Page 34 of 37 FirstFirst ... 243031323334353637 LastLast
Results 496 to 510 of 544
  1. #496
    Astonishing Member Zelena's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    2,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    But why? We know all the details about why Magneto feels like that, can't say the same for Emma Frost. She's mostly there to look pretty and giving stupid speeches to the CIA when she could escape at any time in their custody. Even Apocalypse motives weren't that deep.
    The problem is there are a lot of characters in these movies. X-men fans are used to have detailed backstories because it is usually the case in comics.

    But in the short time of the movie, it’s not possible with so many characters. So they use “archetypes”: the “femme fatale” (Emma Frost), the power-hungry villain (Shaw), the henchmen (the rest)…

    It’s only frustrating if you see the movie thinking of the comics.

  2. #497
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    So Loki is a moot point. He hasn’t been a villain since avengers and even then he was made to be a misguided hero
    Calling Loki a hero after Avengers is stretching. He got character development but he was an anti-hero at best and has been betraying Thor since Ragnanok and with Infinity War it was in his interests to team up with Asgard against Thanos. His tv show will be regressing him back to being a villain from the alternate timeline from Endgame. This is remarkably more redeemable and valid than the X-franchise obsession of lionising magneto despite him threatening humanity again and again and Xavier not caring about the people he's murdered. He did more destruction by his own hand than Loki did with the Chitauri army.



    When I say development I mean internal story development not character development. If I could take ten years to make a character I’m sure I’d come up with something decent
    Which they did, Thanos was a hit. He got more depth than Apocalypse and Trask did. The bulk of his characterisation was in two films, where he had a big role in.

    Thanks for reminding of the boring old white guy who got outshined by his henchman
    Pearce was a very relevant update on HYDRA and he was great in the scene he had. He also was the type of person the X-men would rightly fear if he was in the X-franchise. When the henchmen is doing a magnificent rendition of the Terminator of course he's going to be outclassed, and the fact the henchmen has their name on the movie title.



    The first half was interesting but at the end he just dissolved into a cgi monstrosity with his care and love for Quill just being a front with no real emotion behind the battle. Instead Gunn used it to imitate Pixels
    The first half didn't stop being interesting, that's what people talk about when they say Ego is a good villain.


    Well for one he talks about racism and oppression but we never see any of it. The movie just assumes you know enough about American politics to understand this. The two foremost rules of movies is show don’t tell and don’t assume your audience. Black Panther fails at both. Then at the end he decides he wants to conquer the world because the movie needs to raise the stakes for the 3rd act as if having a sociopath ruling the single most technologically advanced nation wasn’t enough. Like did it really matter if Agent Ross destroyed those gun ships? Couldn’t TChalla just order them not to attack when he took his thrown back?
    This is something the entire world had no trouble understanding, do you not understand how bad America is with colonalism and racism? That was always going to end with Killmonger, the movie set that up from the beginning. There was no shades of grey with Killmonger, that's why he murders his girlfriend without any remorse. He's never not been a sociopath in that movie. It defines him just as much as how he's been hurt by the world. Yes, those War Dogs weren't allies of T'Challa they were loyal to Killmonger. By the time he took the throne Ross would have been killed by them and they would hav escaped because nobody is going to stick around after that unless they're very stupid.

    Variety? You mean the same variety Wanda and Pietro had? Ghost was barely even the villain it was Lawrence fishburn. Like Ghost was the poor man’s winter soldier.
    Ghost is the villain/antagonist in Antman, she tries too murder Scott and Hope through the movie. There's been tremendous variety of villains from the MCU: businessmen, secret societies, Nazis, alien invaders of various stripes - the Dark Elves weren't like the Chituari, time travelling alien armadas, Nebula's slow transformation into a hero, rogue alien Kree terrorists, sympathetic refugees fighting for their lives against an alien empire, world ending AI's.


