The future of the X-Men on the big screen

[Wolverine12]

Why so? I always thought his intensity and ability to play angry dudes would make him a good Wolverine. And he's not that tall either

My biggest reason is I don’t think he looks the part. I also don’t think he has an intimidating enough voice. I always think he sounds a bit off when he talks. Not like he’s stupid or anything more like a weird accent.

[yogaflame]

If they get Deadpool’s Colossus animators they’d be miles ahead of casting. They nailed that character, and you don’t NEED a human side.

BS. Piotr's fine ass is definitely missed[from Deadpool's Colossus].

[Vegan Daddy]

BS. Piotr's fine ass is definitely missed[from Deadpool's Colossus].

My only reason for watching the Deadpool movies.

[WebLurker]

There is a marvel film universe, meaning there is no point of a separate world for xmen.

Then I guess Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and Venom have no point either, since they're not part of that film universe, either.

The only obstacle facing X-Men is Disney not getting X-Men is different.

What difference does that make? Internal logic is still internal logic, irregardless of the IRL factors.

It is more believable for Spiderman and X-Men to crossover in 2005 with the cast of the Raimi Spiderman movies and the original xmen cast, than x-men coming to the mcu and just looking like one of the other.

That makes no sense; beyond the name-dropping Doctor Strange (and who know if that actually was the Doctor Strange), there is zero indication that anything outside of the Spider-Man mythos exists in the Raimi movies and vice versa in the Fox X-Men ones. The MCU, built and seeded to be a shared setting between the franchises, makes infinite more sense for a crossover (unless the new Doctor Strange movie grandfathers some of the older series as parallel realities within a multiverse of the MCU or something).

X-Men started it and ended the run in 2017. The Nolan Batman movies joined in 2005 and ended its run in 2012. Days Of Future Past was two years after the last Nolan movie, Logan was a year after Batman v Superman. Doesn't seem like it ''really takeover'' the department. Unless my ''star dates'' are backwards or DCEU has done something after 2017. Does it really matter who started it?

The point I was making is that those DC movies are the ones most cited in the discussions of doing serious superhero movies correctly and badly. X-Men gets most cited in discussions for how it paved the way to the superhero movie boom we know today and they have to share that with Spider-Man (which seems to get most of the credit). Commentary on it being a more serious series is generally limited to how that was needed to get past the stigma of the old Batman movies.

what matters is the impact of approaching comic stories in films that is a lot smarter to what MCU currently does.

Not sure I would hold the Fox series as a "smarter" approach, given the far more inconsistent results and the way poor planning ahead really undermined aspects of the series.

Success and getting it right are not the same thing. Homecoming and FFH are successful, Spiderverse got it right. Getting it right is a long term positive thing.

Not sure how the former didn't get it right; the DNA's in place and it's a pretty good reimagining of the Ultimate Spidey comics.

Dark Phoenix was a first time for Simon Kinberg. I never gave him a full chance because I knew his capabilities as much as I know Marvel studios.

You know, you go into something planning to hate it, odds are that you will find more then enough reasons to hate it.

Despite my still high hopes for Marvel animation, Disney are bad with marvel cartoons. The problems with marvel studios is found in marvel animation. Fox never made X-Men evolution either. The cartoon, by 2003-2004 started reflecting the world building and tone of X-Men that was reflecting in the movies. Most noticeably X2, more importantly the comics.

Okay, so Marvel Animation doesn't do so well now. What the heck does that have to do with Marvel Studios' ability or inability to make a good live action X-Men movie?

The CGI was bad, plus the last fight with Wolverine, Sabertooth and Deadpool was much worse. You can find the same bad CGI in Amazing Spiderman movies , DCEU and MCU movies. X-Men origins bad CGI is unintended humor since you are laughing at bad filmmaking.

Okay, fine, forget about the claws and just the set up of the scene (accidentally destroying the bathroom). Or Juggernaut proclaiming himself in X3 (I did like that, to be fair). Or Storm telling us what happens to toads that get struck by lightening (probably more a problem with the delivery then the joke itself, but still).

Not only does MCU suffer from many bad filmmaking choices by having the CGI in the films look more like expensive animated sequences, their humor is used for making movies childishly lighthearted, when it should not be.

No idea what to tell you about the CGI (it is what it is and it's not the be all, end all of the movies). Also, why is what you want the movies to be what they "should" be?

Its okay to have humor in movies. Don't over do it or keep forcing it.

Question: do you think the original Star Wars movie had forced humor?

Different expectations for everything. Can Disney stop trying to mash up Marvel, Star Wars, Disney Television, Disney original movies and Pixar? They are not the same thing.

