Why do people think Kevin Feige will do the X-Men justice?

[Kingdom X]

Castle I know you won't answer this or change the goalposts as usual,

But if the Fox X-Men are so far ahead in "mature" issues, where was Mystiques Girlfriend in all of this?

I’m kinda sad that Mystique might not make it into the new films cause she was so overexposed in the Fox prequels. Seeing her and Destiny (HOX/POX style) leading mutants and raising Rogue would be dope.

[Castle]

I am still laughing at the notion of anyone damning Fiege for being one note while praising Zach Snyder in the same post.

Snyder is one of the best cinematographers I have ever seen, but he has never learned one of the biggest lessons needed to move past filming scenes and into filming entire movies (or franchises). Dark does not mean deep. It's entirely possible to make a dark film that is also shallow, since those two things are entirely seperate.

I would have picked Zack Snyder over Kevin Feige for X-Men. People need to remember Snyder movies got trashed by the critics because he was not trying to replicate the MCU and made no apologies for it. No one has yet to prove his movies were bad and MCU was not bad based on their own logic of Snyder’s movies been bad.

Snyder has being vindicated. I am excited about the Snyder Cut.

As for what Snyder said, well there is not much lie there. Hate or love man of steel, it will be one of the most talked about films for years to come. It started a whole new conversation about superman , he was right to say Every MCU movie is forgettable after it is out like most all the same corporate product. 7 years after, Henry Cavill’s Superman is still a thing. Man of steel would have been a great xmen film, to see superman treated as a mutant, hated and feared or see the government involved in superman’s business as they do with mutants. Snyder's Superman evolved from the romanticism of Reeves. Feige is still using the romanticism of Reeves, except it has gotten dated with his own comic films.

Yes and you can especially tell this by how Nolan made a point to show Bruce living on the streets so he could empathize with criminals who stole out of necessity and how poverty was a cause of lawbreaking and societal decline (later RaÂ’s even says they tried to bring Gotham down with economics) along with making a huge piece of his origin the genesis of his no kill rule. ItÂ’s about a man finding his core.

Batman Begins also tackled the world of crimes, police corruption, and the themes of criminal justice vs humanity’s retribution so well in the film. It gave the female character a good story, that is not so dependant on the male. Batman Begins is not a fun-fun empty movie like most of the MCU. The movie also did not need that much CGI like the first couple of X-Men films. If the story was straight forward, most mcu movies were still in draft mode when they hit screens. If any other movies rival xmen with subtext, themes, analytical commentary and story , Man of steel and Batman Begins are the films.

[WebLurker]

I would have picked Zack Snyder over Kevin Feige for X-Men.

Could see him going all out on the sci-fi craziness of it all, but I'm not so sure about the plot structure.

People need to remember Snyder movies got trashed by the critics because he was not trying to replicate the MCU and made no apologies for it.

Logan was praised by critics and fans for doing something different then the MCU, Deadpool was praise by critics and fans having fun with MCU-style movie conventions. Joker was praised for being different. Seems like Snyder's colder reception had to be something else, since we know that being not like the MCU can make for a warm welcome.

No one has yet to prove his movies were bad and MCU was not bad based on their own logic of Snyder’s movies been bad.

Why would Synder making (or not making) bad DC movies "prove" that Marvel Studios makes good movies or vice versa?

Snyder has being vindicated.

And that's why the DEU became successful only when the turned away from Synder's vision?

I am excited about the Snyder Cut.

What's wrong with that?

As for what Snyder said, well there is not much lie there. Hate or love man of steel, it will be one of the most talked about films for years to come. It started a whole new conversation about superman , he was right to say

How are we measuring "most talked about?" Seems to me like BvS and Justice League have kinda overshadowed it big time in terms of Snyder's role in the DCEU, his vision, the good, the bad, etc. Not even sure it's on the public's radar as much as say Wonder Woman has become. (Also not sure that I've seen much discussion about it r.e. its place in the Superman franchise. Mostly what I've seen of any discussion is "odd that they thought that was the movie to grow a cinematic universe out of.)

Every MCU movie is forgettable after it is out like most all the same corporate product.

Depends, some of the early Phase 2 were kinda interchangeable. However, since then, they have become a lot more diverse in style and genre. Course, Guardians of the Galaxy is case in point that not all MCU movies are exactly the same. Guessing the future is chancy, but I think it's a safe bet that the Guardians movies, Black Panther, Winter Solider, and the original Avengers movie and the Infinity War/Endgame saga are the most likely to date that will stand out from the pack, whether it be due to having impressive writing, cultural impact, epic scope, or some combination thereof. (To be totally honest, I think the only DCEU thing to date that looks likely to stand out in a good way like that is Wonder Woman, but the series is still young).

7 years after, Henry Cavill’s Superman is still a thing. Man of steel would have been a great xmen film, to see superman treated as a mutant, hated and feared or see the government involved in superman’s business as they do with mutants. Snyder's Superman evolved from the romanticism of Reeves.

That doesn't sound like Superman, though.

Feige is still using the romanticism of Reeves, except it has gotten dated with his own comic films.

Feige also did Civil War.

Batman Begins also tackled the world of crimes, police corruption, and the themes of criminal justice vs humanity’s retribution so well in the film. It gave the female character a good story, that is not so dependant on the male.

Thought that Katie Holmes was not well-liked, but okay. (Do have to say, though, that in a post-Wonder Woman, post-Captain Marvel, and pre-Black Widow world, seems like giving a female character a "good" supporting role is kinda a little lackluster.)

Batman Begins is not a fun-fun empty movie like most of the MCU.

Yeah, the MCU only did a couple of movies about the flawed families (from parents to siblings raised in an abusive home) and a couple more about father/daughter relationships as the emotional core, characters struggling to uphold their beliefs and values in a world that they didn't seem to fit into, application of authority vs. freedom, self-destruction, PTSD, being ruder-less after loosing a mentor (and the defining of one's identity in light of that), having a personal crises build from discovering that your whole life was a lie and reclaiming one's right to self-determination, dealing with loss. Pretty funny material right there.

Thing is, I think the MCU doesn't deal so much in "big ideas" (e.g. some people hate God and love cherry Jolly Ranchers, that we must save people who's mothers are named "Martha" because that's what our mothers were named), but in emotion and character. Think about it, years into the rise of the superhero blockbuster, and a talking raccoon is a deeper, richer character then any of the X-Men superstars not named Professor X, Magneto, or Wolverine, and any of the DC characters not named Wonder Woman (Harley Quinn is getting there, though; give her a few more good movies and we're on our way).

So, yeah, not empty, just not what you were looking for. There's a difference.

The movie also did not need that much CGI like the first couples of X-Men films.

Batman isn't as splashy a character. Of course they wouldn't need as much CGI. That's neither here nor there.

If the story was straight forward, most mcu movies were still in draft mode when they hit screens. If any other movies rival xmen with subtext, themes, analytical commentary and story , Man of steel and Batman Begins are the films.

Honestly, I think X-Men outdid Snyder, but thing is, they had "big ideas" and "emotion," Snyder just has "big ideas" and fancy camera work, and, as we've seen with stuff like Birds of Prey, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Thor: Rangarok, there's always a bigger fish when it comes to fancy camera work. Heck, DC stuff like Wonder Woman and Birds of Prey nailed both "big ideas" and "emotion."

(If you going to tell me that "emotion" is overrated, here's a little experiment; which X-Men movie is objectively better, X2 or New Mutants? X2, obviously, the story was smoother and it was better constructed (did like both, but the point stands). Now, going into spoilers: [spoiler]Which was a better love story in said movie, Wolverine/Jean or Dani/Rahne. I think it's safe to say the latter; while excellent or at least decent actors were cast as all the characters, the latter was set up with a better emotional impact in the writing in how the characters interacted. It meant something when they got together, both in terms of our investment and in how it helped them grow. Wolverine and Jean were a thing just because the comics did it and there wasn't any effort to dig deeper, so it's more hollow, even if both love stories followed some well-worn tropes.[/spoiler])

[lowfyr]

I’m kinda sad that Mystique might not make it into the new films cause she was so overexposed in the Fox prequels. Seeing her and Destiny (HOX/POX style) leading mutants and raising Rogue would be dope.

Me, too. Would love that.

[Rev9]

I think the frustration over MCU Spider-Man is definitely valid, but luckily the X-Men are in a pretty different position. Marvel was pressed to insert Spider-Man into Civil War which was only two years after his last movie appearance. Coupled with the fact that people were complaining about all the Spider-Man movies feeling the same, I can understand why they did everything in their power to make him unique and connected to a larger universe.

For the X-Men they’ve never been portrayed with a huge amount of comics accuracy before and the franchise has DOZENS of characters to choose from, so it won’t be as hard for them to makes movies that are distinct from the Fox films. Plus, they’re not rushing to introduce them super quickly.

When you say 'pressed' , what do you mean? Pressed by who? Sony? Let's be real here it was an absolute money grab.Spiderman did not fit into the civil war narrative in the slightest.He was shoehorned with absolutely zero sense. Tony first has issues with an innocent kid dying in Sokovia because of the collateral and then recruits a kid into a battle that will involve more collateral?..the logic is infantile we all know the fight in the airport was a pillow fight, but if Stark called Peter to participate for one it was stupid to think if he(IM) would take it easy on the others ,the others would reciprocate in kind and secondly if we do assume the fight by all was a friendly rehearsal ,then all his posturing about the accords is pointless.You cannot enforce the accords half heartedly you have to go all in otherwise you are making a fool of yourself.Civil War has some of the dumbest writing I've seen

[Rev9]

Could see him going all out on the sci-fi craziness of it all, but I'm not so sure about the plot structure.



Logan was praised by critics and fans for doing something different then the MCU, Deadpool was praise by critics and fans having fun with MCU-style movie conventions. Joker was praised for being different. Seems like Snyder's colder reception had to be something else, since we know that being not like the MCU can make for a warm welcome.



Why would Synder making (or not making) bad DC movies "prove" that Marvel Studios makes good movies or vice versa?



And that's why the DEU became successful only when the turned away from Synder's vision?



What's wrong with that?



How are we measuring "most talked about?" Seems to me like BvS and Justice League have kinda overshadowed it big time in terms of Snyder's role in the DCEU, his vision, the good, the bad, etc. Not even sure it's on the public's radar as much as say Wonder Woman has become. (Also not sure that I've seen much discussion about it r.e. its place in the Superman franchise. Mostly what I've seen of any discussion is "odd that they thought that was the movie to grow a cinematic universe out of.)



Depends, some of the early Phase 2 were kinda interchangeable. However, since then, they have become a lot more diverse in style and genre. Course, Guardians of the Galaxy is case in point that not all MCU movies are exactly the same. Guessing the future is chancy, but I think it's a safe bet that the Guardians movies, Black Panther, Winter Solider, and the original Avengers movie and the Infinity War/Endgame saga are the most likely to date that will stand out from the pack, whether it be due to having impressive writing, cultural impact, epic scope, or some combination thereof. (To be totally honest, I think the only DCEU thing to date that looks likely to stand out in a good way like that is Wonder Woman, but the series is still young).



That doesn't sound like Superman, though.



Feige also did Civil War.



Thought that Katie Holmes was not well-liked, but okay. (Do have to say, though, that in a post-Wonder Woman, post-Captain Marvel, and pre-Black Widow world, seems like giving a female character a "good" supporting role is kinda a little lackluster.)



Yeah, the MCU only did a couple of movies about the flawed families (from parents to siblings raised in an abusive home) and a couple more about father/daughter relationships as the emotional core, characters struggling to uphold their beliefs and values in a world that they didn't seem to fit into, application of authority vs. freedom, self-destruction, PTSD, being ruder-less after loosing a mentor (and the defining of one's identity in light of that), having a personal crises build from discovering that your whole life was a lie and reclaiming one's right to self-determination, dealing with loss. Pretty funny material right there.

Thing is, I think the MCU doesn't deal so much in "big ideas" (e.g. some people hate God and love cherry Jolly Ranchers, that we must save people who's mothers are named "Martha" because that's what our mothers were named), but in emotion and character. Think about it, years into the rise of the superhero blockbuster, and a talking raccoon is a deeper, richer character then any of the X-Men superstars not named Professor X, Magneto, or Wolverine, and any of the DC characters not named Wonder Woman (Harley Quinn is getting there, though; give her a few more good movies and we're on our way).

So, yeah, not empty, just not what you were looking for. There's a difference.



Batman isn't as splashy a character. Of course they wouldn't need as much CGI. That's neither here nor there.



Honestly, I think X-Men outdid Snyder, but thing is, they had "big ideas" and "emotion," Snyder just has "big ideas" and fancy camera work, and, as we've seen with stuff like Birds of Prey, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Thor: Rangarok, there's always a bigger fish when it comes to fancy camera work. Heck, DC stuff like Wonder Woman and Birds of Prey nailed both "big ideas" and "emotion."

(If you going to tell me that "emotion" is overrated, here's a little experiment; which X-Men movie is objectively better, X2 or New Mutants? X2, obviously, the story was smoother and it was better constructed (did like both, but the point stands). Now, going into spoilers: [spoiler]Which was a better love story in said movie, Wolverine/Jean or Dani/Rahne. I think it's safe to say the latter; while excellent or at least decent actors were cast as all the characters, the latter was set up with a better emotional impact in the writing in how the characters interacted. It meant something when they got together, both in terms of our investment and in how it helped them grow. Wolverine and Jean were a thing just because the comics did it and there wasn't any effort to dig deeper, so it's more hollow, even if both love stories followed some well-worn tropes.[/spoiler])

As far as I can tell to the question why 'would Synder making (or not making) bad DC movies "prove" that Marvel Studios makes good movies or vice versa?'

That would depend on the criteria and objectivity(which is not easy because tastes are subjective) By and large though I don't know how many times I've heard MCU fans say they have better films because of being bigger box office draws, that does not prove that Civil War's higher gross than BvS makes it a better movie. There are so many ways in which in my subjective opinion (and I am not alone ) BvS told a more internally cohesive story than Civil War , yet majority of folks on sites like this claim Civil war is a better film.I guess subjectively one is entitled their own opinion even if that opinion is biased when we weigh the films on internal cohesion and rationale

'And that's why the DEU became successful only when the turned away from Synder's vision?' What do you base this on? WW was a success with him having story credits. All the other films came out post Justice League, and so we cannot claim they had any character ties to Zack for it is Whedon who portrayed the Flash and Aquaman in our collective consciousness.In fact that could be the reason why many fans did not take well to Whedon's take on the batman or WW. If anything 'box office' logic especially since these are basically sequels would dictate because Zack topped MoS box office with BvS and WW was a success that JL would top both, what happened?...Joss came in that's what happened.Aquaman was a success but it was always going to happen after JL anyway, we have no way of knowing how Aquaman is portrayed by Zack.Shazam was a baseline hero film in terms of box office(I would not call it a success relative to the rest in the universe but then again it was not taking itself seriously so in a way it is niche family comedy.If it was expecting to be a blockbuster for the studio then it failed, again relatively speaking) and it wasn't at all tied to Zack so what is your claim based on?

[WebLurker]

As far as I can tell to the question why 'would Synder making (or not making) bad DC movies "prove" that Marvel Studios makes good movies or vice versa?'

That would depend on the criteria and objectivity(which is not easy because tastes are subjective) By and large though I don't know how many times I've heard MCU fans say they have better films because of being bigger box office draws, that does not prove that Civil War's higher gross than BvS makes it a better movie. There are so many ways in which in my subjective opinion (and I am not alone ) BvS told a more internally cohesive story than Civil War , yet majority of folks on sites like this claim Civil war is a better film.I guess subjectively one is entitled their own opinion even if that opinion is biased when we weigh the films on internal cohesion and rationale

Not sure at all that BvS had a more coherent story then Civil War (one of my big problems with BvS was how sloppy the plot and pacing were), but box office is associated with financial success, not artistic success (although some have both).

