X-Men: Apocalypse - May 27, 2016

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

Wolverine
Red Hulk
Scarlet Witch
Nimrod

Am I right?

 

[Rulk]

Greatest post ever!

 

[jye4ever]

That's a great Rock Apoc.

Someone actually agreed with me.

 

[nexus]

While I am very much looking forward to this movie, I don't really know what Singer's strengths are as a director. He's not really a visual director when you compare him to someone like Snyder or Ridley Scott. He doesn't do artistic design, costuming and world-building, compared to directors like George Lucas (TOS) or James Cameron. He's not a master of seamlessly blending CGI, practical, and live like Peter Jackson (LotR) or Guillermo Del Toro; he doesn't direct the big set piece scenes like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon or James Wan. So what exactly does he bring to the table? Some people might sat storytelling. But look at his filmography outside of X-Men. "The Usual Suspects" is what folks bring up most. But that was 20 years ago and to me kind of Tarantino lite. Beyond that you've got "Apt Pupil" which was nowhere near as good as the book, the horrendous "Superman Returns", never saw "Valkyrie", and the virtually unwatchable "Jack the Giant Killer". Bottom line, without X-Men Singer probably wouldn't have much of a career, and would be back in the pack of directors handling low- to mid-budget films and their own indy passion projects.

I think it really comes down to dumb luck, and his in with Gayle Anne Hurd and FOX. He did a serviceable job on the first X-Men and a great job on X2. Then after he jumps ship to screw up the Superman reboot, Ratner makes him look like a friggin genius with X3. Matthew Vaughn actually deserves most of the credit for reinvigorating the franchise with XFC, even though he was limited to keeping things in the Singerverse and could only work with the mostly obscure characters they allowed (check out some of his interviews). He also did some of the preliminary setup of DoFP. If you watch Kingsmen, you can see that Vaughn is the more sure-handed and multitalented director, he probably just doesn't play the Hollywood game as well. I really hope X:A is a great, great movie that hits on all cylinders. But Singer gets a ton more credit than he deserves IMO, and I think there a number of directors who could do a much better job. Yep, not a fan. He is just one of those directors like Ron Moore, McG and Ratner, with much more ego than talent.

 

[Uncanny Web-Slinger]

He's great at ensembles and juggling characters

 

[FatHotei]

While I am very much looking forward to this movie, I don't really know what Singer's strengths are as a director. He's not really a visual director when you compare him to someone like Snyder or Ridley Scott. He doesn't do artistic design, costuming and world-building, compared to directors like George Lucas (TOS) or James Cameron. He's not a master of seamlessly blending CGI, practical, and live like Peter Jackson (LotR) or Guillermo Del Toro; he doesn't direct the big set piece scenes like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon or James Wan. So what exactly does he bring to the table? Some people might sat storytelling. But look at his filmography outside of X-Men. "The Usual Suspects" is what folks bring up most. But that was 20 years ago and to me kind of Tarantino lite. Beyond that you've got "Apt Pupil" which was nowhere near as good as the book, the horrendous "Superman Returns", never saw "Valkyrie", and the virtually unwatchable "Jack the Giant Killer". Bottom line, without X-Men Singer probably wouldn't have much of a career, and would be back in the pack of directors handling low- to mid-budget films and their own indy passion projects.

I think it really comes down to dumb luck, and his in with Gayle Anne Hurd and FOX. He did a serviceable job on the first X-Men and a great job on X2. Then after he jumps ship to screw up the Superman reboot, Ratner makes him look like a friggin genius with X3. Matthew Vaughn actually deserves most of the credit for reinvigorating the franchise with XFC, even though he was limited to keeping things in the Singerverse and could only work with the mostly obscure characters they allowed (check out some of his interviews). He also did some of the preliminary setup of DoFP. If you watch Kingsmen, you can see that Vaughn is the more sure-handed and multitalented director, he probably just doesn't play the Hollywood game as well. I really hope X:A is a great, great movie that hits on all cylinders. But Singer gets a ton more credit than he deserves IMO, and I think there a number of directors who could do a much better job. Yep, not a fan. He is just one of those directors like Ron Moore, McG and Ratner, with much more ego than talent.

You nailed it. Right place right time. He's never had a strong visual eye, and to me that's one of the most important features of a director, film being a visual medium and all. He's never trusted the source material enough or he's never saw the potential in it.

