X-Continuity: the X-Men Movie Timeline website finally fixing all mistakes!

[Jokerz79]

That's not an indication of quality. LOL

Well than why did you mention critic acclaim and box office success if they're not a measure of quality?

[WebLurker]

Let's not focus on the ridiculous Fox-Men films, let's just look forward to the new ones yet to come in the MCU!

Sorry, I'd rather get something new, like that X-23 solo movie that was supposed to happen, over a re-hash of movies I've already got on the shelf. Besides, last time the MCU rebooted another company's Marvel series in Spider-Man, as good as it was, it didn't compare to the originals.

Ridiculous is WHO doesn't understand the greatness of the critically-acclaimed and highly successful Fox-Men movies. Adult superhero movies, you know, not comedies like "Ragnarok".

Hey now! Some of us like happen to like both the current X-Men series and the MCU stuff like Ragnarok.

[yogaflame]

Besides, last time the MCU rebooted another company's Marvel series in Spider-Man, as good as it was, it didn't compare to the originals.

Sam's Spidey Movies >>>>>> Singer's X-Men movies.

[WebLurker]

Sam's Spidey Movies >>>>>> Singer's X-Men movies.

I do like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies better overall, but I would put Brian Singer's Days of Future Past and X2 high up there, too. The former is among my most favorites of the genre.

(Besides, my point was that I don't think the MCU Spidey movies hold a candle to the Raimi ones and I'm foreseeing the same problem for any MCU X-Men movies. Whatever low points they've had, they've hit some really high ones as well, not to mention a few pieces of casting on the level of JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson.)

[yogaflame]

In terms of bringing the character(s)/mythos to the screen, the Raimi Spider-Man films did faaaaaaaaaarrrrrr more than the Singer X-Men films. The MCU could make 20 X-Men films and never touch the same material in the Fox-Men films because Fox barely scratched the surface of their characters/mythos.

[Mutant 77]

I do like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies better overall, but I would put Brian Singer's Days of Future Past and X2 high up there, too. The former is among my most favorites of the genre.

(Besides, my point was that I don't think the MCU Spidey movies hold a candle to the Raimi ones and I'm foreseeing the same problem for any MCU X-Men movies. Whatever low points they've had, they've hit some really high ones as well, not to mention a few pieces of casting on the level of JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson.)

Well, Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" is a huge classic and a terrific movie, despite the Power Ranger-esque Green Goblin (which looks iconic anyway).

"Spider-Man 2" was visually wonderful, but had a void screenplay and Toby was just weak, very weak on it. Still, it's a great movie, but not superior to the first one.

"Spider-Man 3" had a great Sandman and few impressive visuals, but everything else was just ridiculous or redundant.

[Mutant 77]

In terms of bringing the character(s)/mythos to the screen, the Raimi Spider-Man films did faaaaaaaaaarrrrrr more than the Singer X-Men films. The MCU could make 20 X-Men films and never touch the same material in the Fox-Men films because Fox barely scratched the surface of their characters/mythos.

That's not true at all. Like it ot not, some X-Men movies are regarded as big masterpieces all around the globe, and even the least of the bunch, 'Origins', is a fun and interesting superhero movie.

[WhiteQueenEmmaFrost]

I do like the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies better overall,

I saw the first one...but skipped everything after that...it was very confusing why they kept rebooting the franchise so quickly with very much the same storylines ...before the box office was cold they were hiring a new Spiderman

[Mutant 77]

I saw the first one...but skipped everything after that...it was very confusing why they kept rebooting the franchise so quickly with very much the same storylines ...before the box office was cold they were hiring a new Spiderman

That's true. LOL

[WebLurker]

In terms of bringing the character(s)/mythos to the screen, the Raimi Spider-Man films did faaaaaaaaaarrrrrr more than the Singer X-Men films. The MCU could make 20 X-Men films and never touch the same material in the Fox-Men films because Fox barely scratched the surface of their characters/mythos.

Well, the X-Men franchise is far more sprawling then the Spider-Man one is, so it is a given that the former still has a lot more untapped material. That said, they've also dome more content with their movies with less re-hashing then the Spider-Man movies as a whole.

Well, Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" is a huge classic and a terrific movie, despite the Power Ranger-esque Green Goblin (which looks iconic anyway).

"Spider-Man 2" was visually wonderful, but had a void screenplay and Toby was just weak, very weak on it. Still, it's a great movie, but not superior to the first one.

"Spider-Man 3" had a great Sandman and few impressive visuals, but everything else was just ridiculous or redundant.

I agree about the first movie. I found the second movie to be an improvement on all points on the first (although I will concede that the first one remains the most re-watchable). I think the third one is flawed (it deserves the jab that Into the Spider-Verse gave the dancing scene), but I do think the good outweighs the bad by a good margin.

I saw the first one...but skipped everything after that...it was very confusing why they kept rebooting the franchise so quickly with very much the same storylines ...before the box office was cold they were hiring a new Spiderman

The reason the first reboot happened was because plans for a fourth Raimi movie fell apart and the MCU one happened when the two reboot movies didn't do as well as expected. As far as why Sony keeps making them, they need to keep them coming to keep the film rights. As fa as why so many of the reboots rehashed earlier movies, I think that the creative teams making them take the blame for that.

[Hurricane D]

Sam's Spidey Movies >>>>>> Singer's X-Men movies.

Spider-verse >>>>> X-Men movies

[WebLurker]

Spider-verse >>>>> X-Men movies

I liked Spider-Verse better myself, but I don't really see the point in comparing them like that.

[yogaflame]

Spider-verse >>>>> X-Men movies

I mean, basically.

Fox rehashed the same Magneto/Xavier beats ad nauseam, and did a Hollywoodified Wolverine ad nauseam, and whatever that was that was supposed to be Mystique. They barely touched the X-Men lore, and butchered what they did.

There is a ton of completely unexplored terrain to cover at this point.

Spider-Man is a relatively simple franchise in comparison to X-Men, and both the old Raimi movies and the newer MCU/Sony ones have been exploring it well. I look forward to a new approach to the X-Men that actually respects the canon and isn't afraid of the more fantastic and sci-fi elements that Fox was.

[Theleviathan]

I liked Spider-Verse better myself, but I don't really see the point in comparing them like that.



I have found that pro-Fox X-Men movie people are becoming rarer and rarer as time goes on.

After X3 the stinkers in this franchise started to pile up. Spiderman 3 was bad, but even that stink-fest didn't compare to X3 or Origins.

It's sad that a movie universe that is three times rebooted is still arguably better than the X-universe. That's.....depressing.

[Mutant 77]

After X3 the stinkers in this franchise started to pile up. Spiderman 3 was bad, but even that stink-fest didn't compare to X3 or Origins.

.

If you watch X3 without the "X-Men comic book fan eyes", it's undoubtely a bleak and exciting superhero movie with some impressive and brilliant sequences. The screenplay was also very good, despite they killed Cyclops and gave the Phoenix not much screentime.
'Origins' suffered from production issues and even some minor FX issues, but it's a fun and entertaining superhero movie, very close to the source Wolverine solo comic book in its early stages.

There are several masterpieces in the X-Men movie franchise and nobody can't deny that.