    No Thor did not need to be turned into a ham fest. Making something funny or campy doesn’t make it good. GotG can be hammy because it was a new property but what Waititi did was no better than what Ryan Johnson did in last Jedi and we see the russos backtracking on everything he did. Thor loses his eye-he gets a new eye, he doesn’t need his hammer-he gets a new one, Thor was a goofball-Thor is serious now.
    Thor was the most boring thing in his movies until Ragnarok. Many, many people disagree. Thor was a goofball in Endgame. Not that Thor in the comics can't be hammy, he's known for space opera epics and fights people like Amora the Enchantress.

    Deeper than most mcu villains
    Only by numbers, and Marvel improved over time. It took years before they gave Sabretooth a personality. The Sentinels don't have any personality to speak of. The only villain worth anything in X3 was Magneto, they wasted the Dark Phoenix when she first appeared, named mutants in the Brotherhood rarely get the depth Magneto or Mystique get, and Trask is hardly the average X-villain in the films.



    Dude people hated Jennifer Lawerence as Mystique and being a hero. Romjin as Mystique was creepy, cold and at times seductive. Lawerence became less and less of that was the series sent on. Just because a villain doesn’t have a cliche tragic backstory doesn’t make them good. Sometimes one dimensional villains can be amazing. Palpatine and Joker are perfect examples of these Why are they evil? No real reason. Making Mystique a reluctant hero just worked less and less as the series went on. In first class we see Erik imprinting on her and how she and Charles always disagreed eventually leading to her leaving Charles to join Erik, then in DoFP she was focused on saving mutants and only stopped Erik so he wouldn’t use the sentinels and proving the public’s fears (as if lifting the entire stadium wasn’t enough) then we get Apocalypse where she constantly whines about being idolized while playing hero and then in Dark Phoenix she is basically the leader of the x men until she is killed off
    Personally, I liked Lawrence over Romijn. It's true people disliked how they made her into a hero, because how they did it was with no good transition and Lawrence grew tired of the franchise. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to make Mystique an idol of millions after what she did in DOFP, all she did was no kill Trask on national tv. She'd still be a big enemy to the government and the mutants wouldn't welcome her with open arms so quickly. I don't get why Storm idolised her so much. It's a really bad transition, but the Mystique from DOFP is my gold standard in live action.

    Again that is like me expecting the Hydra soldiers to have deep backstories. Shaw was proto magneto and symbolic that Erik would become his greatest enemy
    Shaw was a poor man's Magneto. Why does he hate humanity? Something something evolution. Named characters should be getting far more characterisation, which they lacked in the X-films for many, many years. The Brotherhood, Apocalypse Horsemen, and the Hellfire Club all suffer from this. The best Horsemen in Apocalypse were the ones in the past and they barely spoke. Arnim Zola, Winter Soldier and Crossbones felt more like actual people than most of the Brotherhood.

    Yes absolutely he was better than blank slates like Whiplash or the Dark Elf. Sure his design could’ve been better but Oscar Isaac was fantastic
    Oscar Isaac is a letdown as Apocalypse, he gets a few nice moments but overall a failure. The X film franchise is filled with villains as boring as those examples.

  3. #498
    Astonishing Member Killerbee911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelena View Post
    The problem is there are a lot of characters in these movies. X-men fans are used to have detailed backstories because it is usually the case in comics.

    But in the short time of the movie, it’s not possible with so many characters. So they use “archetypes”: the “femme fatale” (Emma Frost), the power-hungry villain (Shaw), the henchmen (the rest)…

    It’s only frustrating if you see the movie thinking of the comics.

    Why even have the X-men property if you are going to generic adapt the characters and stories, First Class could have been done with out involving the X-men franchise, What is gain from the X-men franchise in that movie other than naming characters and power sets. I mean Magneto story is the probably lone thing that really ties to it being X-men franchise, his origin in Nazi concentration camp is maybe lone element that is irreplaceable . Otherwise you could change everyone names and not lose a single thing from the set up.

    Seriously they could have used the characters from say Alphas, Heroes, 4400 ,Tomorrow people, Mutant X and done the same story. Why did they need the X-men to tell that story? I can give you the answer they want the X-men popularity because it guarantees a certain amount of sales. Why is the X-men popular? the comic stories and characters. Sticking the X on things helps to make money that you wouldn't without that name. "We the fans" who cares about the stories and characters are the element they want we are guarantee base for ticket sales and merchandising but you are here like just screw the source material it doesn't matter. If the stories and personalities(which is the result of stories) don't matter why don't they just use any characters. Heck they can just make up characters and tell original stories.

