Do people think Marvel would make better X-Men movies then Fox?

[iacobusleo]

I don't think people realize how good DOFP was.
The only CMB film that is critically more sound, is TDK
and TDK was grounded in reality.
DOFP was a time travel science fiction flick that had to tie in really deep personal and themes into a plot that intertwined everything harmoniously.
Then you throw in like 6 characters you have to follow in that film, it was daunting. As great as it was, its extremely underrated.

I think DOFP got its proper due from critics, but it IS underrated among the comic book fan community. Purely because it was Singer's vision of the X-Men, not the X-Men from their childhood.

What is impressive about DOFP is that it manages to give us a logical climax to the human-mutant war that is brewing since X1 (development of Sentinels being fast tracked presumably as a result of Dark Phoenix in X3), recontexualise a LOT of the character arcs in this franchise (Xavier's need to control the women in his life i.e. Jean and Mystique, Mystique's transformation from compassionate young woman to cyborg-like silent assassin, Wolverine coming full circle etc), redeem X3, create a new timeline where anything is now possible AND also serve as a complete and satisfying series finale if this was the last X-Men movie ever.

That is what's very underrated about it.

In fact, DOFP was so satisfying to me that Apocalypse is a little redundant. If the movie is actually bad, it can be perfectly disposable, but if the movie is good, all it serves is to be an epilogue for me.

[ciscostudent561]

I think DOFP got its proper due from critics, but it IS underrated among the comic book fan community. Purely because it was Singer's vision of the X-Men, not the X-Men from their childhood.

What is impressive about DOFP is that it manages to give us a logical climax to the human-mutant war that is brewing since X1 (development of Sentinels being fast tracked presumably as a result of Dark Phoenix in X3), recontexualise a LOT of the character arcs in this franchise (Xavier's need to control the women in his life i.e. Jean and Mystique, Mystique's transformation from compassionate young woman to cyborg-like silent assassin, Wolverine coming full circle etc), redeem X3, create a new timeline where anything is now possible AND also serve as a complete and satisfying series finale if this was the last X-Men movie ever.

That is what's very underrated about it.

In fact, DOFP was so satisfying to me that Apocalypse is a little redundant. If the movie is actually bad, it can be perfectly disposable, but if the movie is good, all it serves is to be an epilogue for me.

Apocalypse is a passing of the torch for me.
Let's See Cyclops Jean and Storm now plz

[Carabas]

I would like to see what FOX could do w/o Singer's prints all over it.

If Daredevil, Elektra, and all three of their Fantastic Four films are any indication, FOX without Singer's fingerprints all over it just is not very good at making superhero films.

[Franchise408]

I think DOFP got its proper due from critics, but it IS underrated among the comic book fan community. Purely because it was Singer's vision of the X-Men, not the X-Men from their childhood.

What is impressive about DOFP is that it manages to give us a logical climax to the human-mutant war that is brewing since X1 (development of Sentinels being fast tracked presumably as a result of Dark Phoenix in X3), recontexualise a LOT of the character arcs in this franchise (Xavier's need to control the women in his life i.e. Jean and Mystique, Mystique's transformation from compassionate young woman to cyborg-like silent assassin, Wolverine coming full circle etc), redeem X3, create a new timeline where anything is now possible AND also serve as a complete and satisfying series finale if this was the last X-Men movie ever.

That is what's very underrated about it.

In fact, DOFP was so satisfying to me that Apocalypse is a little redundant. If the movie is actually bad, it can be perfectly disposable, but if the movie is good, all it serves is to be an epilogue for me.

In response to your last paragraph, I somewhat feel the same way. I kinda felt that X-Men: Days Of Future Past could be a perfectly valid conclusion to the series.

They are going on with X-Men: Apocalypse obviously, and I sort of feel that's a good place to call it a day too.

Tho it seems they are going to keep pushing forward with everything, a part of me feels like I wish they would just do spinoffs for X-Force and New Mutants and such, things that are still "in universe" to keep the franchise rights, but distant enough that I can just keep my core series of 8 films.