They are their own things.

[frankyspaceout]

The only obstacle facing X-Men is Disney not getting X-Men is different.

You might be pissed but I am actually a Disney shareholder who voted in favor of the Disney Fox merger back in July 2018, and I am glad I did because my only reason to vote for the merger was so the X-Men can be in the MCU.

[Beaddle]

Then I guess Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and Venom have no point either, since they're not part of that film universe, either.
.

Marvel has a multiverse in the comics. the characters exist in the multiverse as duplicates of the other.

What difference does that make? Internal logic is still internal logic, irregardless of the IRL factors.

Makes a lot of difference, why attempt to do something and don't care about doing it correctly. Money not considered.

The point I was making is that those DC movies are the ones most cited in the discussions of doing serious superhero movies correctly and badly. X-Men gets most cited in discussions for how it paved the way to the superhero movie boom .

Batman and Robin was a comic film known for killing comic books movies, No X-Men movie was that deadly, dark phoenix is more like the Green Lantern of DC movies, Bad not deadly. It was X-Men 2000 that took that stigma away. What DC had was a good flow of consistency because of Nolan's trilogy but there was already X1, X2. The later years had First Class, The Wolverine , DOFP, and Logan, Widely considered a return to top form of doing serious superhero movies for a series that started it. Most if not all would agree that the later years were better than the earlier years of X1, X2.

There are more x-men movies to talk about in the serious movies conversation than DC. Don't also forget Deadpool , although a comedy, Deadpool was more Seinfield meets The Mask meets Sex and the City than the comedy of GOTG or Thor 3,Disney kids fluff.

we know today and they have to share that with Spider-Man (which seems to get most of the credit).

Spiderman gets more credit for superhero blockbusters, it does not get more credit for serious comic books than X-Men. It was never about the box office with X-Men. It was about destroying all the stereotypes of comic stories even the good stereotypes of Good vs Evil.

Commentary on it being a more serious series is generally limited to how that was needed to get past the stigma of the old Batman movies

Commentary on it being more serious was about the choice of story and filmmaking method.

You know, you go into something planning to hate it, odds are that you will find more then enough reasons to hate it.

Hate is not the same as calling out how people do things.

Okay, so Marvel Animation doesn't do so well now. What the heck does that have to do with Marvel Studios' ability or inability to make a good live action X-Men movie?

Because its made from the studio structure. As I said many times, Fox had a director's problem. Disney has a structured formula problem. Both are problems that needed solving when it concerns X-Men movies moving forward.

Okay, fine, forget about the claws and just the set up of the scene (accidentally destroying the bathroom). Or Juggernaut proclaiming himself in X3 (I did like that, to be fair). Or Storm telling us what happens to toads that get struck by lightening (probably more a problem with the delivery then the joke itself, but still).

Those were not universal annoyance. X-Men films universal annoyance is not humor related.

No idea what to tell you about the CGI (it is what it is and it's not the be all, end all of the movies).

I have a lot to tell you. CGI can be done better than what you see in many MCU movies. The CGI of X-Men 2 or Iron Man 1, when Marvel had less money to spend and was not owned by Disney then, showcases better filmmaking CGI choice to what we see now. What is one of the complains of Thanos? ''All we can see is a big giant purple alien''

Weird since Alan Cumming's Nightcrawler's was not only purple and had a tail but like Thanos he could teleport. The CGI in X-Men 2 is cleaner and refined, not only because the movie is grounded, the director never liked to over do things like MCU because he wanted to stick with the serious comic movies narrative as much as possible.

Also, why is what you want the movies to be what they "should" be?

Meaning?

Question: do you think the original Star Wars movie had forced humor?

Apart from Episode 1 with Jar Jar Binks, the answer is No. The star wars reboots ...err...continuation of Episode 8 and 9 have forced humor, although the writing in the reboot movies is worse than the humor.

They are their own things.

Hardly.

[WebLurker]

Marvel has a multiverse in the comics. the characters exist in the multiverse as duplicates of the other.

So? X-Men movies being an alternate continuity is hardly any different.

Makes a lot of difference, why attempt to do something and don't care about doing it correctly. Money not considered.

Since the MCU X-Men movies haven't even started yet, we have no basis to know that they'll be "incorrect" or not.

Batman and Robin was a comic film known for killing comic books movies, No X-Men movie was that deadly, dark phoenix is more like the Green Lantern of DC movies, Bad not deadly. It was X-Men 2000 that took that stigma away. What DC had was a good flow of consistency because of Nolan's trilogy but there was already X1, X2.

