X-men first issue:
RCO006_1469326824.jpg
Iceman is as always very sad./s
He is not lighthearted./s
X-men first issue:
RCO006_1469326824.jpg
Iceman is as always very sad./s
He is not lighthearted./s
Januray 1994 issue where Jott got engaged.
https://images.app.goo.gl/DcqdguAesqLBekPR8
Yep boring.
KB, I wasn’t talking to you.
There’s a lot of resistant learning on CBR and it comes from people hanging onto trees rather than imagining forests. Yes Bobby's past can be described as tragic, but humor comes from pain and he’s effing funny and wants others to be happy. Hearts have layers.
Let's not forget humor is a coping mechanism. It's why people make jokes or laugh at inappropriate times.
History and character are two differen things.
Think about this situation:
You had a car crash and lost both legs.
Some people can gave up and never do anything more in life. Some may try to commit suicide.
but
other can act like Stephen Hawking and have great life.
Yeah some bad things happen in marvel universe
but so what?
if everyone would react to this excatly the same then we wouldn't need more than 1 x-man.
You especially (as a Person who believes that X-men should be mature) should prefer version where X-men have different characters, different beliefs. Some X-men should be lighthearted and some should be not.
Remember Hiro's best episode from the entire show? Five years gone. A fantastic time travel dystopian story that Endgame couldn't be. Hiro got a lot of criticism in season 3 and 4. Most and if not all of us hated , when he became a child trapped in a man's body. It was one of the worst storylines of the show.
You know some of the main problems I have heard with far from home? Its not just the humor, its how lighthearted it is as a Spiderman film. Marvel is not as lighhearted as MCU wants you to think.The X-men is so not a lighthearted world that they don't find time to play baseball and go to mall
Last edited by Beaddle; 07-11-2019 at 05:34 AM.
This is even more confusing than the time I found out what a "shipping war" is.
Iceman is literally used a quipper and comedic relief in books, Nightcrawler optimism, and positivity is the core to the character . Beast key descriptor for awhile was" fun loving". Maybe I am reading a different X-men book
Last edited by Killerbee911; 07-11-2019 at 09:17 AM.
Actually though Endgame was one of the better time travel stories out there. Avoided a lot of the plot holes in such stories (like too much power to the characters and the Star Trek-style time travel reset button trope) and it was a clean model of travel that actually made sense with the internal logic (old Cap notwithstanding).
Spock and McCoy bickering (both versions), the amusement park planet, Sigma Iota II, "Spectre of the Gun," the Animated Series, How Much For Just the Planet?, The Voyage Home, the Klingon Dictionary, the Ferengi, Data misunderstanding human nature, Picard threatening Ferengi pirates with Shakespeare (and winning), Worf's stoic nature, Q, "Cause and Effect," Spot, "A Fistful or Datas," Worf being a midwife, Quark and family, Morn, Dax's irreverence, "plain simple" Garak's handwaving and obscuring his past, "Who Morns For Morn," "In the Cards," Paris and his hobbies, the holo Doctor being himself, Neelix, Future's End, Seven of Nine being a den mother, Captain Proton, Dr. Phlox, Trip, Porthos, Shran and his loathing being in someone's debt, first visit to Risa, "In a Mirror, Darkly," Kelvin Scotty's suffering, Jeyla, weaponizing Beastie Boys.
I was generalizing about the Raimi trilogy as a whole vs. the two most beloved installments of it. Logan is still too new to know what it's legacy will be and until an X-Men reboot happens, we don't really know what kind of shadow the original series will cast. I mean. when the ASM movies first came out, the most vocal voices were the ones who though that they were so much better then the Raimi movies on all levels, while now, ASM is a footnote while the Raimi movies are still recognized for their impact.
Personally, I don't know about that; X2 seems to have lost a lot of its shine over the years. Still think its good, but I'm not sure its the best of the best, something Spider-Man 2 can still claim.
No, I think Endgame did Days of Future Past one better in several ways (and not just in giving everyone something to do). The aftermath of the disaster is explored far more and how it affects the survivors. It also plays more to the personal level then the larger scale. We get whole scenes just devoted to character development and wrestling with problems, on a scale that Days of Future Past never did. (Bear in mind that I would still place Days of Future Past way ahead of Endgame on my personal favorites list.)
