X-Men: Apocalypse Movie Speculation

[Franchise408]

X3's Danger Room scene was again Wolverine-centric, not an opportunity to really show off and train individual X-Men and team dynamics as it was used in canon. No, we haven't seen proper, AI, talking/having their own designs Sentinels, and no, we haven't seen a proper Brotherhood. The epic scale of something like DoFP's comic version of the Brotherhood vs. the X-Men in DC hasn't been done. The closest was again X3, but that fight was pretty weak. The Hellfire Club was completely wasted in First Class(reduced to a simple Vegas strip club), even if Kevin Bacon's character was a great performance, it wasn't anywhere close to Sebastian Shaw.

Not a single movie has truly pulled off a team feeling where all the members play off each other and really acted as a unit. First Class was the closest, but the lineup was forgettable, and most of the movie focuses on Charles/Erik's bromance(endearing, but not the X-Men team dynamic we are going for).

They have skirted the potential over 16 years, there are moments here or there that come close, but they haven't nailed anything yet. The closest thing they've done well is Magneto, which is great, but there are so many more facets to X-Men. Wolverine is the second best, but even with him there are some problems(overfocus being a huge one).

I still want a real X-Men movie!

If you're looking for a real X-Men movie, you're in luck! There's 9 of them that have been made, with 8 of them on DVD / Blu-ray and 1 in theaters. I can tell from your posts that you haven't seen them yet, so you should probably go check them out. We've been getting real X-Men movies since 2000!

[Franchise408]

Oh wow, Ultimate X-Men, the much beloved and sales juggernaut of the ages! (note sarcasm) That's like basing a LOTR movie off of someone's tumblr fan fiction.

You know, with posts like this, you continually give off the impression that you actually AREN'T a fan of X-Men, you're only a fan of Claremont, and everything else be damned.

You constantly berate and dismiss anything that isn't Chris Claremont X-Men.

So basically, none of this stuff - movies, non Claremont comics, etc. - are bad. They just aren't what you want them to be.

[Peanutsinspace]

You know, with posts like this, you continually give off the impression that you actually AREN'T a fan of X-Men, you're only a fan of Claremont, and everything else be damned.

You constantly berate and dismiss anything that isn't Chris Claremont X-Men.

So basically, none of this stuff - movies, non Claremont comics, etc. - are bad. They just aren't what you want them to be.

It always makes me wonder why some people demand/need to have the X-Men films follow Claremont's work since Claremont feels the movies should not follow the comics. He's said in an interview awhile back,

"For films, it might be necessary and might be more exciting to come up with a totally original story that has never been seen in the comics or anywhere else, but works brilliantly in terms of establishing a character (or characters) and selling them to this new audience. Filmmakers shouldn’t be restricted to what’s in the canon. Movies are a whole new canon, and while the comics are there for reference, the goals should be to tell the best story you can in the medium you’re working with. That’s what Singer did, especially with X2: X-Men United."

[Franchise408]

It always makes me wonder why some people demand/need to have the X-Men films follow Claremont's work since Claremont feels the movies should not follow the comics. He's said in an interview awhile back,

"For films, it might be necessary and might be more exciting to come up with a totally original story that has never been seen in the comics or anywhere else, but works brilliantly in terms of establishing a character (or characters) and selling them to this new audience. Filmmakers shouldn’t be restricted to what’s in the canon. Movies are a whole new canon, and while the comics are there for reference, the goals should be to tell the best story you can in the medium you’re working with. That’s what Singer did, especially with X2: X-Men United."

I totally get wanting the movies to be like the comics. Most of my complaints about the movies (and yes I have them - many) boil down to "it's not like the comics!"

But I also feel that movies and comics are entirely different mediums. Comics are a serialized format, with monthly installments for decades, spanning various titles that range across dozens of writers and artists. The different writers over long periods of time lead to many different takes on the same characters, which means the comic book stories often times contradict themselves as they are ever changing and evolving.

Movies are a once every few years venture that, until the last couple years, movie franchises spanned about 3 or 4 movies tops, with some rare exceptions for franchises like James Bond, Star Trek, or really bad horror franchises. It's only been within the last few years that movie franchises are becoming perpetually existing universes that span years worth of films. There's a reason why X-Men is the longest running comic book franchise at 16 years - franchises ended after a sequel or 2 typically. People are condemning X-Men for not existing in a reality that WASN'T reality until a few years ago. There's a reason why X-Men 3 was intended to be the "last", because until this recent trend of expanded universes, or bringing back old, nostalgiac franchises, movie series' actually ENDED, and that is okay! But movies had to tell their stories in just a couple installments and didn't have the luxury of serialization to cover everything. So many things are going to be changed or omitted by necessity.