    Wolverine matters because of his stories,Magneto matters because of his stories, The X-men matter because of their stories. The X-men franchise aren't just cool designs to do whatever you want with them. Yes the comics aren't flawless, so yeah translating them straight to big screen is impossible. Comics have especially Marvel who hasn't reboot has years convoluted continuity that badly needs to be clean up but framework of stories are great and that is were good adapting comes in. This isn't a cry that comics are sacred and changeable .Very often movies get to fix things that are clearly broken in the franchise. Adding layer that Mystique and Professor X were close is pretty smart it makes when she turns to antagonist more complex. That is something that would work well in comic world and make for better Mystique. The point is changing stuff isn't bad.

    Comic book movies are like surgery ,yes you have to operate on a person but goal is the make as few changes as necessary trying to keep everything in tact. Even when it is major heart surgery you are doing, you don't want to be replacing other organs. Fox was just ripping out organs for no reason. The Phoenix Saga need to be fixed as in tweaked but elements like the Hellfire Club, Shiar, Genocide of billions are big parts of the story. Nobody is saying to be slave story where you can't do the necessary "major heart surgery" to the story. But you got understand the big picture of the franchise and try to keep elements in tact so you can tell other major stories because all these things are interconnected.

    I will say it again Avengers took as much liberties with changing stuff as the X-men but MCU in general kept the big major elements in tact and told things in the spirit of the original story. MCU stuff felt like a reboot story where they are retelling a familiar story with clear changes because they are putting it correct time period, Fox X-men felt more like an Alt reality stories where nothing is the same. I mean there is a clear difference between stories like Age of X, House of M, Age of Apocalypse and stories like Ultimate X-men, X-men Evolution, and Wolverine and X-men.
    Last edited by Killerbee911; 09-06-2020 at 03:03 AM.

  4. #499
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    Calling Loki a hero after Avengers is stretching. He got character development but he was an anti-hero at best and has been betraying Thor since Ragnanok and with Infinity War it was in his interests to team up with Asgard against Thanos. His tv show will be regressing him back to being a villain from the alternate timeline from Endgame. This is remarkably more redeemable and valid than the X-franchise obsession of lionising magneto despite him threatening humanity again and again and Xavier not caring about the people he's murdered. He did more destruction by his own hand than Loki did with the Chitauri army.

    There was no development. He just turns good for no reason

    Which they did, Thanos was a hit. He got more depth than Apocalypse and Trask did. The bulk of his characterisation was in two films, where he had a big role in.
    Again if I had 10 years to make a character I could make it work too

    Pearce was a very relevant update on HYDRA and he was great in the scene he had. He also was the type of person the X-men would rightly fear if he was in the X-franchise. When the henchmen is doing a magnificent rendition of the Terminator of course he's going to be outclassed, and the fact the henchmen has their name on the movie title.

    You criticize Shaw for not having motivations to be evil but what about pierce?


    The first half didn't stop being interesting, that's what people talk about when they say Ego is a good villain.
    But it was undone because ego was just faking it to win Quill over. You need to stick the landing and guardians 2 land flat on its face


    This is something the entire world had no trouble understanding, do you not understand how bad America is with colonalism and racism? That was always going to end with Killmonger, the movie set that up from the beginning. There was no shades of grey with Killmonger, that's why he murders his girlfriend without any remorse. He's never not been a sociopath in that movie. It defines him just as much as how he's been hurt by the world. Yes, those War Dogs weren't allies of T'Challa they were loyal to Killmonger. By the time he took the throne Ross would have been killed by them and they would hav escaped because nobody is going to stick around after that unless they're very stupid.
    Again breaking two rules of cinema. Not everyone is educated on that subject. I also don’t know what happened to Eric to get his world view. I mean he went to West Point so for all I can assume he had a pretty good childhood. So no you can’t just get away with assuming the audience knows this I could easily just assume he had a good childhood with no racism and had a successful career at west point. People complained in BvS it didn’t explain why people were afraid of superman but humans are xenophobic and it’s pretty natural

