makers and older people say.

Story telling driven movies >>>>>>>>>> action movies.

A.) Both were action movies. B.) Civil War had a more nuanced central problem to the story and it was the character's differences that drove the plot forward.

Tony and cap spend more time fighting than sharing their views, reason their dynamic is inferior to charles and xavier, nothing in civil war come close to this..acting, drama, dialogue, tone, stakes. this is a real comic film.
youtube;mXQdo05h5Y0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXQdo05h5Y0

No, they don't; there's a lot of conversation scenes in Civil War before all havoc breaks loose. While I do agree that Stewart and McKellan make their scenes better (they are better actors, after all), they have a lot less backstory to build on (esp. taking things in release order), so I think it's the actors elevating the material they're given (which, to be fair, is good for what it is). However, Civil War was set up in advance by the previous movies, giving far more context and history we were privy too beforehand.

ah, Mckellen and Stewart have become a huge part of our culture just for their portrayals of eric and charles relationship.

Truth.

who remembers tony and steve today?

Umm, everyone? Remember, the MCU made Iron Man a superstar.

as I said, it is down to the substance. this is what mcu always lacks , reason their films are hated by film artist and only work in cinema where we are told not to use our heads and just have...FUN.

Fun and substance can go hand in hand. While the MCU movies may gravitate more to fun, there is some substance in there, like how the characters change over the course of the series being a big one.

Um, first class caracters. let see Beast dealing with his mutation, raven's rebellion, moria fighting sexism in the 60s.

Very nice, very true. BUT WHAT ABOUT EVERY OTHER FRAKKING CHARACTER! Everyone else was given next-to-nothing to do or zero characterization. In an group-centric movie, that is bad writing.

...that was better to watch than the other characters in civil war that did nothing and just had fun.

Dealing with moral decisions, picking sides, trying to find the answers. That a lot going on there, and unlike First Class, everyone either contributed to the plot, had a moment to shine, and/or had a reason for being there, not just a couple of them. Heck, even Spider-Man, the most shoehorned in character of the film, was given more than any of the First Clas supporting characters.

[WebLurker]

Lol...did you just say Zemo easily?and shaw had no depth or motivation. no, that was zemo.

No, that was Shaw.

..who could have been easily erased from the movie and had no impact unlike first class where the opening scene of magneto's death at the hand of Shaw set the tone and cause of the entire movie.....

Zemo was needed to get the Winter Soldier in play. While the registration act was kindling and could've lead to something, the actual spark was over the disposition of Bucky Barnes, and Zemo was manipulating that the whole way. To be fair, I don't think either movie could've been told without either villain, though.

I think this is why xmen films are factually better. its a little trick called. story telling.

That's an opinion, not a fact. Keep them straight, please.

you think zemo had more motivation than shaw.

110%

see mcu villains are so bad that this is one area the casual fans don't even defend...

And I don't. Personally, I think the only truly great MCU villains are Loki, Vulture, and Ego. Others may be entertaining (Justin Hammer has no equal in this regard, except for Loki), but are usually pretty generic in terms of goals and whatnot. Zemo, in my opinion, wouldn't work in a central villain role (like Loki or Vultre, or Ronan the Accuser, or Stryker, Apocalypse, or Magneto, for that matter), but since he's primarily behind the scenes, that's not a factor.

...shaw was a great villain, for tormenting magneto as a kid,killing his mum, manipulating both usa and ussr to go to war and what was shaw motivation? the children of the atom must survive. this is what you call motivation. well spoken, well layered and quite friendly and understanding.

Understandable, maybe, but not well-layered at all. Why? While I might buy that he wants mutant supremacy, why did he come to that conclusion? Why did he want to torture a fellow mutant? What got him on the path that he was? Where's the depth to the character? Zemo had those things. We understood why he wanted to destroy the Avengers. While irredeemable, he did show to be more than a flat cartoon villain (see Black Panther's last scene with him). Shaw was entertaining to watch (I like him in the movie), but he's a flat character who exists primarily as a plot device for the heroes' story (a common problem with superhero movies, but still).

[/quote]

Well-acted scene, to be sure, but still, stock villain stuff and nothing we haven't seen before in the series. (Also, talk about lack of character motivation; Angel's switching sides had practically no buildup.)

ironically you talk of shaw because as magneto said before he kills him that he and shaw share the same beliefs.

I think Magneto was Shaw done right; both have similar agenda, but in their first films, Magneto's reasoning was shown to us, not told. We understood his character a whole lot better. (And lest you think I'm some weird First Class hater; I like that movie. I've got a BluRay of the thing and see it now and again. I just think that it's a somewhat more flawed movie that others do; I wonder if coming after two disliked movies maybe made people a little more overlooking of its shortcomings?)

want more proof? MCU has a villains problem well known, not xmen. in fact the villains in xmen are one of the pros of their films.

I think both have been criticized in that regard; little about The Last Stand is liked, opinions that Trask was wasted in Days of Future Past are common, Emma Frost is universally considered bad in First Class, and Logan's villains never had a chance to gain traction in the narrative. Beyond Magento and X2-edition Stryker, how many X-Men villains are that liked (okay, Origins Wolverine's Sabretooth does get love, but I think that's more because of the performance than anything else)?

Gambit has gone into pre production, has a director and costume designer. what remains to be seen? do you think fox will soon announce gambIt will be a driven cgi funny movie like mcu movies? nah the comics of xmen rejects that idea. TAS even reject that idea.

Funny, I thought Gambit was known for having a sense of humor and not taking life too seriously. But, okay, if the movie is in production, let's hope it

You know I think this is what makes xmen so formidable, timeless and always relevant,...

Good characters and stories and themes that have universal appeal with success in translating that into different mediums over the decades?

...the very people that want to see xmen destroyed so MCU can look less awful...

...

Look, genius, the X-Men were big before the MCU was even a thing. Also, who wants the X-Men destroyed? I want both to live long and prosper. My position is that the MCU is of similar quality in terms of what it's setting out to be and that drama is not inherently superior to other kinds of fiction. The fact that both are different is one reason I find it worthwhile to enjoy both.

say they are fans but they have no problem in trying to take xmen down because everything xmen stood up against and won both in films, animation and comics MCU is not . don't you see the contradiction as a fan?.

No. There is more than room for both. You are the only one suggesting that one must be torn down for the other to be legitimized.

a fan of xmen that is now hating on horror when xmen itself have many horror elements stories from AOA, to the demon bear saga, to the mutant massacre to messiah war.

I don't like horror. No shame in that; the franchise has other alternatives. Also, I don't follow those comic stories (although I'm intending to get the Messiah trades to go with the X-Force stuff I have).

can a fan of xmen have no problem with how disney constantly uses poor jokes to dumb down their movies and will do the same for xmen movies. I have no problem with antman, if a person like nolan or george miller made the film.

You can hold your own opinion. However, given that Disney is not planning to make an X-Men movie series, why get bend out of shape about it?

the xmen lore cannot be re written just for Disney movies. Disney already failed at this attempt with inhumans and trying to rewrite many mutants so they can pass of more as avengers...Disney will always fail because you can never substitute quantity for quality.

If Disney is a failure, I'd love to fail as epically as they did; becoming a household icon and making box office hits is no mean feat.

[RLAAMJR.]

I want Jaddor vs rutog98

[Jokerz79]

I think most people prefer the prequel films over the early pre-Claremont X-books(that got canned) that they are partly based on.

Nope and that is such a falsity the X-Men books were never cancelled they went into reprints but was never cancelled.

[Wolverine12]

And this thread has runs it's course.