And Usual Suspects has one of the sloppiest twists in cinema history. OVERrated

 

[karamazov80]

While I am very much looking forward to this movie, I don't really know what Singer's strengths are as a director. He's not really a visual director when you compare him to someone like Snyder or Ridley Scott. He doesn't do artistic design, costuming and world-building, compared to directors like George Lucas (TOS) or James Cameron. He's not a master of seamlessly blending CGI, practical, and live like Peter Jackson (LotR) or Guillermo Del Toro; he doesn't direct the big set piece scenes like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon or James Wan.

Agreed. He is way too good to be pigeonholed like all those other guys you mention.

 

[Rulk]

While I am very much looking forward to this movie, I don't really know what Singer's strengths are as a director. He's not really a visual director when you compare him to someone like Snyder or Ridley Scott. He doesn't do artistic design, costuming and world-building, compared to directors like George Lucas (TOS) or James Cameron. He's not a master of seamlessly blending CGI, practical, and live like Peter Jackson (LotR) or Guillermo Del Toro; he doesn't direct the big set piece scenes like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon or James Wan. So what exactly does he bring to the table? Some people might sat storytelling. But look at his filmography outside of X-Men. "The Usual Suspects" is what folks bring up most. But that was 20 years ago and to me kind of Tarantino lite. Beyond that you've got "Apt Pupil" which was nowhere near as good as the book, the horrendous "Superman Returns", never saw "Valkyrie", and the virtually unwatchable "Jack the Giant Killer". Bottom line, without X-Men Singer probably wouldn't have much of a career, and would be back in the pack of directors handling low- to mid-budget films and their own indy passion projects.

I think it really comes down to dumb luck, and his in with Gayle Anne Hurd and FOX. He did a serviceable job on the first X-Men and a great job on X2. Then after he jumps ship to screw up the Superman reboot, Ratner makes him look like a friggin genius with X3. Matthew Vaughn actually deserves most of the credit for reinvigorating the franchise with XFC, even though he was limited to keeping things in the Singerverse and could only work with the mostly obscure characters they allowed (check out some of his interviews). He also did some of the preliminary setup of DoFP. If you watch Kingsmen, you can see that Vaughn is the more sure-handed and multitalented director, he probably just doesn't play the Hollywood game as well. I really hope X:A is a great, great movie that hits on all cylinders. But Singer gets a ton more credit than he deserves IMO, and I think there a number of directors who could do a much better job. Yep, not a fan. He is just one of those directors like Ron Moore, McG and Ratner, with much more ego than talent.

In all fairness to Singer, Scott and Synder are not known to make great superhero movies - most of these films dont require artistic interpretation

 

[pturtle]

While I am very much looking forward to this movie, I don't really know what Singer's strengths are as a director. He's not really a visual director when you compare him to someone like Snyder or Ridley Scott. He doesn't do artistic design, costuming and world-building, compared to directors like George Lucas (TOS) or James Cameron. He's not a master of seamlessly blending CGI, practical, and live like Peter Jackson (LotR) or Guillermo Del Toro; he doesn't direct the big set piece scenes like J.J. Abrams, Joss Whedon or James Wan. So what exactly does he bring to the table? Some people might sat storytelling. But look at his filmography outside of X-Men. "The Usual Suspects" is what folks bring up most. But that was 20 years ago and to me kind of Tarantino lite. Beyond that you've got "Apt Pupil" which was nowhere near as good as the book, the horrendous "Superman Returns", never saw "Valkyrie", and the virtually unwatchable "Jack the Giant Killer". Bottom line, without X-Men Singer probably wouldn't have much of a career, and would be back in the pack of directors handling low- to mid-budget films and their own indy passion projects.

I think it really comes down to dumb luck, and his in with Gayle Anne Hurd and FOX. He did a serviceable job on the first X-Men and a great job on X2. Then after he jumps ship to screw up the Superman reboot, Ratner makes him look like a friggin genius with X3. Matthew Vaughn actually deserves most of the credit for reinvigorating the franchise with XFC, even though he was limited to keeping things in the Singerverse and could only work with the mostly obscure characters they allowed (check out some of his interviews). He also did some of the preliminary setup of DoFP. If you watch Kingsmen, you can see that Vaughn is the more sure-handed and multitalented director, he probably just doesn't play the Hollywood game as well. I really hope X:A is a great, great movie that hits on all cylinders. But Singer gets a ton more credit than he deserves IMO, and I think there a number of directors who could do a much better job. Yep, not a fan. He is just one of those directors like Ron Moore, McG and Ratner, with much more ego than talent.

Have you've seen Superman Returns? The movie possibly has the best visuals in a superhero movie, it's also a good movie, just not a great superhero movie. His X-Men films aren't the most visually stunning but that's because he tries to ground them as much as possible to the point it looks generic at times. I appreciate him as a director though because he always tries to bring substance to his movies, I think every single one of his X-Men films have done a great job at tackling the key themes from the comics. I think he's by far the best director currently directing a superhero movie, maybe he's number two now that Affleck is directing a Batman film I really don't know if Affleck is better. He's not a perfect director but certainly a talented one.

 

[meanstreak]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/jennifer-lawrence-x-men-contract-and-future-123973529662.html

No, please. For the love of god, don't even ask that ***** to return

Jean and Storm can take over for the lead female role in the next one. Hell, I'd rather they keep Olivia Munn and give her a bigger role too before bringing Lawrence back.

 

[DiFabio]

Apocalypse is the new Bane. Midget, bad character design, funny voice (that everyone hopes gets fixed later in ADR).


I just want to see how Charles goes bald. That's it. Well that and how they set up a new X-Men movie in the 90s before rebooting everything again since the first X-Men came out in 2000.

 

[jnmx2000]

why do people hate Lawrence? she's one of the best actresses working today, shes the main reason the hunger games are as good as they are and she knocks any role she gets out of the park, I really don't think I've seen a bad performance from her yet. I would say my only complaint with her is that her star power can over take the other characters in the film but personally I'd rather watch her than 99% of the other actresses in the business. I really don't get it.

 

[jye4ever]

Have you've seen Superman Returns? The movie possibly has the best visuals in a superhero movie, it's also a good movie, just not a great superhero movie. His X-Men films aren't the most visually stunning but that's because he tries to ground them as much as possible to the point it looks generic at times. I appreciate him as a director though because he always tries to bring substance to his movies, I think every single one of his X-Men films have done a great job at tackling the key themes from the comics. I think he's by far the best director currently directing a superhero movie, maybe he's number two now that Affleck is directing a Batman film I really don't know if Affleck is better. He's not a perfect director but certainly a talented one.

Yeah, Singer knows what he's doing.

Feel sorry for any teen boys that wander into his backyard though.

Russo bros are also off to a great start.

I never thought there would be a cinematic Batman to surpass Keaton for me but Affleck has the best chance at doing just that. As far as writing/directing, time will soon tell if he's worthy.

 

[jye4ever]

Apocalypse is the new Bane. Midget, bad character design, funny voice (that everyone hopes gets fixed later in ADR).


I just want to see how Charles goes bald. That's it. Well that and how they set up a new X-Men movie in the 90s before rebooting everything again since the first X-Men came out in 2000.

Oscar Isaac was borderline yelling in the trailer trying to sound intimidating.

 

[GasparZizou]

Apocalypse is the new Bane.

If I take the heels of would you die?

 

[karamazov80]

Is Lawrence Sissy Spacek, Faye Dunaway, or Meryl Streep? No way. But the hate is unwarranted IMO. She was totally adequate in the X-films, Hunger Games, Silver Linings Playbook, and American Hustle (her best performance).

 

[jye4ever]

I'm with kara, she might be too much the focus but her performances were just fine.

**** all you haters.

Now, will you come join me for a traditional American breakfast.

 

[GasparZizou]

She's ok, but her meme status has everyone thinking she's better than she actually is, plus having seen the previous X-movies last week, she has nothing on Rebecca Romijn Mystique.

It's the same for Chriss Pratt, I don't dislike him, but the internet is making me dislike him

 

[Deeznutz6]

Apoc looks like a Frost giant

 

[DiFabio]

I think Jennifer Lawrence is okay in other movies, just not as Mystique in X-Men. There's too much emphasis placed on Mystique because of Lawrence. That's my problem with it/her.

Also "mutant and proud". I don't want to see another movie about her, enough is enough.