    Ghost is the villain/antagonist in Antman, she tries too murder Scott and Hope through the movie. There's been tremendous variety of villains from the MCU: businessmen, secret societies, Nazis, alien invaders of various stripes - the Dark Elves weren't like the Chituari, time travelling alien armadas, Nebula's slow transformation into a hero, rogue alien Kree terrorists, sympathetic refugees fighting for their lives against an alien empire, world ending AI's.
    I don’t care about variety if they’re garbage and the Skrulls change was beyond stupid. Already bad enough they gave Carol Mar Vell’s origin


    Thor was the most boring thing in his movies until Ragnarok. Many, many people disagree. Thor was a goofball in Endgame. Not that Thor in the comics can't be hammy, he's known for space opera epics and fights people like Amora the Enchantress.
    Why because he wasn’t cracking jokes all the time? Well people say Cyclops was boring so i guess just make him funny. Thor was still boring in Ragnarok. Thor was depressed in Endgame with fat jokes. Thor May have hammy adventures but Thor himself isn’t


    Shaw was a poor man's Magneto. Why does he hate humanity? Something something evolution. Named characters should be getting far more characterisation, which they lacked in the X-films for many, many years. The Brotherhood, Apocalypse Horsemen, and the Hellfire Club all suffer from this. The best Horsemen in Apocalypse were the ones in the past and they barely spoke. Arnim Zola, Winter Soldier and Crossbones felt more like actual people than most of the Brotherhood.
    Because mutants are superior. What more do you need? And no crossbones had no character. You act like they need to give everyone detailed backstories and explanations. Most X Men villains in the comics are pretty one not. You still exempt the mcu from this

    Oscar Isaac is a letdown as Apocalypse, he gets a few nice moments but overall a failure. The X film franchise is filled with villains as boring as those examples.
    I disagree. He was excellent
    Last edited by Dboi2001; 09-06-2020 at 06:33 AM.

  5. #500
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killerbee911 View Post
    Why even have the X-men property if you are going to generic adapt the characters and stories, First Class could have been done with out involving the X-men franchise, What is gain from the X-men franchise in that movie other than naming characters and power sets. I mean Magneto story is the probably lone thing that really ties to it being X-men franchise, his origin in Nazi concentration camp is maybe lone element that is irreplaceable . Otherwise you could change everyone names and not lose a single thing from the set up.
    Why make the Avengers and GotG when you’re going to change them?

    I will say it again Avengers took as much liberties with changing stuff as the X-men but MCU in general kept the big major elements in tact and told things in the spirit of the original story. MCU stuff felt like a reboot story where they are retelling a familiar story with clear changes because they are putting it correct time period, Fox X-men felt more like an Alt reality stories where nothing is the same. I mean there is a clear difference between stories like Age of X, House of M, Age of Apocalypse and stories like Ultimate X-men, X-men Evolution, and Wolverine and X-men.
    They don’t keep the elements. James Gunn stomped on the comics elements. The MCU is doing it’s own thing showing no respect for its legacy characters and chasing the current trends. It is nothing like the comics in spirit or in practice

  6. #501
    Astonishing Member Killerbee911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    3,637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Why make the Avengers and GotG when you’re going to change them?
    Why even quote the post if you don't even read the post. I clearly stated why they change things. I even clearly said Avengers took as much liberties with source material as X-men and what was difference in what was happening.

    But anyways anytime someone talks about Guardians of Galaxy changes in a bad way I know they are out of touch reality. Guardians was blank slate because the books never worked. There is vast difference between property that is successful working and reimagining property that has failed. Gunn stomped comic elements because they have never worked.

    PS- Avengers heavily pulled from the Ultimates comic run and did a good job of merging the modern setting of Ultimates with classic elements of Avengers stories when it made sense.
    Last edited by Killerbee911; 09-06-2020 at 09:15 AM.

