X-Men Apocalypse: continued

[polishgenius]

To be fair to Joss Whedon, I did think, just now, that the 'it's me/you're a dick' thing felt very Whedon and, in looking for his moaning about how Halle Berry read the toad line wrong (she probably did, but honestly that scans bad whichever way I imagine it being said) I did find that that's because it was also his.

So he went 50/50.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

But the atrocities he commited is an extension of who he is as a character. Good luck selling genocide with Magneto.

They kind of did. Remember the trial? X-Men 200? (I mean, who can forget that Magneto costume? :p)

3 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

To make the underlying concept on which Apocalypse is made work, he basically has to win or at least be highly succesful, this puts a ton of writers in a jam from the start. It is a crippling concept.

It's a common supervillain mastermind problem. Doom, for example, or Lex Luthor, are these astounding strategic intellects whose plans always fail and who rarely learn anything from it. It goes with the territory. 

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I basically agree there. Apocalypse was basically the first in a long line of ridiculously over-powered X-baddies that Claremont more or less pulled out of his ass half formed. At least Apocalypse was the first. 

Louise Simonson created Apocalypse, btw.

1 hour ago, Red Tiger said:

Its true Sinister didnt do much of anything, he just gave the order. Sabretooth was definitely the most memorable villain, it truly gave us a view of how truly savage and psychotic he truly was. Riptide and Harpoon were pretty damn brutal too and watching Colossus snap Riptide's neck was very satisfying.

Satisfying is not the word I'd use, or what Claremont was going for, I think. It's not Wolverine doing it, after all. That moment is about feeling shocked, worried for big gentle Pete and what he's feeling.

All these moments are about escalation, making the emotional stakes higher. That's what my main worry about a Mutant Massacre movie would be: in the hands of a Zack Snyder, it would just be a series of 'isn't this badass?' moments.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

Louise Simonson created Apocalypse, btw.

I don't have a big problem with Apocalypse, outside of the fact that he seemed to set off a chain reaction of utterly forgettable over-powered X-villains. Mr. Sinister, Stryfe, Onslaught, etc. I think as a base concept (the world's first mutant) he's actually kind of cool.

 

I think probably my biggest problem with Mr. Sinister is that his showcase run was a crossover event that I had little or no interest in. (Inferno) Blech. Pointless, forgettable, muddled, convoluted crap.

[Morpheus]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I basically agree there. Apocalypse was basically the first in a long line of ridiculously over-powered X-baddies that Claremont more or less pulled out of his ass half formed. At least Apocalypse was the first. 

Apocalypse was created by Louise Simonson, they needed a Big Bad for the original X-Factor, which reunited the five OG X-Men, and they felt they needed to go farther than Magneto. But Claremont would have his share of god level beings brought low in anti-climatic struggles. I think the command from on high to retcon Dark Phoenix and bring Jean Grey back broke Claremont.

I would love to see some of Morrison's weirdness brought in, personally I find Whedon a bit too nostalgic for the Claremont era. I also enjoy the meta criticism in Morrison's run even though it irked a lot of X fans. Magneto had long ago become a monster, one can't be a sympathetic villain forever, they either redeem themselves or use up any good will they originally engendered. 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

That's what my main worry about a Mutant Massacre movie would be: in the hands of a Zack Snyder, it would just be a series of 'isn't this badass?' moments.

That's a lousy argument considering almost everything Zack Snyder (or director's of his "skill") touches turns to shit story-wise.

 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Satisfying is not the word I'd use, or what Claremont was going for, I think. It's not Wolverine doing it, after all. That moment is about feeling shocked, worried for big gentle Pete and what he's feeling.

I know what he was going for, but I dont care, it was satifsying for me.

[polishgenius]

28 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I would love to see some of Morrison's weirdness brought in,

 

Heh. I was just saying the other day I'd really love to see some of Morrison's weirdness being utilised in the Justice League movies from his run in the 90s.

[Morpheus]

That would be great too, but I think his love of Silver Age insanity runs counter to everything they have established in DC cinematic universe. Maybe if Snyder were kicked to the curb and given plenty of free time to do his Ayn Rand adaptation (truly he will be fulfilling his destiny) they could really go for something unique.

[mormont]

16 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

That's a lousy argument considering almost everything Zack Snyder (or director's of his "skill") touches turns to shit story-wise.

I'm not even sure what your point is here?

Take Snyder out of it, if you like. The point is that a director might easily make that mistake or yield to that temptation. The Mutant Massacre, like all Claremont stories that work, works because he knows how to make the emotional stakes serve the story, rather than just depicting kewl badass moments. Colossus killing Riptide is a classic example. A kewl badass moment would be Wolvie killing Riptide. Colossus doing it is hugely different. Understanding that difference is understanding the characters. Understanding the characters is essential to getting the film right.

[Red Tiger]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I'm not even sure what your point is here?

Take Snyder out of it, if you like. The point is that a director might easily make that mistake or yield to that temptation. The Mutant Massacre, like all Claremont stories that work, works because he knows how to make the emotional stakes serve the story, rather than just depicting kewl badass moments. Colossus killing Riptide is a classic example. A kewl badass moment would be Wolvie killing Riptide. Colossus doing it is hugely different. Understanding that difference is understanding the characters. Understanding the characters is essential to getting the film right.

Yes, I already know this.

I also know that a good X-men film mostly depends on who's directing it and how he utilizes his cast. My point is that somebody like Zack Snyder does not utilize his cast correctly.

My other point is that a good director isnt about kewl badass moments, but about exploring how people experience events, something Snyder did really well with X2 for instance.

Get a good director and the Mutant Massacre will be a very good film.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

Heh. I was just saying the other day I'd really love to see some of Morrison's weirdness being utilised in the Justice League movies from his run in the 90s.

I'd happily watch a meta adaptation of Morrison's "Animal Man" as a film. It would be a great way of taking elements from Deadpool and making it work in an unnerving and creepy way. Imagine him asking the audience why we are entertained by his suffering? Having him escape the confines of the screen will be trickier to do than on the comic page but could be done with some work-arounds. It's also the kind of run that could be distilled into a 2 hour 30 minute film with a decent screenwriter.

Hopefully Deadpool will encourage comic film directors to think outside the box a bit more.

One of the weird elements about the X-men is that it's a soap opera at heart and so would probably work best as a TV show with minor skirmishes but a strong focus on their lives and how the world reacts to them. The films could be more the "crossover events". They may start exploring this with the TV shows. I'm fascinated by "legion" given the involvement of the guy from the Fargo show.

I thought the film was out today. Turns out I'm a week ahead of myself. This month is going by really slowly.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, red snow said:

I'd happily watch a meta adaptation of Morrison's "Animal Man" as a film. It would be a great way of taking elements from Deadpool and making it work in an unnerving and creepy way. Imagine him asking the audience why we are entertained by his suffering? Having him escape the confines of the screen will be trickier to do than on the comic page but could be done with some work-arounds. It's also the kind of run that could be distilled into a 2 hour 30 minute film with a decent screenwriter.

Loved me some Morrison Animal Man back in the day. Not sure it could work as a film though. I think a series would make more sense. That Wil E. Coyote issue is one of my alltime favorite single issues. 

[Jack Bauer 24]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/05/14/apocalypse-director-bryan-singer-says-future-x-men-movies-may-include-cosmic-elements?abthid=57366cbe615166e44d00001a

X-Men movie future may lie in outer space.

[Nictarion]

5 hours ago, Red Tiger said:

Yes, I already know this.

I also know that a good X-men film mostly depends on who's directing it and how he utilizes his cast. My point is that somebody like Zack Snyder does not utilize his cast correctly.

My other point is that a good director isnt about kewl badass moments, but about exploring how people experience events, something Snyder did really well with X2 for instance.

Get a good director and the Mutant Massacre will be a very good film.

*Singer

Speaking of Morrison's Animal Man, I've had it sitting on my shelf for ages (Doom Patrol as well), need to get those...

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

*Singer

Speaking of Morrison's Animal Man, I've had it sitting on my shelf for ages (Doom Patrol as well), need to get those...

Never could wrap my head around Doom Patrol, but Animal Man is the tits. Well worth the read. I'm not a huge Morrison fan, but I dug that series muchly.

[Red Tiger]

6 hours ago, Nictarion said:

*Singer

Speaking of Morrison's Animal Man, I've had it sitting on my shelf for ages (Doom Patrol as well), need to get those...

...I am sorry my good man, me switching up the name of the great bisexual X-men messiah with that cheap thrills piece of cinematic garbage creator is unforgivable.

[red snow]

8 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Never could wrap my head around Doom Patrol, but Animal Man is the tits. Well worth the read. I'm not a huge Morrison fan, but I dug that series muchly.

Animal Man is one of my favourite Morrison comics. It's a good balance between heartfelt old school comic moments and his meta elements. It's well worth a read.

[Morpheus]

Morrison's Doom Patrol is amazing, still one of my favorite things he has done, Animal Man is excellent too but doesn't quite reach the same heights IMO. I think his DP is up there with Moore's Swamp Thing as far as a writer making an already established series their own.

I am not really a fan of any of the X-Men movies, I have always been fairly perplexed by the reputation of X2, even more so after seeing again for the first time in years recently. As an fan of the X-Men comics I remember being very disappointed with the first movie. I liked the idea of First Class and some of the casting, but it didn't come together for me really. I also might be alone in not finding Jackman's Wolverine definitive, I hardly think he is irreplaceable, but then again I would like the movies to be less Wolverine centric on the whole. There have been three Spider Men and yet I am less fatigued with that character than Wolvie. 

[Red Tiger]

8 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Morrison's Doom Patrol is amazing, still one of my favorite things he has done, Animal Man is excellent too but doesn't quite reach the same heights IMO. I think his DP is up there with Moore's Swamp Thing as far as a writer making an already established series their own.

I am not really a fan of any of the X-Men movies, I have always been fairly perplexed by the reputation of X2, even more so after seeing again for the first time in years recently. As an fan of the X-Men comics I remember being very disappointed with the first movie. I liked the idea of First Class and some of the casting, but it didn't come together for me really. I also might be alone in not finding Jackman's Wolverine definitive, I hardly think he is irreplaceable, but then again I would like the movies to be less Wolverine centric on the whole. There have been three Spider Men and yet I am less fatigued with that character than Wolvie. 

There's actually plenty of people on this board (me included) who would have no problem with somebody else playing Wolverine, though I think Jackman does a good job.

[Red Tiger]

On 13-5-2016 at 9:15 PM, mormont said:

It's a common supervillain mastermind problem. Doom, for example, or Lex Luthor, are these astounding strategic intellects whose plans always fail and who rarely learn anything from it. It goes with the territory. 

Yeah, but being top of the food chain is not the underlying principle on which these characters are built, Apocalypse's is.

With Doom it's the fact that he is a brilliant man who constantly sabotages himself cause of his ego, with Lex it's his pettiness and need for one-up manship. With The blue-skinned megamutant it's being #1.

You can be a genius who loses (and many geniuses dont learn from their mistakes, indeed, largely cause of their egos), you cant go around saying "only the fittest are worthy of survival" and then constantly get your ass kicked.

[WarGalley]

The reviews appear pretty bad so I read the wiki plot entry. It reads better than I thought but I'm still expecting to be pretty disappointed by the movie as a whole.

 

The post credits scene hints at the next villain

 

which is indeed looking like Sinister.