X-Men: Days of Future Past

[batfan08]

Well, in regards to the joke stuff, Devil has made quite a few of my sigs over the years (about 90% of them, including my current one), but I don't think it'd hurt to ask. He's a fantastic photo manipulator and an even better dude.

 

[Irvy]

It's his mutant power

 

[Baneofdemon22]

I love how Vaughn and Singer have truly gone all out in the depiction of WWII-mirroring scenes. So powerful to put that content into material that will reach this widespread audiences.

That's what I wanted out of the Captain America movie, and I didn't enjoy having some fluff piece. It's WWII! If they're worried about Naziis or the horror of war bringing down the mood, then in my opinion, you shouldn't make a WWII movie. Maybe I'm wrong. I wish they'd have Magneto meet up with Red Skull in a future X-Men film, because at least Singer would do him justice.

 

[Silrian]

@Bane That's exactly why I ultimately don't particularly respect anything marvel studios has done except champion comic book characters in general. Apart from some very mediocre filmmaking because they want to keep budgets low and essentially make theatricalised TV (not a coincidence they work with so many TV directors, they know how to work within the system OR start help making it in Whedon's case), it remains cookie cutter formula-bound.

How they screwed over Wright recently really put the nail in the coffin for me. As much as I appreciate Winter Soldier specifically, and I can ENJOY their films, it's very mediocre cinema critically speaking. Can't hold a candle to the expertise of someone like Singer or Nolan and the crews they assemble.

 

[Irvy]

Still pissed there is ZERO merchandise from this flick. I want a ****ing artbook dammit.

 

[Silrian]

^+73.

 

[Baneofdemon22]

Yeah, but now you'll have more money, so you can buy a Hot Toys Electro!

@Silrian I still can't knock the first Iron Man movie though. I believe it is a very good action movie and it kept me interested throughout. A lot of action movies set up their plot, abandon it half-way through, and load a bunch of special effects that bore the heck out of me.

 

[The Phantom]

@Bane That's exactly why I ultimately don't particularly respect anything marvel studios has done except champion comic book characters in general. Apart from some very mediocre filmmaking because they want to keep budgets low and essentially make theatricalised TV (not a coincidence they work with so many TV directors, they know how to work within the system OR start help making it in Whedon's case), it remains cookie cutter formula-bound.

How they screwed over Wright recently really put the nail in the coffin for me. As much as I appreciate Winter Soldier specifically, and I can ENJOY their films, it's very mediocre cinema critically speaking. Can't hold a candle to the expertise of someone like Singer or Nolan and the crews they assemble.

Why shouldn't they use television directors? Should they just hand over their franchises to directors like Marc Webb who had one movie (a rom com no less) and some music videos(?), and then keep him even when the ship is sinking, like they're doing with Spider-Man? That really worked out well for Sony, didn't it?

Personally, I like that Marvel gives newcomers a chance. I don't want to see the same guys directing everything. I remember when Dark Knight was first out, and you had guys saying Nolan should direct everything under the sun. It was ridiculous. That's how comic books ended up sucking-too much inbreeding.
I think new perspectives keeps things fresh. How is that bad?

You may not appreciate Marvel movies but it seems like you would be in the minority in that regard. Because Joss Wheadon's "cookie cutter" approach with the Avengers made Marvel Studio about a billion and a half. Nolan never did that, or Singer, and certainly not Webb (or Raimi, just to show I don't play favorites).

Yes, they did champion comic book characters. Pretty well in fact. They managed to take a bunch of B list characters and make them household names, and they've only been at this since 2008. Not bad, not bad at all.

I know I never thought I would be around to see a sequel to Captain America out gross Superman, or Spider-Man and most likely, the XMen (and spent less money than ALL of them), not in my lifetime.

I'm sure DisMarv will take mediocre cinema (in your opinion) that makes bank, over expensive full blown crapfests that don't break even any day.

I know I would.

You want to feel bad for Wright? Well, that's on you. But he should know if you want to play with the big boys, you have to know the rules. He has been on this thing for 8 years after all. In any event, I'm sure no one is losing any sleep over "Ant-Man". Because it will get done, with him, or without him. In this case without him. Someone will take his place. Bet on it.

And please, spare the whole Nolan/Singer "expertise". Nolan made two Batman films that were good. The third one was horrible. Just like most super hero franchises that go all the way back to Superman '78- The first one is good, the second one is great, and the third one blows. That seems to be the formula they all follow. He wasn't spared from that curse. Not to mention his stink was all over MOS, which was also horrible. But guess what? Warner is STILL going to keep Zack Snyder AND spend a fortune. Let see how that works out for them.

Maybe WB/DC should look in to getting some TV directors.

In Singer's case, he didn't get that far with Xmen. He was busy using his, "expertise" making a crummy Superman film. Not that it mattered, because up till now, the highest grossing XMen movie was X3. You know, the one that everybody hates (and for the record, this new one is not doing so great either BO wise, which I'm sure you're aware of ).

Also, ask the guys over at Legendary about his, "expertise". I'm sure they won't agree with you on that, because, "Jack the Giant Slayer" lost that company between 140-160 million. Another great example of overspending on a director's whim.

I get that you like DoFP and you want to give Singer his due, but that doesn't mean you have to **** all over what Marvel Studios has accomplished in such a short time. That's pretty lame.

 

[pturtle]

Yeah - I want to get down there.. been caught up.

I have a bet with Nam, and I can’t lose

 

[pturtle]

Yeah, but now you'll have more money, so you can buy a Hot Toys Electro!

@Silrian I still can't knock the first Iron Man movie though. I believe it is a very good action movie and it kept me interested throughout. A lot of action movies set up their plot, abandon it half-way through, and load a bunch of special effects that bore the heck out of me.

Bane, we have almost the same taste when it comes to movies and television shows

Pretty much agree with everything you and Silrian said.

Why shouldn't they use television directors? Should they just hand over their franchises to directors like Marc Webb who had one movie (a rom com no less) and some music videos(?), and then keep him even when the ship is sinking, like they're doing with Spider-Man? That really worked out well for Sony, didn't it?

Personally, I like that Marvel gives newcomers a chance. I don't want to see the same guys directing everything. I remember when Dark Knight was first out, and you had guys saying Nolan should direct everything under the sun. It was ridiculous. That's how comic books ended up sucking-too much inbreeding.
I think new perspectives keeps things fresh. How is that bad?

You may not appreciate Marvel movies but it seems like you would be in the minority in that regard. Because Joss Wheadon's "cookie cutter" approach with the Avengers made Marvel Studio about a billion and a half. Nolan never did that, or Singer, and certainly not Webb (or Raimi, just to show I don't play favorites).

Yes, they did champion comic book characters. Pretty well in fact. They managed to take a bunch of B list characters and make them household names, and they've only been at this since 2008. Not bad, not bad at all.

I know I never thought I would be around to see a sequel to Captain America out gross Superman, or Spider-Man and most likely, the XMen (and spent less money than ALL of them), not in my lifetime.

I'm sure DisMarv will take mediocre cinema (in your opinion) that makes bank, over expensive full blown crapfests that don't break even any day.

I know I would.

You want to feel bad for Wright? Well, that's on you. But he should know if you want to play with the big boys, you have to know the rules. He has been on this thing for 8 years after all. In any event, I'm sure no one is losing any sleep over "Ant-Man". Because it will get done, with him, or without him. In this case without him. Someone will take his place. Bet on it.

And please, spare the whole Nolan/Singer "expertise". Nolan made two Batman films that were good. The third one was horrible. Just like most super hero franchises that go all the way back to Superman '78- The first one is good, the second one is great, and the third one blows. That seems to be the formula they all follow. He wasn't spared from that curse. Not to mention his stink was all over MOS, which was also horrible. But guess what? Warner is STILL going to keep Zack Snyder AND spend a fortune. Let see how that works out for them.

Maybe WB/DC should look in to getting some TV directors.

In Singer's case, he didn't get that far with Xmen. He was busy using his, "expertise" making a crummy Superman film. Not that it mattered, because up till now, the highest grossing XMen movie was X3. You know, the one that everybody hates (and for the record, this new one is not doing so great either BO wise, which I'm sure you're aware of ).

Also, ask the guys over at Legendary about his, "expertise". I'm sure they won't agree with you on that, because, "Jack the Giant Slayer" lost that company between 140-160 million. Another great example of overspending on a director's whim.

I get that you like DoFP and you want to give Singer his due, but that doesn't mean you have to **** all over what Marvel Studios has accomplished in such a short time. That's pretty lame.

Uwe Boll could have directed The Avengers and it would have made a billion dollars. That was a pop culture event that had a massive hype built up around it for 4 years, I don’t think Whedon had much to do with that, Marvel Studios gets all the credit there.

Sorry you didn’t like The Dark Knight Rises, but that movie was financially and commercially a success. You wanna talk about a piece of crap 3rd film in a franchise, look no further than Iron Man 3.

 

[GasparZizou]

Still pissed there is ZERO merchandise from this flick. I want a ****ing artbook dammit.

As far as figures go, I wouldn't be interested in any figures given I don't care much for the designs, except a Quick Silver one.

 

[jye4ever]

I want a 1/4 Neca future Wolverine or a 70s naked Wolverine.

 

[karamazov80]

Sorry you didn’t like The Dark Knight Rises, but that movie was financially and commercially a success. You wanna talk about a piece of crap 3rd film in a franchise, look no further than Iron Man 3.

Nah. IM 3 was a pretty good movie, if folks can put aside the expectations that were set up and not met. It just wasn't what folks thought an Iron Man movie should be, but it was a good Shane Black type movie. Dark Knight Rises was really flawed, not as a Batman movie, but as a film in general, with an unfulfilling and sometimes head scratching dramatic narrative/pacing. Still about 100 times better than Man of Steel, though.

 

[jye4ever]

Its a hard one.

MOS didn't let me down like TDKR did.

TDKR is the Phantom Menace of Batman movies.

But then you have that ****ing Tornado suicide.

Pick your poison.

 

[The Phantom]

But Uwe Boll didn't direct it, Whedon did. And why would anyone think that movie would do well? Up to that point, the only Marvel movies that were really a success was IM 1&2.

Was Hulk a huge hit? Or Thor? Captain America certainly wasn't. So how exactly was The Avengers a pop culture event?
It wasn't. It became an event AFTER it came out.

If any movie was a pop culture event it would be Batman '89.


Why would you be sorry I didn't like TDKR? You had absolutely nothing to do with that film. Why would you care?

For the record, I will say I didn't hate IM3, but I think it should have been better.

But if what it earned makes it good or bad, IM3 made about 200 million more than TDKR (and it cost 30-50 million less).

Does that mean it's better?

 

[karamazov80]

I do think it would have been hard for Avengers not to be a big hit, just like I think it will be hard for Superman/Batman not to be a big hit. But, without a director who somehow can connect with the audience, you're going to have a limit on how big of a hit it is. Whedon hit on something with Avengers. He made a great, mass crowd pleasing spectacle of a movie that focused pretty heavily on RDJ Stark, which was a smart move, even if it's one that bugged me personally. Transformers movies. . .I hate them, but I get that there is a huge base of mostly casual teen movie goers who totally appreciate what Bay does--over the top, incomprehensible action for an ADD generation, stupid, often racial stereotypical humor, big boobs in slow-mo closeup shots, **** blowing up all over the place, etc.

 

[The Phantom]

I do think it would have been hard for Avengers not to be a big hit, just like I think it will be hard for Superman/Batman not to be a big hit. But, without a director who somehow can connect with the audience, you're going to have a limit on how big of a hit it is. Whedon hit on something with Avengers. He made a great, mass crowd pleasing spectacle of a movie that focused pretty heavily on RDJ Stark, which was a smart move, even if it's one that bugged me personally. Transformers movies. . .I hate them, but I get that there is a huge base of mostly casual teen movie goers who totally appreciate what Bay does--over the top, incomprehensible action for an ADD generation, stupid, often racial stereotypical humor, big boobs in slow-mo closeup shots, **** blowing up all over the place, etc.

With the comic book audience I can see that there would be hype, sure. But the general public? Why would anyone think that? TIH made less than Ang Lee's which no one liked. Thor made about 400 mill and Cap made less than that. There really didn't seem to be any interest in anyone but Iron Man up to that point.

Certainly not enough to predict 1.5+ billion.

 

[pturtle]

Nah. IM 3 was a pretty good movie, if folks can put aside the expectations that were set up and not met. It just wasn't what folks thought an Iron Man movie should be, but it was a good Shane Black type movie. Dark Knight Rises was really flawed, not as a Batman movie, but as a film in general, with an unfulfilling and sometimes head scratching dramatic narrative/pacing. Still about 100 times better than Man of Steel, though.

I think it has minor flaws like most movies, some I feel are major nitpicks because it's a Nolan movie. Every Nolan Batman film got a lot hate from comic fans, I still remember when Batman Begins came out, the discussion boards were filled with people saying the movie was boring, action sucked, Scarecrow was underused etc...

Then TDK came out, and people started saying the movie sucked because it was boring, Joker's movie, successful only because of Ledger's death. Now everyone seems to love it.

Now TDKR seems to be getting that same treatment because it's the latest Nolan Bat film. Sometimes it feels like people are trying to will it into being a bad movie. If you hate it, that's fine, but the movie overall is considered a success. I feel the same way about The Avengers, but I would never act like the movie was a massive failure.

Iron Man 3 to me, was just a joke all around. The "villains" were not interesting, Pepper Pots kick action, Tony Stark cracking jokes even after he thinks Pepper died. Those flaws shouldn't be overlooked because it's a Shane Black film. Imagine if Nolan made Iron Man 3? He would be ripped to shreds.

Everyone likes what they like, I get that, but some people seem to speak about TDKR as if it was X3 or Spider-Man 3, the movie is critically acclaimed, and the general crowd loved it as well.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karamazov80]

The drift of my argument wasn't that we would all expect Avengers to make over a billion (which I give a lot of credit to Whedon for), but that you would expect it to be a big hit. And in that sense, you wouldn't need to be a comic geek to recognize the importance and appeal of seeing characters who were fairly well known at that time, and had headlined their own films getting together for the first time in an over the top action movie.

 

[karamazov80]

I think it has minor flaws like most movies, some I feel are major nitpicks because it's a Nolan movie. Every Nolan Batman film got a lot hate from comic fans, I still remember when Batman Begins came out, the discussion boards were filled with people saying the movies was boring, action sucked, Scarecrow was underused etc...

Then TDK came out, and people started saying the movie sucked because it was boring, Joker's movie, successful only because of Ledger's death. Now everyone seems to love it.

That wasn't my impression from the places I observed, where those films were largely appreciated and applauded (with certain exceptions, notably from folks who bristled at stuff like the Ledger Joker attention, when everyone had that as their avatar, etc.). I certainly loved them both. For the most part, from what I've seen, TDKR stands out for being a let down in relation to those other films.