But another part of me is also curious to see what happens going forward with the series as well.

Also in response to how good X-Men: Days Of Future Past is - this movie exercised a lot of demons for me. In all, a lot of my disappointments with X-Men 3 was that I wanted a different movie... and I essentially got exactly that movie with Days Of Future Past. So while it was 8 years late, I basically got the X-Men 3 that I wanted, which in a way redeems X-Men: The Last Stand because now instead of being that disappointment that it wasn't what I wanted it to be, I can actually just kinda look at it for what it is, which isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be, and kinda just enjoy now a bonus X-Men movie lol, since it doesn't any longer have the role of filling specific expectations that were met by a different movie in the series.

[RLAAMJR.]

MCU definitely knows how to make cool costumes.

[roy]

I agree they are not mutually exclusive. I was just clariyfying that is DOES have action in it. Let's face it Singer's action isn't up to par with the rest of CMB films. He has his moments, but actual battles are usually just domination by oneside. Rarely do you see two teams/ 1v1 tactically duking out and both looking impressive.

My expectations weren't too high for this one. I really just wanted to see a fun X-men film.
There is too much going on I think to expect DOFP.

I don't think people realize how good DOFP was.
The only CMB film that is critically more sound, is TDK
and TDK was grounded in reality.
DOFP was a time travel science fiction flick that had to tie in really deep personal and themes into a plot that intertwined everything harmoniously.
Then you throw in like 6 characters you have to follow in that film, it was daunting. As great as it was, its extremely underrated.


oh and hi Roy

Hi

BTW one of my posts is a mess,because my cell phone hates me. Lol

[TooFlyToFail]

If Daredevil, Elektra, and all three of their Fantastic Four films are any indication, FOX without Singer's fingerprints all over it just is not very good at making superhero films.

Lol, so true.

Besides, after what he's done with Erik and Xavier's relationship, imagine what he could do with Doom and Reed?

[Tazpocalapse]

The x-men characters would at least have actual characters in marvel instead of just being background noise in the story of Mystique,Xavier and Magneto.


Fox has dropped the ball on too many characters and I'm tired of being told that we will get to see the x-men universe in the NEXT story.

There were good movies,but not good enough that I would still want fox to make them.

Exactly . Fox nearly neglects anyone not named Mystique, Erick, and Charles. Fox and Singer seem to not have a clue what to do with the other X-men Characters. 16 years is more than enough time to have established popular X-men characters.

[genki_desu]

I have seen fair amount complaints about how Fox has handled the X-Men movies, so I have to ask, do you think Marvel would do a better job?

Yes, Marvel have proved that they know what they're doing with adaptations of their own franchises. There's no reason to think that Marvel wouldn't do a similarly good job with the X-Men.

I'm not sure the X-Men fit the more light hearted tone of the various Marvel movies, I think if Marvel was making the X-Men movies, we may not have seen the genocide scene from Days of Future Past or the Holocaust backstory with Magneto. I also don't think Disney would have made an R rated Deadpool movie. I also think the Mutants struggle story would be hard to shoehorn into the current MCU, heck I don't it ever really jived with non X-Men comics in the 616 universe.

The X-Men only really became a dark-toned comic book after Grant Morrison started trying to ape the style of the first X-Men movie. For the vast majority of its most popular material, it was a straight-up sci-fi superhero comic, albeit one that was written with a lot of skill by Chris Claremont. Claremont was always very clever at balancing the occasional commentary on people's prejudice and fear of the unknown with action and soap opera and humour. I tend to assume that anyone who thinks that the X-Men became popular because it was a bleak, dark, heavy-handed metaphor for oppression of black people and gay people has not really read the material that made the serious popular in the first place and probably only knows the series from the Singer movies.