The other thing that's funny and ironic about the Claremont last is that Claremont's canon is... A CHANGE FROM WHAT X-MEN ORIGINALLY WAS!

People are criticizing Singer for deviating from the previously established canon, but that's what Claremont did! He deviated from the original direction and vision of X-Men and made it his own. We wouldn't HAVE the Claremont canon if it weren't for the creative liberties that Singer is now getting blasted for.

So no, I have no problem with the changes. Changes are fine as long as they respect the spirit and foundation of the source material, and the changes in the X-Men movies absolutely do that. Yes there are some changes that don't. There are some changes that do get it wrong, and some that are worse than the comics. But it is what it is.

Some changes DO still respect the source material, and some improve upon it.

You take the good with the bad.

Luckily for me there's been FAR more good than bad, and I've gotten 8 amazing X-Men movies plus one amazing Deadpool movie out of it.

I'm one happy camper.

[JediKage]

Yes because the X-men were crap before Claremont. No one gave a damn about the Franchise. Claremont took the X-men to the top. Singer hasn't taken the X-men anywhere near that far. Singer is getting his butt whipped by the Avengers. Singer started in a strong position and has failed to capitalize. Its like the opposite of Claremont so far.

[ironman2978]

No one complains when the MCU mixes elements of the 616 with the Ultimate verse.

Not only mention Spider-Man films or any other movies. Ultimate X-Men was extremely successful, even outselling it's 616 titles at a time. I could see why directors would use Ultimate X-Men as inspiration, especially the earlier stories.
- It was a streamlined, modernisation of the characters and the world, introducing them in new and interesting ways and for a while the face of the X-Men in marketing (on sneakers, backpacks, posters, costumes, etc even over the 616 designs being used as the time).
- Mark Millar, flawed writer that he is, also really showcased the Mutants being portrayed as a hated minority more than any other X-writer I know of, showing anti-Mutant bigotry as small-minded, petty, cruel, and hateful, like any other bigotry, and not as guys dressing up in costumes, speachifying about purity and religion.
- The characters came across as teenagers modernised which was one of the basic idea if the X-Men, we saw them fleshed out and given personalities and human flaws with the basic elements of their 616 counterparts used which is the same thing the movies does with all of their respective characters.

Here's the thing about source material, it's not a simple bubble where directors should largely focus on one writer''s work and ignore another like some posters try to hard to say they should do (then blast them for following the source material), and not everyone who does take from the source material is going to utilise it in the way fans would desire. Then they are going to use it as an element for the overall narrative they want to tell in the movie, not as a way to control or dictate how the story should be told.

Plus here is the thing about developing movie universe, sometime it is a slow start (I've met people who hated Incredible Hulk, Thor and First Avenger but it wasn't until Avengers and Winter Soldier, more people were coming on board with the Marvel Studios plan). But it took a while for the plans to develop and grow before they got down to a clear plan. I feel like the same has to happen with the X-Men movie franchise before they truly find their ground in building their X-Men movie universe,which only truly started with Days of Future Past.


But the movies shouldn't strictly adhere to the comics (no adaption of comics should to be honest because it can limit it). Not only have comic book writers(Like the Claremont quote provided) said that but the people directing the work has as well. Russo Brothers did scenes like the beginning boat scene at the beginning of Winter Soldier was place that boat sequence is at the beginning of the movie (Winter Soldier), to illustrate that this isn't your dad's Captain America. They've even said this at Wizard World New Or leans, among other interviews:
http://comicbook.com/2016/01/11/joe-...vie-to-comics/

"The Marvel Cinematic Universe is based upon all the movies that have preceded it. It's the Cinematic Universe, it's not the comic book universe. We don't have the issues that the comics do. We don't have all the daring storylines that they do and tie-ins to create what was required to make the original Civil War comics storyline. We're taking the concept of Civil War, the core concept of it, and we're applying it to our storytelling in the Cinematic Universe in its own way. We have to find stories that work within the Cinematic Universe to tell their story. I think you'll see when you see the movie, you'll understand how it takes what's come before and builds upon it to create this conflict.

"I think our job is to surprise you. As a comic book fan, I don't want to go in and see what I already know. I prefer to go in and be surprised. I like when a story teller throws a left curve at me and I'm surprised. That's why I want to go see the movie. A literal adaptation, I should just go read the book again. I think that's what's interesting about different movies. We have two hours and they have years worth of issues."

Cannon knowledge doesn't and shouldn't define how one should enjoys any comic book films or not(http://moviepilot.com/posts/3641254). Joker never killed Batman's parents. Tony never built Ultron. Darren Cross was never Yellow Jacket. Hope Pym/Hope Van Dyne was in MC2 universe, not Wasp in the "cannon" stories. Spider-Man webbing wasn't organic. The Avengers founding members were Hulk, Iron Man, Ant Man/Giant Man, Wasp and Thor and Ultimates founding member was Captain America, Thor, Wasp, Giant Man, and Iron Man (and technically Nick Fury) but Giant Man and Wasp were replaced by Hawkeye and Black Widow and Hulk and Cap are on the same founding team, Clark Kent travelled the world before becoming Superman in his early-mid twenties, he didn't spend 12 years in the Fortress of Solitude. Winter Soldier never killed Tony''s parents or Black Panther''s dad.


If we are talking about what comic book movies did or didn't follow in established stories, than we can be here all day talking about every little thing the movies don't follow. Besides there are decades of comic book history (not to mention cartoons, movies and TV shows which comics from time to time taken elements from in their stories) so you never know if it actually happened or not (like Psylocke being a horsemen, even though Simon Kinberg said they examined multiple of Horsemen from comics and other media before they came down to the four they used in the movie).

[Star_Jammer]

No one complains when the MCU mixes elements of the 616 with the Ultimate verse.

That's a fairly bold statement.

"No one".

Heh.

[Divine Spark]

Yes because the X-men were crap before Claremont. No one gave a damn about the Franchise. Claremont took the X-men to the top. Singer hasn't taken the X-men anywhere near that far. Singer is getting his butt whipped by the Avengers. Singer started in a strong position and has failed to capitalize. Its like the opposite of Claremont so far.

Uh, Singer only directed 4 X-film out 9 of them.

Btw, Singer basically helped create the MCU. How do you think Kevin Fiege's career started?

[Divine Spark]

That's a fairly bold statement.

"No one".

Heh.

You're right.

Avengers fans have complained about Hawkeye not sporting a mask and having a fodder family like in the Ultimate Universe.

And lets not forget the butchering of Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyn.

[JediKage]

Uh, Singer only directed 4 X-film out 9 of them.

Btw, Singer basically helped create the MCU. How do you think Kevin Fiege's career started?

4 out of 9 is more then anyone else.

Does it matter how Kevin started? He has clearly surpassed Singer at this point. Singer doesn't get credit for the MCU just because Kevin used to work for him that is not how it works.

[ChildOfTheAtom]

Avengers fans have complained about Hawkeye not sporting a mask and having a fodder family like in the Ultimate Universe.

And lets not forget the butchering of Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyn.

At least he got to keep his wife and kids instead being used as refrigerators like Magneto's family.

And Wasp actually gets her own co-film. I wish an X-Woman could at least co-star in a movie but it'll never happen.

[JediKage]

That is Hope not Janet. Granted does anyone really want to compare and contrast Rogue vs Black Widow its not exactly favorable for Rogue. Scarlet Witch looked better then Storm and Jean put together in her first 2 moves as compared to theres. Fox X-men has not been good for the X-women. Jean looks on the up swing I suppose. Storm not so much.

[Divine Spark]

4 out of 9 is more then anyone else.

Does it matter how Kevin started? He has clearly surpassed Singer at this point. Singer doesn't get credit for the MCU just because Kevin used to work for him that is not how it works.

Kevin Feige is not a director. He got a position at Marvel Studios because of his work on the first X-men movie. So Singer's work did help plant the seeds for the future of the MCU.

Marvel has always been impressed with Singer and even wanted him to write for Ultimate X-men.

At least he got to keep his wife and kids instead being used as refrigerators like Magneto's family.

And Wasp actually gets her own co-film. I wish an X-Woman could at least co-star in a movie but it'll never happen.

In the comics Magneto did lose his wife and daughter. This was a homage to that.

Hope is going to be the Wasp of that film. The MCU basically replaced the founding female member of the Avengers with an obscure MC2.

Janet Van Dyn named the Avengers and has acted as leader of the team. Her and Hank were the couple of the Avengers, much like Scott and Jean were the couple of the X-men. So shafting them was a disservice to the source material.

[JediKage]

U say that as if Jean and Scott didn't get shafted in the first x-men trilogy.

[Divine Spark]

U say that as if Jean and Scott didn't get shafted in the first x-men trilogy.

Were they shafted in the first trilogy? Yes, even Singer acknowledges it.

Now? They are treated far better than Hank and Janet.