  7. #502
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    11,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killerbee911 View Post
    Why even quote the post if you don't even read the post. I clearly stated why they change things. I even clearly said Avengers took as much liberties with source material as X-men and what was difference in what was happening.

    But anyways anytime someone talks about Guardians of Galaxy changes in a bad way I know they are out of touch reality. Guardians was blank slate because the books never worked. There is vast difference between property that is successful working and reimagining property that has failed. Gunn stomped comic elements because they have never worked.

    PS- Avengers heavily pulled from the Ultimates comic run and did a good job of merging the modern setting of Ultimates with classic elements of Avengers stories when it made sense.
    The biggest bits I have seen taken from the Ultimate line of comics is the visual aesthetics. The characterization is much more standard in most cases.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  8. #503
    Ultimate Member Gray Lensman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    11,755

    Default

    Although as an aside, a quick stop over at wikipedia shows that Gunn's reboot of Starlord isn't the first time this has been done to him. His personal reboots make it seem like he is a DC character.
    "Theory: The Phoenix doesn't corrupt the characters, it corrupts the authors." Gambit, King of Thieves

  9. #504
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    7,450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    There was no development. He just turns good for no reason
    Dunno; he remains generally self-serving, but seems to have some level of standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Again if I had 10 years to make a character I could make it work too
    You're missing the point; while the character has been built up as a future threat, it still wasn't until the last two movies that they actually established his characterization in full beyond "mad Titan who wants the Infinity Stones because something something evil," and when they got there, he was more fleshed out then most comic book movie villains are.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    You criticize Shaw for not having motivations to be evil but what about pierce?
    Unlike Shaw, Pierce's motivations are explained in the movie: "Our enemies are your enemies, Nick. Disorder. War. It's just a matter of time before a dirty bomb goes off in Moscow or an EMP fries Chicago. Diplomacy? A holding action, Nick. A band-aid. And you know where I learned that: Bogotá. You didn't ask, you just did what had to be done. I can bring order to the lives of seven billion people... by sacrificing twenty million. It's the next step, Nick. If you have the courage to take it."


    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    But it was undone because ego was just faking it to win Quill over. You need to stick the landing and guardians 2 land flat on its face
    Dunno, Ego's real plans were pretty well foreshadowed and his main reason for turning on Quill was because he refused to play ball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Again breaking two rules of cinema. Not everyone is educated on that subject. I also don’t know what happened to Eric to get his world view. I mean he went to West Point so for all I can assume he had a pretty good childhood. So no you can’t just get away with assuming the audience knows this I could easily just assume he had a good childhood with no racism and had a successful career at west point. People complained in BvS it didn’t explain why people were afraid of superman but humans are xenophobic and it’s pretty natural
    Showing him growing up in poverty sets things up (and, sadly, racial inequality in America is a well-known fact), and Killmonger explains his worldview in full. Heck, he's one of the better fleshed-out villains in terms of motivation and how he arrived at his final conculsions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    I don’t care about variety if they’re garbage and the Skrulls change was beyond stupid. Already bad enough they gave Carol Mar Vell’s origin
    Dunno how changing the Skrulls from "evil race" to being "no more or less evil then anyone else" was a bad thing. So far as changing up the origin, A.) Carol's original origin was a crap one (to the extent that they had to use retcons to actually give her a level of agency), B.) since the original Captain Marvel was not a major character in the franchise and Carol was being positioned as the first, her origin story would need to be adjusted to fit that, and C.) reimagining Mar-Vell as Wendy Lawson was designed to parallel the original source material in a way that fit the new context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Why because he wasn’t cracking jokes all the time? Well people say Cyclops was boring so i guess just make him funny. Thor was still boring in Ragnarok. Thor was depressed in Endgame with fat jokes. Thor May have hammy adventures but Thor himself isn’t
    Honestly, Thor has always been the butt of jokes in the MCU, it's just that the previous movies did that in the context of more conventional adventures instead of deciding to have comedy be the main tone for the adventure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Because mutants are superior. What more do you need?
    Um, everything? As we've seen, some mutants see their powers as something to put themselves above other people, some use them to become criminals, others become heroes, and still others just want to lead normal lives. Character motivations help set up why they pick the paths they do. Even if it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that an amoral guy with power will probably be happy using it to exploit people for his own ends, you still need the backstory and motivations to make them a three-dimensional character.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    And no crossbones had no character.
    Dunno, he was show to have a professional air while undercover as a loyal agent, was pretty vengeful when crossed, and was taking glee in beating up Falcon for trying to stop HYDRA. Heck, we see he was as nervous as the other HYDRA agents assigned to capture Cap in the elevator, despite having the advantage in numbers. For a minor villain, that's not too bad. Certainly wish some of the named bad guy mooks in the X-Men movies had as much characterization.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    You act like they need to give everyone detailed backstories and explanations.
    It's called "good writing." You don't need write a whole biography either; Magneto's backstory only took up a few minutes in the first x-Men movie and still told us everything we needed to know about who he was and why he was fighting the rest of humanity as a terrorist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    Most X Men villains in the comics are pretty one not. You still exempt the mcu from this
    It's all case-by-case. Also not sure how comparing comics to movies holds up; different mediums, with different ways of communicating information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    I disagree. He was excellent
    As a character, he was pretty generic once you get past his presence and ambition.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  10. #505
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Killerbee911 View Post
    Why even quote the post if you don't even read the post. I clearly stated why they change things. I even clearly said Avengers took as much liberties with source material as X-men and what was difference in what was happening.

