Jump to content

X-Men Apocalypse: continued


Maltaran

Recommended Posts

Mutant massacre would be good. So would a phoenix/clone phoenix storyline, honestly. I'd be cool with that. 

What I'm concerned about is that Sinister will just do what the last x plots do: force Xavier and Magneto to unite against Big Bad, then Magneto does a sudden but inevitable betrayal like he has for the last three xmen movies and things suck a bit. I really want Magneto kind of not involved in the least. 

This is, IMO, one of my worries about the Apocalypse plot - it's basically as far as I can tell precisely the same as X3 and X1, where Magneto wants to create a new mutant world. Apocalypse doing it doesn't make it particularly more compelling. Sinister having the same kind of plot sucks; I want his story to be a bit more intimate and less conquer the world, blah blah. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is, IMO, one of my worries about the Apocalypse plot - it's basically as far as I can tell precisely the same as X3 and X1, where Magneto wants to create a new mutant world. Apocalypse doing it doesn't make it particularly more compelling. Sinister having the same kind of plot sucks; I want his story to be a bit more intimate and less conquer the world, blah blah. 

You know, that wouldn't bother me much if it prompted a sea change in movie Magneto. Say he realizes that the methods necessary to carry that out effectively too closely resemble Nazism or whatnot, and he finally gives up on that pipe dream and joins up with Charlie for good. I rather enjoyed that version of the comic Mags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You know, that wouldn't bother me much if it prompted a sea change in movie Magneto. Say he realizes that the methods necessary to carry that out effectively too closely resemble Nazism or whatnot, and he finally gives up on that pipe dream and joins up with Charlie for good. I rather enjoyed that version of the comic Mags.

He doesnt even have to join up with Xavier. How about giving up on being a violent general and becoming a benevolent ruler instead (Genosha, minus the violence)? Then you could have had Charles be all like "Eric, I need your help to take on Oscar Isaac".

I understand that the comics would never allow it, status quo is law after all, but with a smaller series of movies you have the freedom for Magneto to change more drastically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

He doesnt even have to join up with Xavier. How about giving up on being a violent general and becoming a benevolent ruler instead (Genosha, minus the violence)? Then you could have had Charles be all like "Eric, I need your help to take on Oscar Isaac".

I understand that the comics would never allow it, status quo is law after all, but with a smaller series of movies you have the freedom for Magneto to change more drastically.

Yeah, they don't have to be on the same team necessarily, just not at odds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll hold out on the reviews until I see it myself.  Going forward I hope they ditch Singer for a younger more comic book fan of a director.  They've completed the second X-men trilogy and are about to wrap the Wolverine trilogy.

Now would be a perfect chance to do a MCU style universe making a trilogy w/ Gambit, Deadpool and Cable and the next X-Men film with Sinister as the big bad in all 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be brutally honest I have little to no desire of seeing a Mr. Sinister movie, let alone a series of movies centered around him. To me, that character is the essence of Mad Chris Claremont, and kind of signaled the beginning of his jumping the shark phase. The character is just so convoluted and his motivations so poorly laid out. 

 So he's some immortal guy with some vague connection to Apocalypse who ages oddly. (He initially has the appearance of an 11 year old, but he's in his 50's) He's obsessed with Scott Summers for some odd reason. He's some kind of geneticist I guess. His powers never seemed to be clearly defined outside of the fact that he was obviously really powerful. Just a clusterfuck of a character in my estimation. 

 I think maybe you can draw some Claremont to GRRM comparisons in that when he lost his solid collaborators, he really went off the tracks. I think he was at his best when he had Dave Cockrum and John Bryne to bounce ideas off of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mr. Sinister has gone through some odd iterations, but the Marauder storyline was great on a lot of levels - finally a set of enemies that didn't pull punches and was pretty horrible - and Sinister wanting Jean Grey didn't need a ton of background.

Sinister, IIRC, was originally planned to be a Summers sibling but they walked back on that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be brutally honest I have little to no desire of seeing a Mr. Sinister movie, let alone a series of movies centered around him. To me, that character is the essence of Mad Chris Claremont, and kind of signaled the beginning of his jumping the shark phase. The character is just so convoluted and his motivations so poorly laid out. 

 So he's some immortal guy with some vague connection to Apocalypse who ages oddly. (He initially has the appearance of an 11 year old, but he's in his 50's) He's obsessed with Scott Summers for some odd reason. He's some kind of geneticist I guess. His powers never seemed to be clearly defined outside of the fact that he was obviously really powerful. Just a clusterfuck of a character in my estimation. 

 I think maybe you can draw some Claremont to GRRM comparisons in that when he lost his solid collaborators, he really went off the tracks. I think he was at his best when he had Dave Cockrum and John Bryne to bounce ideas off of. 

You need to think of 90s cartoon Mr Sinister - then everything is fine. I agree that comic book sinister (at least from when I started reading in the 90s) is a bit of a mess. I did like him being established as a 19th century evolutionary theorist who became a servant of Apocalypse though.

I thought the Scott Summers obsession was fairly easy (at some point in the timeline - an important caveat in comics) to define. He knew that Scott's DNA mixed with Jean Grey's held the potential to form the ultimate mutant. If Cable is going to turn up in Deadpool it would be fun to see Sinister play a part in it all.

I know some enjoyed Sinister's recent comic take where he became a flamboyant victorian egomaniac with clones of himself as servants/guests. I thought it was awful.

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think Mr. Sinister has gone through some odd iterations, but the Marauder storyline was great on a lot of levels - finally a set of enemies that didn't pull punches and was pretty horrible - and Sinister wanting Jean Grey didn't need a ton of background.

Sinister, IIRC, was originally planned to be a Summers sibling but they walked back on that. 

I suspect the marauders would get about 5 lines between them throughout the film given the history of X-men villain lackeys.

I think everyone has been a Summers Sibling at some point. Gambit was long thought to be him but then turned out to be one of the Marauders instead. X-men - in many ways the weird continuity of the films is one of the most loyal aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinister wasn't originally supposed to be a Summers, no. He was supposed to be the manifestation of an eleven-year-old child's fantasy, which is literally the explanation of why he is what an eleven-year-old boy would consider 'cool' but appears so absurd to adult eyes.

Think about that for a second; this is a character whose creator not only acknowledges he is lame, he is intentionally lame. It is part of his origin story that he's embarrassingly crap. Think about that, and then never ask for another story or film featuring the character again.

I love the Mutant Massacre story but Sinister is, always has been and always will be a dork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, mormont said:

Sinister wasn't originally supposed to be a Summers, no. He was supposed to be the manifestation of an eleven-year-old child's fantasy, which is literally the explanation of why he is what an eleven-year-old boy would consider 'cool' but appears so absurd to adult eyes.

Think about that for a second; this is a character whose creator not only acknowledges he is lame, he is intentionally lame. It is part of his origin story that he's embarrassingly crap. Think about that, and then never ask for another story or film featuring the character again.

I love the Mutant Massacre story but Sinister is, always has been and always will be a dork.

Think about this for a second. Supermans creators originally portrayed him as a mysoginistic killer with a set of moral principles that would be considered utterly insane today. Compare Bob Kane's Batman to today's Batman and they're as different as night and day.

Yeah, a character can turn out completely different than a creator intended it, after decades of different storylines and a fleet of different writers. The original intention of the creator (who lost his marbles in the mid 90s and gave us X-men Forever) is not law.

And about him looking absurd, I cant think of a ton of supervillains who DONT look absurd when you really step back and think about it. With Magneto and his red, lavender and outside speedo, The Hellfire Club looking like dandies (lame in itself) or Apocalypse with his steroid-fueled domo-arigato Mr.Roboto look immediately coming to mind as just as idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think Mr. Sinister has gone through some odd iterations, but the Marauder storyline was great on a lot of levels - finally a set of enemies that didn't pull punches and was pretty horrible - and Sinister wanting Jean Grey didn't need a ton of background.

I think that in their original appearance The Marauders where the better villains compared to Sinister. They come of as a more brutal, scary and effective version of The Brotherhood of Mutants. Then they just became neutered in every subsequent appearance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The_Gallows_Knight said:

I think that in their original appearance The Marauders where the better villains compared to Sinister. They come of as a more brutal, scary and effective version of The Brotherhood of Mutants. Then they just became neutered in every subsequent appearance. 

Sinister basically just had Gambit assemble the team and unleashed them, he really didnt do much in that storyline.

I think his better storylines involve him as a guy who wipes out the Neo, works with the Nazis (elements which First Class Shaw took) or acting like a scientific right-hand man to Apocalypse while creating a mutant that is strong enough to topple his empire.

He is in my opinion at best when he serves as a dark mirror of Reed Richards. He has powers, but what truly makes him dangerous is his scientific know-how. You could make a storyline not just about him assembling the Marauders and subsquently cloning them, but around him making bioweapons that wipe out millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Think about this for a second. Supermans creators originally portrayed him as a mysoginistic killer with a set of moral principles that would be considered utterly insane today. Compare Bob Kane's Batman to today's Batman and they're as different as night and day.

Yeah, but - and this is the really crucial difference -

Mr Sinister ain't Superman.