I think despite the movies flaws, Fox at least understands what makes X-Men works and some of the X-Men films are pretty good, unlike say Fantastic Four where Fox clearly doesn't why that works and should have sold it back Marvel back in 2007.

Nah. Fox got lucky because Singer was enough of a fan of the material that he did the best adaptation of a comic book that had been done up until that point with X-Men 1. It's not a good film, but for comic fans, it was better than we could hope for at that point in time. Same for X-Men 2, which is even better, but still not as good as any of the Marvel movies. Singer has stalled making early-2000s superhero movies when Marvel has proved that you can do a real superhero movie without having to try and make them less "comic-y". That would give me confidence that they could do a better version of the X-Men.

[iacobusleo]

Same for X-Men 2, which is even better, but still not as good as any of the Marvel movies.

Well now, that's incredibly subjective (as is all discussions about film). X1, X2 and DOFP had RT scores on par with the Marvel movies (higher than movies like Thor, Iron Man 2, AoU in fact). And I know of people (myself included) who would rather watch an X movie 1000 times over a Marvel movie.

[JustAnotherFan]

Again, I don't think that it's about being less a fan of X-Men, and more about just having different sensibilities (as the poster above said) about what we like about X-Men.

...

It's not about levels of fandom of the source material, and more about the particular elements that attract people to the source material in the first place. And we clearly have different reasons for being drawn to it.

Okay, I guess you do have a point in that my comment (or the way I phrased it) does make it seem like I was calling you less of a fan simply because you find more appeal in different aspects of the X-Men. And that's wrong because it doesn't make you any less of a fan. However in my defense your earlier comments did come off as if you only cared about the feared and hated aspect of the X-Men and nothing else (which would also be wrong because X-Men is about more than just that). Now I see what you actually meant and I would have to say that our preferences when it comes to X-Men stories might not be as different as you might imagine as I also prefer smaller and more personal stories over big brainless action stories that devolve into "pew pew". I just think that you can have small character building stuff even among space battles and demon hunting. Those two things don't have to be exclusive to each other.

And just like you I do prefer certain decisions made in movies over the decisions in comics like Magneto being the one who crippled Xavier or Phoenix being an aspect of Jean's own psychic powers that she has to fight against. And making Juggernaut a mutant instead of magically enhanced human is a better choice and works better in the setting of the films. But I don't think that there's any reason why Deathstrike couldn't have been a cyborg just as she is in the comics. It wouldn't make the story any more confusing or complicated but it would make the world of the FoX-Men seem more diverse and interesting and engaging when it comes to the kinds of stories they can tell if they also had cyborgs alongside mutants. Heck, in the context of the films they could introduce Reavers as government employed mutant hunting special forces unit that has volunteered to go under a cyborg transformation process simply to be able to fight evenly with the mutants! That kind of story would only work if they are non-mutant cyborgs. But if you make Reavers into mutants in the movies (since there are no other superhumans like cyborgs) then how would they differ from any other "evil" mutant group? If the Reavers are going to be just another team of evil mutants then they are no different from the Brotherhood and then it'll be X-Men vs Brotherhood for the 1000th time! So far we haven't had anything other than mutants or humans as villains in the Fox films and it already starts to feel repetitive and boring! The movies need some more diversity if they are going to continue! Even if you personally aren't a fan of certain elements of the X-Men comics you can't just disregard those elements completely because then it just won't be the same. As I said, if we are going to remove aliens, cosmic beings, cyborgs, androids, demons and magic completely then we are going to remove half of everything that makes up the X-Men! And that just isn't going to be X-Men anymore. And the stories can still be very much character focused even if they do feature some more fantastic elements as well. It's only up to the skill of the director and the writers whether that can be done or not.

Ultinare universe says hi

What does Ultimate universe have to do with anything I said?! Ultimate universe DID have cyborgs, androids, aliens, cosmic beings and even demons and magic (though not to the extent 616 does)! Besides many people would argue that Ultimate universe was only good for the first half of its entire lifespan and then went south fast.