Never saw those, so I can't comment, although it sounds a lot like the Guardians of the Galaxy movies in that regard. (Seriously, watch that first movie and examine how humor is used in regards to the different characters and what we learn about them through it.)
[QUOTE=Beaddle;4448708]There was X-men 1, a film that set the entire genre on full reverse, an impact that still holds up today on how to make a serious film about comic book characters.
I guess where I stand is that while the X-Men movies may deal with more "important" topics, I think a case can be made that the MCU has more "emotional" maturity, at least in the sense of going broke on their characters and developing them considerably over the course of the movies. The Guardians of the Galaxy may be sillier then the X-Men, but they're also far more fleshed out characters on the whole who've been explored in far greater detail then Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, and the other major characters were in two or three movies. (Also, personal opinion, while I do think Jennifer Lawerence's Mystique's story arc of villain to hero is one of the good things the X-Men series, I think Nebula's similar story arc did it a lot better, in a far more moving way, and in a fraction of the screen time to boot.)
Yeah?
Tom Holland certainly seemed to fit well into the spectrum the franchise has established for the character. He works really well in both comedy and drama, as well as dramas with elements of comic relief. The latter being why I keep comparing him to Pixar movies. While he does have his differences as a character from many of the Pixar ones, the way the two franchises combine clever premises with stories that balance out the humor with serious plots and emotions are pretty similar. I mean, Toy Story 4 has plenty of side-busting scenes, but explores some pretty serious stuff through Woody dealing with his loss of meaning in life under his new circumstances.
Toy Story 3 trash compactor scene, anyone? Besides, why does a story having maturity in its plot and themes have to automatically be something that would upset younger audiences?
Fair enough. Was never able to get into that cartoon; IMHO, it has not aged well at all in terms of the animation and acting, but I probably should do a deeper dive into it for a more informed critique. Heck, I love the Evolution cartoon, which did angle more to the character beats and fun aspects of superhero stories then social commentary, so there it is.
What if an X-Men movie was made in the mold of Winter Solider? That had its share humor, but it was still a more serious-toned movie then others in the series.
Not sure what everyone saying has in mind when they venture this opinion, but the gist from the postings that they think the Fox series messed out the source material and/or went downhill beyond redemption and that Marvel Studios were do the franchise justice. Make of that what you will.
It's an example of how mature doesn't have to be serious. My point is that the MCU style could work for the X-Men in terms of telling a meaningful story that has more value then just the fleeting entertainment.
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)
Its one of the worst to me. My taste in time travel movies is just bigger than what Endgame did.
Logan is not still too new. Logan is not ASM. Logan was more than The Dark Knight. ASM honestly is too similar to MCU. Endgame is supposed to be an instant classic and Logan is not. The Logan of 2017?I was generalizing about the Raimi trilogy as a whole vs. the two most beloved installments of it. Logan is still too new to know what it's legacy will be and until an X-Men reboot happens, we don't really know what kind of shadow the original series will cast. I mean. when the ASM movies first came out, the most vocal voices were the ones who though that they were so much better then the Raimi movies on all levels, while now, ASM is a footnote while the Raimi movies are still recognized for their impact.
X2 is one of the the great classics of comics, so is Spiderman 2. X2 was a film released at a time comic films had to be Aristotle to escape mockery. Comic films don't have to be Aristotle anymore. Many films today will struggle to be called a classic.Personally, I don't know about that; X2 seems to have lost a lot of its shine over the years. Still think its good, but I'm not sure its the best of the best, something Spider-Man 2 can still claim.
Toy story is not drawing complains from the parents council association.Toy Story 3 trash compactor scene, anyone? Besides, why does a story having maturity in its plot and themes have to automatically be something that would upset younger audiences?
To me those opinions are too much about getting X-Men in the MCU , than critiquing the implications of X-men in the MCU. I just step above those opinions and offer a MCU adult contemporary universe for X-Men , that solves all the problems.Not sure what everyone saying has in mind when they venture this opinion, .
Redemption was easy. Fire Kinberg. How hard was it to fire Snyder?but the gist from the postings that they think the Fox series messed out the source material and/or went downhill beyond redemption and that Marvel
How much redemption is needed when Dark Phoenix is not that different from Captain Marvel.
What was the gist about DC after JL? Give it to Disney or give DC a better head runner?
It still sounds like an endgame struggle to the original movies. MCU should be reborn when they bring in X-Men.It's an example of how mature doesn't have to be serious. My point is that the MCU style could work for the X-Men in terms of telling a meaningful story that has more value then just the fleeting entertainment.