He's still the same character as when he was created: he hasn't had important stories over a long publishing history where the character has evolved and developed. He still has the same appearance, the same mannerisms, the same vague powers. He's still lame. He's always been lame. He always will be. It's baked in.

Just say no to Mr Sinister, folks!

(I'm not being entirely serious, for the record. ;))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Yeah, but - and this is the really crucial difference -

Mr Sinister ain't Superman.

He's still the same character as when he was created: he hasn't had important stories over a long publishing history where the character has evolved and developed. He still has the same appearance, the same mannerisms, the same vague powers. He's still lame. He's always been lame. He always will be. It's baked in.

Just say no to Mr Sinister, folks!

(I'm not being entirely serious, for the record. ;))

But that´s the thing, sinister isnt necessarily about mannerisms, his powers or appearance, its all about his schemes. You could say whatever you want about him looking and acting lame (which I agree with, but I always thought the champagne-sipping supervillain was lame anyway), but his actions are anything but. He wiped out a race, he engineered the death of hundreds of Morlocks, he kept Apocalypse constantly one step ahead of the good guys during the Age of Apocalypse, he created one of the most powerful mutants ever.

Sinister himself mostly stays the same, but its his plans that make him dangerous. This man would be lethal even if he was human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Apocalypse really any less ridiculous than Sinister? His powers are even more ill defined, he is the apex of the trend of making villains more and more ridiculously           OP so that they lose all bite when they continually fail to live up to those powers and their goals. Outside of Age of Apocalypse, Poccy has amounted to little more than a wet fart. At least if this were taking place in the MCU, they could stick to canon and show that Apocalypse is really just the Celestials' bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Is Apocalypse really any less ridiculous than Sinister? His powers are even more ill defined, he is the apex of the trend of making villains more and more ridiculously           OP so that they lose all bite when they continually fail to live up to those powers and their goals. Outside of Age of Apocalypse, Poccy has amounted to little more than a wet fart. At least if this were taking place in the MCU, they could stick to canon and show that Apocalypse is really just the Celestials' bitch.

My point exactly. There are very few supervillains im willing to say are not ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

But that´s the thing, sinister isnt necessarily about mannerisms, his powers or appearance

These things are a large part of what makes a character a character, though, distinct from others. The stuff you're talking about could have been (and in many cases has been) done by other supervillains.

Apocalypse isn't hugely better but he is better. The founding idea is sound enough. The founding idea of Sinister, which is pretty hard to get away from, is that he's lame.

Being serious for a second, I subscribe to the idea that no character is irredeemable. But I've never read a take on Sinister that manages to redeem him. He usually manages to be simultaneously overwrought and boring. Maybe Fox could come up with such a take. But I'm not confident. Their record is patchy at best. The X-Men movies have some strengths, but original takes on tricky characters is not among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mormont said:

These things are a large part of what makes a character a character, though, distinct from others. The stuff you're talking about could have been (and in many cases has been) done by other supervillains. (you could use this argument for pretty much every character, one of the problems with works of superhero fiction)

Apocalypse isn't hugely better but he is better. The founding idea is sound enough (disagree, always felt he was an even bigger underachiever than even somebody like say Kilgrave, considering his means and powers and the underlying principle he is based on is being the strongest, which he constantly fails to live up to)

Being serious for a second, I subscribe to the idea that no character is irredeemable (I dont, you cant convince me Red Skull, The Joker, Bullseye, Killgrave, Copperhead, Dormammu, Obadiah Stane, Apocalypse or wolfgang Von Strucker among others are redeemable).

Also, the fact that Apocalypse is all about "survival of the fittest" but is a huge failure over and over again (again, especially with his powers), kinda goes against the fundamental foundation of his character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Also, the fact that Apocalypse is all about "survival of the fittest" but is a huge failure over and over again (again, especially with his powers), kinda goes against the fundamental foundation of his character.

Well he does continue to survive so that sort of makes him the fittest? Plus I always felt like his job is win win based on his philosophy. If he turns up and causes a shit storm that the X-men thwart then he's made the X-men stronger. Job done.

Last I checked though Apocalypse was dead and it was now all about some weird life-force that possesses his "seed"?  I think Marvel are doing an event to tie-in with the film which is good from the point that Marvel are even trying to sell X-men books off the films. They completely ignored DOFP on the same year that DOFP was set in the original comics time-line. I'm still angry that they missed out on that opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, red snow said:

Well he does continue to survive so that sort of makes him the fittest?

That's like saying an MMA fighter who keeps getting his ass kicked is the fittest simply because he sticks around and keeps continuing his dissappointing career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...