    But anyways anytime someone talks about Guardians of Galaxy changes in a bad way I know they are out of touch reality. Guardians was blank slate because the books never worked. There is vast difference between property that is successful working and reimagining property that has failed. Gunn stomped comic elements because they have never worked.

    PS- Avengers heavily pulled from the Ultimates comic run and did a good job of merging the modern setting of Ultimates with classic elements of Avengers stories when it made sense.
    First off being unpopular and being poor quality are not hand and hand. Abnett’s run in 2008 was very well receiving. Marvel Cosmic has never been a top seller and never will because they’re more space adventure than traditional comic book heroics. Like people are talking about a Nova movie when Nova has never been a top seller or well known to the public. Gunn’s gotg are worse than Abnett’s and the subsequent comics that try to take elements from it ended up being a flop and seeing even lower sales than before. So please if Gunn’s gotg is so great why are the guardians still low tier in sales and constantly getting rebooted? They’ve had like 6 different relaunches since 2013 some taking a lot from the movie others doing it’s own thing but none have gotten the critical acclaim or even sale numbers as the 2008 series

    The first 2 Avengers did pull from Ultimates but at this point the MCU is its own thing all together

  11. #506
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    Dunno; he remains generally self-serving, but seems to have some level of standards.
    He still became good for no reason

    You're missing the point; while the character has been built up as a future threat, it still wasn't until the last two movies that they actually established his characterization in full beyond "mad Titan who wants the Infinity Stones because something something evil," and when they got there, he was more fleshed out then most comic book movie villains are.
    No you are missing my point. I never said Thanos was bad but Marvel Studios had ten years to make him good. Anyone with that kind of time will make something of some decent quality. And comic thanos motives was he worshiped death believing it was only the natural order of the universe. Different but not bad or worse


    Dunno, Ego's real plans were pretty well foreshadowed and his main reason for turning on Quill was because he refused to play ball.
    more like an obvious red herring. Like my friend who knew nothing of comics could tell from the start Ego was the villain and it was all an act. They have him act like Jesus Christ for the entire 2/3rds and then becomes another marvel villain.