'And that's why the DEU became successful only when the turned away from Synder's vision?' What do you base this on? WW was a success with him having story credits. All the other films came out post Justice League, and so we cannot claim they had any character ties to Zack for it is Whedon who portrayed the Flash and Aquaman in our collective consciousness.In fact that could be the reason why many fans did not take well to Whedon's take on the batman or WW. If anything 'box office' logic especially since these are basically sequels would dictate because Zack topped MoS box office with BvS and WW was a success that JL would top both, what happened?...Joss came in that's what happened.Aquaman was a success but it was always going to happen after JL anyway, we have no way of knowing how Aquaman is portrayed by Zack.Shazam was a baseline hero film in terms of box office(I would not call it a success relative to the rest in the universe but then again it was not taking itself seriously so in a way it is niche family comedy.If it was expecting to be a blockbuster for the studio then it failed, again relatively speaking) and it wasn't at all tied to Zack so what is your claim based on?

Well, the movies where Snyder was not the main creative voice have had a better reception in general. While Synder's personal tragedy was a major factor in him leaving Justice League, it is on record that WB wasn't exactly pleased with what he was turning in. A lotta coincidences there.

[Gray Lensman]

I'll repeat this point again regarding Justice League - no matter your opinion on Whedon or Snyder, they each provide very clashing tones with the other. Cramming both together will create a final product that is at odds with itself and ends up as far less than the sum of its parts. You'd have a better movie with either one of them rather than the mess of putting them both together.

[Rev9]

Not sure at all that BvS had a more coherent story then Civil War (one of my big problems with BvS was how sloppy the plot and pacing were), but box office is associated with financial success, not artistic success (although some have both).



Well, the movies where Snyder was not the main creative voice have had a better reception in general. While Synder's personal tragedy was a major factor in him leaving Justice League, it is on record that WB wasn't exactly pleased with what he was turning in. A lotta coincidences there.

As per your first answer you underscored my point, I have seen countless arguments made way back in 2016 that Civil War was a better film because more people paid to see it, which is true financial success is not predicated on artistry or good story telling, it just isn't ;you can have mindless blockbusters that take in the money just on spectacle and yet threadbare in story.

The critical reception as per aggregated scores on IMDB gave a general audience score of 6.4 rating out of 10 for Dawn of Justice which is a favourable score. Meaning the wider fan audience reviewing average on the site liked the film.

As for WB they never publicly said they did not like Snyder's work.I remember an official statement saying they were happy with BvS numbers ultimately but I have also heard 'sources' behind the official line claiming Snyder's cut was 'unwatchable' before they hired Whedon.So although I don't give credit to hearsay, I will attest to the way they used Snyder's tragedy to get him out the door (while saying something else publicly)shows you have some weight to your assumption BUT only in as far as that tiny group of executives who were speaking with financials in mind and arbitrarily deciding what for them was 'watchable' by hiring Whedon.The proof is in the pudding the JL shot by Whedon which had approximately 10% Snyder footage - here is a quote by Fabian Wagner the cinematographer on the JL under Zack

“I did principal photography for Zack. We finished shooting and he started editing...We did the color grading for the trailers. So the first three trailers were all things we shot. Then they started reshoots. I wasn’t there. It was a completely different team. They reshot 55 days, I think. The movie that was in cinemas was 10 percent of what we shot. Everything else is a reshoot.”

- was neither a financial nor critical success.What we now have is the opposite with ZSJL due for release because of a fan campaign.The fans who wanted Zack's 'unwatchable' cut are in the hundreds of thousands(conservative estimate) as opposed to a roomfull of corporate suits.Which again proves the IMDB scores are not off base.

[WebLurker]

As per your first answer you underscored my point, I have seen countless arguments made way back in 2016 that Civil War was a better film because more people paid to see it, which is true financial success is not predicated on artistry or good story telling, it just isn't ;you can have mindless blockbusters that take in the money just on spectacle and yet threadbare in story.

The critical reception as per aggregated scores on IMDB gave a general audience score of 6.4 rating out of 10 for Dawn of Justice which is a favourable score. Meaning the wider fan audience reviewing average on the site liked the film.

On the site sure. However, we don't know the percentage of that they are of the total audience, so the numbers are kinda meaningless in terms of assessing how well like the movie was overall.

As for WB they never publicly said they did not like Snyder's work.I remember an official statement saying they were happy with BvS numbers ultimately but I have also heard 'sources' behind the official line claiming Snyder's cut was 'unwatchable' before they hired Whedon.So although I don't give credit to hearsay, I will attest to the way they used Snyder's tragedy to get him out the door (while saying something else publicly)shows you have some weight to your assumption BUT only in as far as that tiny group of executives who were speaking with financials in mind and arbitrarily deciding what for them was 'watchable' by hiring Whedon.

Well, based on BvS, I find it very plausible that Synder's in-progress JL movie was "unwatchable" (and so far, he seems to be doubling down on the stuff that ruined BvS for the new Snyder Cut). Fair point, though, that we don't know everything going on in the board rooms.

The proof is in the pudding the JL shot by Whedon which had approximately 10% Snyder footage - here is a quote by Fabian Wagner the cinematographer on the JL under Zack

“I did principal photography for Zack. We finished shooting and he started editing...We did the color grading for the trailers. So the first three trailers were all things we shot. Then they started reshoots. I wasn’t there. It was a completely different team. They reshot 55 days, I think. The movie that was in cinemas was 10 percent of what we shot. Everything else is a reshoot.”

Too bad the retool didn't make for a better movie.

- was neither a financial nor critical success.What we now have is the opposite with ZSJL due for release because of a fan campaign.The fans who wanted Zack's 'unwatchable' cut are in the hundreds of thousands(conservative estimate) as opposed to a roomfull of corporate suits.Which again proves the IMDB scores are not off base.

It's been my experiences that fan campaigns rarely do anything (for every Star Trek, there's dozens of Fireflys). At the end of the day, all that matters is the paying customer. Granted, we don't know all the pieces (and there certainly plenty of think pieces speculating that WB was giving into a vocal online cult), but we don't have access to the data to know how WB crunched the numbers and decided that sinking more money into this project was worth their while. (I strongly suspect that the pandemic is the only reason we're getting this -- the Snyder Cut people spent years asking for it and WB didn't budge until now -- but, like I said, we don't have all the information, just that, for good or bad, Snyder will get his cut after years of online posting about it.)

[Kingdom X]

I certainly did not expect to see in depth discussions about Justice League and Snyder in the X-forums...

[DarkMagnus]

to be fair.

Synder is a DC fanboy and he dont have any opinion good or bad about Marvel Comics.

If they want to choose a director they need someone who is a x-fan but really a good one.

[Rev9]

to be fair.

Synder is a DC fanboy and he dont have any opinion good or bad about Marvel Comics.

If they want to choose a director they need someone who is a x-fan but really a good one.

I found Matthew Vaughn's First Class excellent, they should give him the reins again.I don't really understand how Singer swooped in and hijacked the franchise again after how good First class was.Although Snyder is an excellent choice because he likes darker ,heavier storylines and Marvel doesn't get much heavier than the Xmen.

[Steel Inquisitor]

I certainly did not expect to see in depth discussions about Justice League and Snyder in the X-forums...

That's from the crossover of pro-Snyder DCEU fans and X-fans in this thread.

[OblivionX33]

I found Matthew Vaughn's First Class excellent, they should give him the reins again.I don't really understand how Singer swooped in and hijacked the franchise again after how good First class was.Although Snyder is an excellent choice because he likes darker ,heavier storylines and Marvel doesn't get much heavier than the Xmen.

MV only did that movie to get Kingsmen and Kick Ass off the ground. I wouldn't exactly call Frist Class excellent or faithful it's better than X3 and X1 one that's for sure. But his choice to kill the only black guy in the cast will always sour my taste.