Beast and Iceman have many quip moments. It does not mean giving them a Thor 3 movie is the best thing to do.
Last edited by Beaddle; 07-11-2019 at 03:09 PM.
What do you have in mind?
At two years old, yeah, I'm pretty sure it is. We still don't know how it'll stand the test of time or what legacy, if any, it'll lead. I mean, Avatar was thought to be the next Star Wars back in '09 and a mere ten years later, it generally regarded as a joke that James Cameron is still trying to make the next big thing.
Yeah? Thing is, Dark Knight isn't the only way to do a good genre movie. Logan wasn't good because it was like The Dark Knight, but because it pulled off the execution of its premise well. Batman vs. Superman was made in the mold of the Dark Knight and we know how that turned out.
Well, it is more colorful and lost the brooding and angst that the original was saturated (also, it had brighter colors and less of the nighttime scenes). However, I don't think it was as well-crafted as the MCU's usual standards are. For starters, less experimentation and flatter characters.
They're such different movies and had different objectives, what's the point in comparing them? They each nailed their goals quite well and both have claims to being well-made. We've got room for both.
Their reputations have survived so far.
Not all classic films are "Aristotle." Ghostbusters, for example, has no high aspirations beyond being funny and it's a classic. Looney Tunes is classic and has even less substance. And, as kinda noted with Logan, we don't have enough perspective yet to note which modern movies will have staying power. IMHO, I think the original Avengers movie, the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and Captain America: The Winter Solider will probably become genre classics, but that has yet to be proven.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that it has depth to the story and themes, which has been my main point.
Well, until we know what Marvel Studios plan is, we don't have any data to base an assessment on, making it very had to know what the implications will be.
It might be a nice pipe dream, but we factually know that Marvel wants the X-Men in the MCU and it will happen, so what's the point of wishing for something we can't get?
If only. It's not a one-man problem.
Seeing as he left the DCEU because his daughter took her own life, we can't even begin to comprehend it all. In a better world, that wouldn't have happened and if her living meant we got Snyder on Justice League to the end and maybe as the DCEU's main leader, it would've been worth it.
Can't say I see that many similarities. Thought the latter was better then the former, but that's be.
Is there a Kevin Feige for the DCEU? Everything seems to be pretty isolated in that franchise these days.
Maybe?
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)
Giving two characters who use comedy a movie with comedy isn't the best thing? You are missing the only thing close to reasonable complaint about Thor 3. If Thor 3 starred Hercules people wouldn't have complained. It is fair complaint to not like the tone of the movie of Thor 3 for the character but it is also a fair complaint to point out Thor 1, Thor 2, are the worse two combine grossing MCU movies for series and Thor in Avengers 1 and 2 where bland. If They left Thor as is he would have been first MCU property to probably fail. You can't talk about Thor without mentioning it saved the franchise.
It is clear that Fox didn't make an adjustment for the audience that Thor Ragnarok did with Dark Phoenix. Humor was the easy thing missing from Dark Phoenix and big drama doesn't work because X-men doesn't feel close to each other. It is humor and banter between characters that is what shows you their camaraderie and friendship.
So CBR had an article about who could be the next Thanos in the MCU, and it got me thinking about an idea I'd had for the XCU which could work here:
Selene.
While she might require a power boost to be a Thanos-level threat, there's already a story for that in Necrosha, where her entire goal was to become a Goddess. There's nothing to say the MCU version couldn't tweak the story to boost her even further. And since Selene often works from the shadows, her MO would make her ideal as an arc villain acting through proxies before she's fully revealed; perhaps because her powers are weak after a defeat, imprisonment, etc. Finally, because Selene may be the oldest mutant (she's what, at LEAST 10,000 years older than Apocalypse? I know in-universe she was born long before Conan in the Hyborean Age) they could also use her to establish the origin of mutants in the MCU (hell, maybe tweak Sinister's origin so that rather than Apocalypse, he was serving Selene instead).
Another thing that adapting Necrosha to a Thanos-scale event could do would it would give a fun way to bring back some of the heroes and villains who have died already. Imagine Peter coming face-to-face with a revenant Tony Stark.
The question is who would play Selene? They could always go for the in joke of using Kate Beckinsale, but it's kind of a shame they already used Cate Blanchett as Hela.