Eh, maybe? It played a role, to be sure, but I don't think in the grand scheme of things it's really been overshadowed by other contrabutions

The later years had First Class, The Wolverine , DOFP, and Logan, Widely considered a return to top form of doing serious superhero movies for a series that started it. Most if not all would agree that the later years were better than the earlier years of X1, X2.

Hard to say.

[QUOTE=Beaddle;4489458]There are more x-men movies to talk about in the serious movies conversation than DC.

Don't also forget Deadpool , although a comedy, Deadpool was more Seinfield meets The Mask meets Sex and the City than the comedy of GOTG or Thor 3,Disney kids fluff.

I'd actually take the Guardians of Galaxy's brand of humor that helps flesh out and advance the characters over Deadpool's randomness any day (read some of the comics, it's mostly weirdness for weirdness's sake). Heck, even the Grandmaster in Ragnarok is a largely comedic figure, but is well-written in how it's all channeled into us understanding who this guy is. Also, I have to say for being "kid's fluff," the MCU has shown a great deal more emotional maturity in its characters in regards to story arcs and whatnot. Heck, we live in a world where, in film, Rocket Raccon is fully-fleshed out, multidimensional character, while Cyclops, a bigger name character and key X-Men member is largely a blank slate with little development of any kind.

Spiderman gets more credit for superhero blockbusters, it does not get more credit for serious comic books than X-Men.

Never said it did. My point is that X-Men's role in creating the blockbusters overshadowed any role in had in serious comic book movies, and even there, it's just a footnote compared to other stuff that was being made. Heck, I have yet to see any confirmation that X-Men actually did influence the serious superhero movie genre; it was hardly the first, since Blade beat them to that, and the Nolan Batman movies were drawing from Batman's history, not the X-Men movies, for going dark and serious. Besides, at the end of the day, The Dark Knight, not X-Men 1, was the game-changer that popularized dark and gritty. Whenever X-Men's seriousness comes up in the conversation, it's always an aside feature in how it tried to save itself from the past and how that played into it's overshadowed role of bringing back comic book movies.

It was never about the box office with X-Men. It was about destroying all the stereotypes of comic stories even the good stereotypes of Good vs Evil.

See above.

Commentary on it being more serious was about the choice of story and filmmaking method.

Yeah, and it worked for that specific story. But it's never a one-size fits all solution.

Hate is not the same as calling out how people do things.

I don't know; most of your statements boil down to: "It's bad because I wanted something else," namely the story to be serious and having less humor.

Because its made from the studio structure. As I said many times, Fox had a director's problem. Disney has a structured formula problem. Both are problems that needed solving when it concerns X-Men movies moving forward.

Frankly, Marvel Studios' well-oiled production line will be an improvement over Fox's haphazard development of the franchise and the wonkiness that the series has suffered from. Also, I can't say that Marvel being known for its lighter-hearted elements will be a problem for X-Men by default. Heck, one of the deeper stories I saw from that franchise in the comics revolved around rescuing mutant turkeys (the X-23 finale).

Those were not universal annoyance. X-Men films universal annoyance is not humor related.

Whatever you say.

I have a lot to tell you. CGI can be done better than what you see in many MCU movies. The CGI of X-Men 2 or Iron Man 1, when Marvel had less money to spend and was not owned by Disney then, showcases better filmmaking CGI choice to what we see now.

In a post-Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange universe, I have to call bull on that. We're getting far more complex scenes and designs that really open the worlds of the films and make for more interesting story-telling.

What is one of the complains of Thanos? ''All we can see is a big giant purple alien''

Thanos is a big giant purple alien. If you can't get onboard with that, maybe these kinds of movies aren't your thing.

Weird since Alan Cumming's Nightcrawler's was not only purple and had a tail but like Thanos he could teleport.

Nightcrawler is also a character who has the right size and designs that makeup could create the character without much CGI. He also had a good actor in the role, which Thanos can claim as well. Also, Thanos turned out a lot better then Apocalypse did despite the latter being practical effects as well, esp. in terms of being able to emote and looking real and not like a cosplayer. At the end of the day, good effects on one kind are better then poorer effects of another kind.

The CGI in X-Men 2 is cleaner and refined, not only because the movie is grounded, the director never liked to over do things like MCU because he wanted to stick with the serious comic movies narrative as much as possible.

Good scene, to be sure, but I'd take the scuffle the Guardians had in their first movie over this one; that one combined action and character work by showing us who they were by their fighting styles. The X2 scene works to set up the tension that the bad guy's plot revolved around, but not much else. Also, the reason the scene works is not because of practical effects or being "grounded," but because of the cinematography, editing, and acting.

Meaning?

Like I said before, you want to push them in a box and don't react that well when they don't fit because they are a different kind of film, e.g. insisting that Endgame was supposed to be a dark dystopia and judging it badly for not following that blueprint despite it not being a dystopia story.

Apart from Episode 1 with Jar Jar Binks, the answer is No. The star wars reboots ...err...continuation of Episode 8 and 9 have forced humor, although the writing in the reboot movies is worse than the humor.

Gotta break it to you, but the MCU and sequel trilogy are closer in tone to the old Star Wars movies then not. Rewatch ANH sometime and keep track of how many one-liners are spread throughout it.

Hardly.

Not from what I've seen.

[Beaddle]

So? X-Men movies being an alternate continuity is hardly any different.

.

It doesn't matter what X-Men universe is in, The MCU or on their own, X-Men is different. The X-Men concept was always a pain in a realstic discussion about superheroes.

Since the MCU X-Men movies haven't even started yet, we have no basis to know that they'll be "incorrect" or not.

The ''Disney formula'' started around 2012. Its an incorrect formula when X-Men is involved.

Eh, maybe? It played a role, to be sure, but I don't think in the grand scheme of things it's really been overshadowed by other contrabutions

MCU movies are usually forgotten after every 100 days. Sometimes because there are so many of them and are so alike to the other. Its hard to overshadow any other movie. Fox used this to their advantage that worked on 3 separate occasions. Logan, Deadpool and DOFP. DC wanted to use it as well but couldn't because Snyder was a hack.

The last real serious DC movie that never gave most a big pain was TDKR 2012. what ''serious movie overshadowing'' was going with X-Men? MCU didn't even try to make a serious movie until The Winter Solider. Did it overshadow any X-Men movie?

I'd actually take the Guardians of Galaxy's brand of humor that helps flesh out and advance the characters over Deadpool's randomness any day (read some of the comics, it's mostly weirdness for weirdness's sake). Heck, even the Grandmaster in Ragnarok is a largely comedic figure, but is well-written in how it's all channeled into us understanding who this guy is. Also, I have to say for being "kid's fluff," the MCU has shown a great deal more emotional maturity in its characters in regards to story arcs and whatnot. Heck, we live in a world where, in film, Rocket Raccon is fully-fleshed out, multidimensional character, while Cyclops, a bigger name character and key X-Men member is largely a blank slate with little development of any kind.

Deadpool was a fleshed out character. More fleshed out to GOTG. I prefer Deadpool's comedy. The adult humor is more bearable than the humor of Thor and GOTG. Deadpool represented something bigger than humor. Deadpool was about taking chances and pushing the envelope. GOTG and Thor 3 are processed factory movies. Thor Ragnarok and GOTG are not supposed to be a movie about humor. Its not the back bones of the comics. They only thing GOTG and Thor 3 overshadowed is how smarter the comics are and that is a bad thing, but it gets worse when you realize Disney stories are overshadowing Marvel stories in Marvel movies.

Never said it did. My point is that X-Men's role in creating the blockbusters overshadowed any role in had in serious comic book movies, and even there, it's just a footnote compared to other stuff that was being made. Heck,

We are talking about serious movies not blockbusters, blockbusters are purely financial. I already said the blockbuster game changer belongs to Spiderman not X-Men. Stop mixing them up.

I have yet to see any confirmation that X-Men actually did influence the serious superhero movie genre; it was hardly the first, since Blade beat them to that, and the Nolan Batman movies were drawing from Batman's history, not the X-Men movies, for going dark and serious.

Its said everywhere. Its already has been brought up ''even here'', Truth to be told.
Every comic book podcaster on youtube says so. Everyone reminds people what X-Men 1 and X-Men 2 represented anytime there is a bad x-men film. Things seem to be getting desperate here, believe me you will find it very difficult defending reboot X-Men if and IF Reboot xmen turns out to be another formulaic mcu movie that ain't ''serious enough'' for X-Men.

Besides, at the end of the day, The Dark Knight, not X-Men 1, was the game-changer that popularized dark and gritty. Whenever X-Men's seriousness comes up in the conversation, it's always an aside feature in how it tried to save itself from the past and how that played into it's overshadowed role of bringing back comic book movies.

The Dark Knight took it to another level after X-Men 1 and X-Men 2, doesn't mean X-men was wiped out , far from it. TDK still paid tribute to X-Men. Logan took it to another level after The Dark Knight. Though I wonder if TDK will be ''The TDK'' if not for the sad passing of Heath that unbelievable elevated the movie. I just remembered GOTG 2, Thor 3, and Spiderman Homecoming all ''overshadowed'' Logan. My apologies. I was in an alternate reality. When I got back to my own reality I saw almost everyone, including DC fans embracing Logan, Enjoying to see another movie raise the bar after TDK.

In a post-Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange universe, I have to call bull on that. We're getting far more complex scenes and designs that really open the worlds of the films and make for more interesting story-telling.

Have you heard of Parpirka instead of Dr Strange? GOTG is one of the worst ones. Places in Star Trek from Vulcan, Romulan to The Klingon empire are more realstic to the eyes than GOTG.

Thanos is a big giant purple alien. If you can't get onboard with that, maybe these kinds of movies aren't your thing.

There are other ways MCU could have made him look better, No doubt, it would be a challenge for George Lucas or James Cameron but I am sure they would have figured out something better.

Nightcrawler is also a character who has the right size and designs that makeup could create the character without much CGI. He also had a good actor in the role, which Thanos can claim as well. Also, Thanos turned out a lot better then Apocalypse did despite the latter being practical effects as well, esp.

My comparison to Thanos was Nightcrawler not Apocalypse.

in terms of being able to emote and looking real and not like a cosplayer.

Thanos did not look like a cosplayer, he looked like an animated character. Alan's Nightcrawler looked like a human flesh demon.

Good scene, to be sure, but I'd take the scuffle the Guardians had in their first movie over this one; that one combined action and character work by showing us who they were by their fighting styles. The X2 scene works to set up the tension that the bad guy's plot revolved around, but not much else.

I won't take GOTG. I would have to ask myself this question: why should my live action movie look animated with zero realness? If I want a better GOTG , Star Wars 3 Yoda vs Palpatine. I am taking a better filmmaking option with X2 to Disney's GOTG , as it feels more like I am making a movie where the most important objective is to be eye candy for children. Why would I take that when I know comic movies are more than eye candy to kids?

Also, the reason the scene works is not because of practical effects or being "grounded," but because of the cinematography, editing, and acting.

Mostly things MCU doesn't know. X2 is not to be compared with any MCU movie. it has a better film prospect than the sterilized MCU , but this was the era of serious movies, obviously the filmmaking was a lot more demanding.

Like I said before, you want to push them in a box and don't react that well when they don't fit because they are a different kind of film, e.g. insisting that Endgame was supposed to be a dark dystopia and judging it badly for not following that blueprint despite it not being a dystopia story.

Endgame did not meet the expectations of what it was obviously supposed to be. I was wise enough to point that out. Endgame has all the same tropes as any time travel movie that has some level of darkness, world in ruins aftermath to it. Why should I look at it any lower or lesser than the others. Must we always lower the scale for MCU? Gohan, Xavier, Thomas, Picard....Fat Thor? I expect fat thor in a pixar film, not an MCU film.

Gotta break it to you, but the MCU and sequel trilogy are closer in tone to the old Star Wars movies then not. Rewatch ANH sometime and keep track of how many one-liners are spread throughout it.

Star Wars 7 and 8 is a better comparison for the MCU. The old star wars movies were not as adult oriented as star trek, but they are far ahead of the MCU in that department.

Not from what I've seen.

Because Spiderman is a pixar ? not anymore than mutants are? I am reading Bendis X-Men finally. enjoying it so far, has a lot of new mutant children characters, I am not really seeing Pixar callbacks. should I expect the same for MCU or is MCU going to make children mutants like pixar as they are doing with marvel characters. talk about a waste of time if it happens. A different waste than Kingberg's X-Men.

[luprki]

Kevin Feige needs to resign now. He should leave while he’s still on top. It’s all downhill at this point

[Celestial]

Kevin Feige needs to resign now. He should leave while he’s still on top. It’s all downhill at this point

Lol. Imagine thinking this. Endgame is the top grossing movie of all time and Spider man FFH made a billion dollars. Feige ain’t going nowhere.

[ChildOfTheAtom]

Kevin Feige needs to resign now. He should leave while he’s still on top. It’s all downhill at this point

I agree! Hire Simon Kinberg!!

[Celestial]

I agree! Hire Simon Kinberg!!

[luprki]

I agree! Hire Simon Kinberg!!

Either way, the future of the MCU is on the down slide.

[Maestro 216]

I see Phase 4 as the experiment phase, but to suggest the MCU will die now as in the next year is downright foolish. Dislike it, but right now it prints money.

[Grey]

Kevin Feige needs to resign now. He should leave while he’s still on top. It’s all downhill at this point

This makes me realize you’re just trolling. Almost nobody would leave a job that nets them so much creative power and money even if it were on a downward trend- unless they were unhappy with the job.

If you’re not trolling, feel free to explain why you think he should / wants to resign.