    Showing him growing up in poverty sets things up (and, sadly, racial inequality in America is a well-known fact), and Killmonger explains his worldview in full. Heck, he's one of the better fleshed-out villains in terms of motivation and how he arrived at his final conculsions.
    We see about 2 minutes of him in Oakland and that’s it. For all I know he could’ve been taken to a nice well funded adoption agency and adopted by wealthy well off people

    Dunno how changing the Skrulls from "evil race" to being "no more or less evil then anyone else" was a bad thing. So far as changing up the origin, A.) Carol's original origin was a crap one (to the extent that they had to use retcons to actually give her a level of agency), B.) since the original Captain Marvel was not a major character in the franchise and Carol was being positioned as the first, her origin story would need to be adjusted to fit that, and C.) reimagining Mar-Vell as Wendy Lawson was designed to parallel the original source material in a way that fit the new context.
    Because they are bland and generic and kills any potential for them in favor of a half backed preachy message. As for Carol you say her new origin adds agency when all they did was copy the white male’s origin. Yeah real agency. And Wendy Lawson was a slap in the face. Like what if they made a female comic character male would that be okay?

    Honestly, Thor has always been the butt of jokes in the MCU, it's just that the previous movies did that in the context of more conventional adventures instead of deciding to have comedy be the main tone for the adventure.
    No he wasn’t. Ragnarok is straight up the last jedi of marvel

    Um, everything? As we've seen, some mutants see their powers as something to put themselves above other people, some use them to become criminals, others become heroes, and still others just want to lead normal lives. Character motivations help set up why they pick the paths they do. Even if it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that an amoral guy with power will probably be happy using it to exploit people for his own ends, you still need the backstory and motivations to make them a three-dimensional character.
    At Shaw’s introduction i makes he makes it. clear he believes that if humanity is going to prosper the strong genes must survive. Again adding backstories would be unnecessary. Why does Sauron want to destroy Middle Earth? Why does Palpatine want to rule the galaxy?

    Dunno, he was show to have a professional air while undercover as a loyal agent, was pretty vengeful when crossed, and was taking glee in beating up Falcon for trying to stop HYDRA. Heck, we see he was as nervous as the other HYDRA agents assigned to capture Cap in the elevator, despite having the advantage in numbers. For a minor villain, that's not too bad. Certainly wish some of the named bad guy mooks in the X-Men movies had as much characterization.
    I could describe most of the Hellfire club like that. He was a 1 note henchman. Again giving the mcu the benefit of the doubt

    It's called "good writing." You don't need write a whole biography either; Magneto's backstory only took up a few minutes in the first x-Men movie and still told us everything we needed to know about who he was and why he was fighting the rest of humanity as a terrorist.
    So what would’ve the hellfire club’s origin exactly add onto the movie?

    It's all case-by-case. Also not sure how comparing comics to movies holds up; different mediums, with different ways of communicating information.
    Ok then what’s Azulzel’s deal? Or pre reforming Emma Frost? Regardless they weren’t the focus of the movie

    As a character, he was pretty generic once you get past his presence and ambition.
    And most MCU villains aren’t? His motives have always been strongest survive what more can you add?

  12. #507
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    @Jack The Tripper BTW I love how you claimed you would criticize Feige but did none of that in the comments
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack The Tripper View Post
    I have already stated I have problems with Feige not introducing more women of colour. Hopefully this will change with X-men. If it was his choice to pander to China for Doctor Strange then I have a problem with that too. I don't like that he didnt let Edgar Wright do what he wanted with Ant Man.I'm sure there's more if I were to look back on his history over the last 10 years. But I doubt anything on his record is like Perlmutter lol
    Congratulations, you played yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    As for Shazam while it was lower budget it wasn’t lower budget. It was 100 million which by comparison to Captain Marvel was 150 thousand and SM FFH being 180 million. But I wouldn’t call it a risk because it was marketed as a fun kiddy action flick and while there certainly were surprising and touching moments i certainly wouldn’t call it a risk. Your argument for a risk is hey it’s a lesser known property so that means it’s a huge risk. Like if these movies were original properties and not marvel would you still say they were risks?
    That is a low budget movie for a DC and Marvel movie. The fact that it didn't do great shows that it needed to have that lower budget. Yes. These days, most movies are risks. Unless you have an actual, bona fide, box office draw in terms of cast, your movie isn't expected to bust blocks. This is why we are seeing more and more sequels, spin offs, prequels, and reboots. Since streaming became popular around 2012, it's been infinitely harder to put asses in seats at the cinema. That's why studios have been trying to replicate Marvel Studios' success - because they're successful. Shazam was a risk, but that's why there was a smaller budget for it. This is a well known process in Hollywood. Original properties these days are few and far between. A lot of them get funded by streaming platforms because they may get watched there. John Wick was probably the last big example of a new IP getting popular. And that had a TINY budget.