[Franchise408]

Yes, Marvel have proved that they know what they're doing with adaptations of their own franchises. There's no reason to think that Marvel wouldn't do a similarly good job with the X-Men.


The X-Men only really became a dark-toned comic book after Grant Morrison started trying to ape the style of the first X-Men movie. For the vast majority of its most popular material, it was a straight-up sci-fi superhero comic, albeit one that was written with a lot of skill by Chris Claremont. Claremont was always very clever at balancing the occasional commentary on people's prejudice and fear of the unknown with action and soap opera and humour. I tend to assume that anyone who thinks that the X-Men became popular because it was a bleak, dark, heavy-handed metaphor for oppression of black people and gay people has not really read the material that made the serious popular in the first place and probably only knows the series from the Singer movies.


Nah. Fox got lucky because Singer was enough of a fan of the material that he did the best adaptation of a comic book that had been done up until that point with X-Men 1. It's not a good film, but for comic fans, it was better than we could hope for at that point in time. Same for X-Men 2, which is even better, but still not as good as any of the Marvel movies. Singer has stalled making early-2000s superhero movies when Marvel has proved that you can do a real superhero movie without having to try and make them less "comic-y". That would give me confidence that they could do a better version of the X-Men.

And honestly, I think you're the one not reading the comics if you think the comics were only dark, mature, and heavy handed after the movies.

Even TAS was dark, mature, and heavy handed.

Big, comic booky action has always been a PART OF X-Men, but never been the main point. X-Men has always been much deeper and much more mature than there comic properties at Marvel.

I don't know why alleged comic book fans can't see that

[Coal Tiger]

And honestly, I think you're the one not reading the comics if you think the comics were only dark, mature, and heavy handed after the movies.

Even TAS was dark, mature, and heavy handed.

Big, comic booky action has always been a PART OF X-Men, but never been the main point. X-Men has always been much deeper and much more mature than there comic properties at Marvel.

I don't know why alleged comic book fans can't see that

As someone who lived through the 90's, the only "deep" thing about X-Men comics was how many layers of continuity you had to wade through to fully understand what was going on. I don't think the X-books dealt with anything more mature than what the Spider-Man books did.

I can see how the very best of the X-books had a subversive and partially counter-culture element to them that isn't present in more mainstream superhero books, but I don't think replicating that tone is something Bryan Singer can do any better than Marvel Studios. There are aspects to X-Men comics that Singer hasn't bothered to touch yet, and new filmmakers could probably do a good job of it, whether it's the Deadpool movie crew taking over or Kevin Feige. The one thing the Deadpool movie proved is that having faith in what made the characters popular in the first place would translate to to making the movie popular. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented with these characters. Maybe yellow spandex isn't the answer, but black leather probably isn't either. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here, just using your post as a jumping off point)

[Franchise408]

As someone who lived through the 90's, the only "deep" thing about X-Men comics was how many layers of continuity you had to wade through to fully understand what was going on. I don't think the X-books dealt with anything more mature than what the Spider-Man books did.

I can see how the very best of the X-books had a subversive and partially counter-culture element to them that isn't present in more mainstream superhero books, but I don't think replicating that tone is something Bryan Singer can do any better than Marvel Studios. There are aspects to X-Men comics that Singer hasn't bothered to touch yet, and new filmmakers could probably do a good job of it, whether it's the Deadpool movie crew taking over or Kevin Feige. The one thing the Deadpool movie proved is that having faith in what made the characters popular in the first place would translate to to making the movie popular. The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented with these characters. Maybe yellow spandex isn't the answer, but black leather probably isn't either. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here, just using your post as a jumping off point)

I feel like you are disagreeing with me.

I don't think Marvel has proven that they COULD do X-Men properly. X-Men can be a rather dark comic. In God Loves, Man Kills, you deal with Purifiers hunting and slaughtering innocent children, and then hanging their corpses from playground swings. In Age of Apocalypse, you have Beast taking bodies of dead mutants and mutilating them into goo to harvest their DNA. In Days Of Future Past, you have mutants rounded up and taken into mutant concentration camps. Mutant Massacre sees a team of viscous mutants going into the sewers and slaughtering innocent mutants simply for being deemed genetically "inferior". Then the follow up of Gambit's trial, and the themes of feelings of guilt and redemption.

Then you have stories like Weapon X or Wolverine which deal with very adult themes like human experimentation, domestic abuse, respect and honor of an entire culture.

Dark Phoenix Saga deals with mature themes like absolute power corrupts absolutely, and a woman committing suicide so as to die a human than to live as a god.

There's the more obvious element of Magneto's backstory being a survivor of a Nazi concentration camp. And of course, Stan Lee's stated parallel of Xavier and Magneto to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

Wolverine and Sabretooth are always bloody and vicious fights. Hell, anything with Wolverine and his solo stories are usually very brutal and bloody and violent.

These are all very dark and mature stories.

Does X-Men have stories that aren't as dark in nature? Yes. Does it have playful elements? Yes. Does it have other stories that embrace more science fiction and fantasy than pure brutality? Yes. But X-Men isn't exactly a property that lends itself to the light hearted nature of the Marvel movies.

If the movies have done anything that hasn't captured the tone of the comics, it's that the movies aren't dark and brooding ENOUGH in some examples. X2 didn't even come anywhere close to having innocent children slaughtered and hanged from playground equipment (unless you count the mansion raid, and rendering Jones unconscious.)

We all know that X-Men Origins: Wolverine toned down the violence of the Weapon X procedure.

X-Men: Apocalypse certainly won't see Beast taking dead bodies to put into a vat to harvest their DNA.

X-Men certainly has it's happier and more playful moments, and I'm certainly fine with elements of that being included in the film (and we already have seen moments like that. X-Men showed us children playing basketball, doing art, and other fun activities at the school, while the X-Men had fun training and teaching. X2 had some very playful banter between Wolverine and Cyclops - "Your bike needs gas" "Fill 'er up". X-Men: First Class showed us a lot of fun and playful moments between the young students. Hell, even X-Men: The Last Stand gave us the fountain scene with Iceman and Kitty Pryde.)

But X-Men, by it's nature, is a rather dark and mature property. And not just in the 90's either. Claremont especially wrote some very dark and mature stories.

That is clearly the tone the movies have established. They aren't the light hearted and playful fare that MCU is. But nor should it be.

And in every MCU movie I've seen, and I've seen most of them at this point, they haven't proven even once yet that they can handle dark and mature. Everything is always about being as bright and playful as it can possibly be. And that's fine, for those movies. But that's not fine for X-Men.

Now someone might respond and say "But Deadpool!", and they'd be right. Deadpool also deals with very dark and mature themes, and Tim Miller and Co. stayed insanely true to Deadpool and what makes that character great. But Deadpool deals with those mature subjects in a very light hearted fashion, due to the nature of Deadpool basically being a comedic character. It doesn't deal with the subject matter the same way that X-Men does, and that's why Deadpool is great on it's own, but I wouldn't want to see that vision (or that vision of Colossus, for that matter) utilized or an X-Men film.

You are right, there are many aspects of the X-Men that the films haven't touched yet, and Singer may or may not be the guy to do those in the future. I'm not tied specifically to Bryan Singer. Granted, I absolutely love what he's done with the franchise, but even in the worst moments of the series, the non-Singer films have still been able to succeed in ways that he necessarily didn't. For as much **** as X-Men: The Last Stand gets, I still feel to this day, just 10 days shy of it's 10 year anniversary, that in many ways, it is the best of the original 3, and does quite a few things better than Singer did in his first 2 films. And while X-Men Origins: Wolverine is by far the worst of the franchise, and NOT the direction I want to see the franchise take, it too has some very favorable qualities to it that Singer didn't exactly nail.

Granted, I do think that Singer has improved in many of those areas. X-Men: Days Of Future Past is, to me, a nearly perfect X-Men movie, and by far the best of the series in virtually every imaginable measurable. I also feel that Singer is improving in areas in X-Men: Apocalypse as well. Despite some of the mediocre reviews it's getting, I for one feel that I'm going to greatly enjoy it, not just because it's an X-Men film and I will love it regardless, but also due to the fact that just in the clips I've seen via trailers and TV spots, I can see that Singer is very much upping his game in terms of visual aesthetic quality, and fantasy based set pieces. With those improvements, if he can maintain his overall strength in establishing tone, and levels of heart and character, then I see no reason why this movie won't be at the top of my list for the franchise.

But I say all that to say that yes, I love Singer's vision of the X-Men, in many ways it matches my vision of the X-Men (though not entirely), and I feel that the areas where he was lacking with X-Men and X2 (as great as those movies are), he is showing great improvement on in his last 2 outings.

However, even Ratner and Hood, as bad as their outings were received by the internet fan community, I do believe they brought elements to the franchise that Singer lacked, and I do believe they had successes in areas that aren't Singer's strengths. We've also seen Vaughn and Mangold have successes with this franchise as well with their own visions of the material. That said, I have a million complaints about Vaughn, and do not want to see him back anywhere NEAR this franchise. I feel that X-Men: First Class was lucky to be good with him at the helm. It's not that he's not a capable filmmaker. He is. The fact that he cranked out First Class that really had no business being that good at all is very telling to his capabilities. But between his impact on wrecking X-Men 3 - yes, he is actually far more at fault for that movie than Ratner is - some of the horrid ideas he had that didn't make the cut, and then his absolutely juvenile and chauvinistic vision for X-Men: First Class, I hope he stays far far away, and never returns.

But I'm not married to Singer being the director. He's done a lot of great for this franchise, and I'll forever love him for it. But this franchise has proven he's not the only one who can get X-Men. If he comes back for future films post Apocalypse, I'll be very happy. If it's someone else that comes along (as long as it's not Vaughn, Whedon, or Del Toro), I'll be a happy camper as well. Granted, I may be a bit hesitant simple due to the fact of not knowing what to expect with new blood. But I'm more than happy to see someone come in and have their shot at it as well - as long as continuity is respected and the tone isn't wildly altered.

[JustAnotherFan]

What is your point exactly? To deal with all those dark themes you would need to make the film an R rated flick. And I don't see Fox doing that any sooner than Marvel. So how does that make Fox better suited to make the X-Men film? Is your point that Marvel wouldn't be as good in dealing with the dark themes of the X-Men because they wouldn't touch stuff that would make the film R rated? Well, as I said, neither will Fox. They might have allowed Deadpool to be R and maybe the next Wolverine but we won't see the day that Fox will allow main X-Men movie to go that dark.

And there's no need to go this dark. Yes, X-Men deals with mature and dark themes but there's only so much you can feed that to the audience before they get too depressed and tired out by it. You need to have lighter moments in there as well, this is a summer blockbuster superhero movie we're talking about here, not a historical biography.

And as you've already said, Fox has already done their thing with their interpretation of the X-Men and you are happy with it and don't even really want to have sequels to it. So what does it even matter to you if Marvel takes their shot at the X-Men? Don't really see the point of you wanting Fox to hold the rights when you don't even seem to want them to make more X-Men films.

Personally, I hope and pray that Marvel gets X-Men back ASAP. It can only improve things because I much rather take Marvel's best possible X-Men comics, cartoons, movies, games, toys, etc. over Fox's FoX-Men and Marvel's mediocre comics and nothing else.

And that's what it boils down to here.

Do you prefer

FoX-Men + mediocre X-Men comics from Fox and Marvel respectively

or

Best possible X-Men comics, cartoons, movies, toys, games, etc. from Marvel alone.

I know what I'd choose.