  13. #508
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dboi2001 View Post
    No he wasn’t. Ragnarok is straight up the last jedi of marvel
    At least we agree that Ragnarok was one of the best movies in the MCU, like The Last Jedi was in Star Wars!

  14. #509
    Fantastic Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunch of Coconuts View Post
    Fox turned Mystique to an anti-hero.
    Trask? Who was that guy?

    Apocalypse was mediocre.

    Shaw was cool, but he just hammed it up.

    The Hellfire Club were just forgettable mooks.
    None of those MCU villains were great. Feige is aware of his bad villains and he has spoken about the problems but does not seem to care much. What you said about Mystique is false. This is the second time, you have said something completely false like Xavier's drug use. All it does is expose more of Feige's weakness.

    Mystique in the comics is an anti hero for real. Saying Fox came up with that is a lie.That is comic mystique, she has been an x-men and been a secret aid of Xavier in the comics. Mystique is a grey character in the comics she has gone from villain, hero to anti hero. the live action cartoons painted her more as a cold villain, sympathetic villain and anti hero.

    Trask was the guy that built the Sentinels, one of and if not the best marvel villians we have ever seen in terms of threat. What Ultron should have been. The best thing about Trask was he was played memorably by Peter Dinklarge, if you understand what I mean. Trask villainess was more intellectual because he realised mutants could be the death of humans. he was not necessarily a mutant hater. There are no full villains in DOFP that was what made it such a different type of comic movie. that Feige and Disney cannot comprehend because the world of MCU is light and day.

    Shaw was not just about Cool, he had his own POV that was not 100% similar to Magneto,Just harming it up? sure. show me an MCU villain that has tortured a kid for fun for shot his mum in front of film for his own amusement in a nazi camp setting.

    The Hellfire Club were secondary okay for their roles taking on the new first class. No good xmen films from fox had a weak villain, most mcu movies have weak villains and they have more movies.

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    No, there is; the filmmakers just know that being mature doesn't also mean that you can't have fun along the way (heck, even Logan had its comic relief)



    Could say more, but I don't think you're listening to anything I'm saying and I honestly think that you don't want to actually discuss this, so I think it's time we let this tangent drop.
    Thanks for video. I respect what some Kevin Feige fans do when they try to find deeper subtext beyond the fluff of MCU movies but it doesn't change anything when it matters. X-Men has shown 10x the complexity because complexity requires more difficult stories than fluff. it doesnt change that GOTG is fluff light hearted comedy and Logan or DOFP are not, it doesn't change that GOTG is a mickey mouse movie at best, it doesn't change that GOTG does not carry any of the brash brutal grounded realism of xmen or batman, it doesn't change that Disney still would have nixed many of the other complex themes that other movies would have been able to do. Reducing X-Men down to GOTG feels out of character, when we know Deadpool is comedy X-Men.
    Last edited by Castle; 09-06-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  15. #510
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    255

    Default

    It's so funny reading Dboi2001 and Castle's comments in this thread, because most of it just comes across as "Darker = Better!" and "Well MCU did that too". Neither of you have any regard for different opinions, and Dboi, no matter what you say - you started this thread in order to push your opinion as "objective fact". Neither of you seem to understand what objectivity is, and your posts are hypocritical through and through. Honestly, I don't know either of you, but you both seem envious of the MCU's success. It seems you both love Zack Snyder's DC films and vision, which is fine, but maybe you're annoyed that his vision wasn't seen through to the end. This is also fine.

    What I will say though, is that I don't believe either of you love the FOX X-Men films, or hold them in as high regard as you have said. I think your bitterness over the MCU has clouded your judgement completely and so anything MCU related is bad, or at the very least, destined to be bad. This is not something that the majority in this thread (most likely the world too) agree with. Deal with it and move on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •