X-Men: Days of Future Past |OT| aka The Last Stand aka First Class 2 aka Wolverine 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go back to mcu thread and discuss it there

I wanna talk about Rebecca romijns butt, do you guys think Jennifer Lawrence can match up?

Also it just dawned on me this is the last time we'll likely see the gods play Xavier and Magneto. Mckellen especially is amazing in the second film. Quite witty and mocks everybody
 
Scullibundo said:
Apparently the film and story surrounding the character offers this thing called context. I don't get it either, but it sounds ambitious.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like this context thing changes the way he looks though, which was what everyone piled on him for. The crow was never destined for the plate.

Secret_Riddle said:
I get what you're doing here, but does every character need to look like a slick and bonafide badass?

In DOFP, the kid's a douchy, greasy haired, teenage arcade nerd. His costume is appropriate. The headphones are perfection.
Click to expand...
They don't have to look like badasses, or even "perfect." I think it's entirely possible to identify with someone who is a bit off kilter, or the awkward kid turned superhero (like Kick Ass), or even a character that is explicitly ugly. I've warmed up to his look a bit from the Empire shots, but it does strike me as one of those goofier looking designs that we've always had (Jubilee, Juggernaut, etc.) amidst the better ones in the series. Granted, many didn't get the full costume treatment, and when they did it was black spandex, but still. It's mainly the goggles that I don't like. They just ruins everything else. Not quite aviation goggles, not quite cheap-silver-sunglasses, but some weird in between.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
Okay again where did I say to translate it for panel and panel?

When you do an adaptation, you need to maintain the character's core personalities.

ALso trying to remember, how much did Avengers/Cap2/IM make again?

And how much did the past X-Men movies make and MoS make which were all attempts to "fix" the comic book problem? So which one do audiences want then?

Why this is an exception for comic books and video games I have no idea. If they did it to books, people would scream for there heads.
Click to expand...

Again, unless I'm mistaken, you haven't even seen the film yet. So what are you judging him off? MoS and the past non-Singer X-films were all garbage standalone films - removed from their franchise context. They weren't garbage because they didn't adhere to the comics. They were garbage because they were poorly written and directed.

And are you seriously trying to play the box office card as an indicator of quality?
 
Discotheque said:
Go back to mcu thread and discuss it there

I wanna talk about Rebecca romijns butt, do you guys think Jennifer Lawrence can match up?

Also it just dawned on me this is the last time we'll likely see the gods play Xavier and Magneto. Mckellen especially is amazing in the second film. Quite witty and mocks everybody
Click to expand...
This is the whole reason I will even see this in the theater.

I've always stood by the fact that Patrick/Ian have been the best cast as far as chemistry in any comic book movie yet, and the way they play Xavier/Mags is simply amazing.

I want to see it on the big screen just for these two amazing men.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
And how much did the past X-Men movies make and MoS make which were all attempts to "fix" the comic book problem? So which one do audiences want then?
Click to expand...

Did you actually just argue that Marvel Studios makes more money because what audiences really want is strict adherence to a bunch of comic books?

Marvel has made more money mostly because they've made their films broad enough to appeal to those who've never opened a comic book. Their continued success is because all their films are connected, and (more importantly) they're decent in and of themselves. It has nothing to do with their adherence to the source material.
 
icespide said:
if his name wasn't quicksilver and was just a totally new character. would you still be so bothered by it?
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't. Because as a new character he is not based on a past character.

No matter what your opinion is of the source material, you should respect it and do your best to transplant who the character's are even if alternate universe because characters have same basic characteristics there.

Quit trying to "fix" comic book properties.

I don't care about the hair or origin or skin color, I care about the basic characteristic being present.

Like how Colossus is an artist and overlyprotective.

Things that define who they are.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
No I wouldn't. Because as a new character he is not based on a past character.

No matter what your opinion is of the source material, you should respect it and do your best to transplant who the character's are even if alternate universe because characters have same basic characteristics there.

Quit trying to "fix" comic book properties.

I don't care about the hair or origin or skin color, I care about the basic characteristic being present.

Like how Colossus is an artist and overlyprotective.

Things that define who they are.
Click to expand...

Okay. We hear you. You don't want them to be a frame-by-frame translation of the comics, but you want them to be the comics all the same. Again, we get it. But we don't think the films have to adhere as closely to the comics as you do. We enjoy the film universe as it is. For us, Quicksilver being a speedy mutant is enough.

Agree to disagree.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
Okay again where did I say to translate it for panel and panel?

When you do an adaptation, you need to maintain the character's core personalities.

ALso trying to remember, how much did Avengers/Cap2/IM make again?

And how much did the past X-Men movies make and MoS make which were all attempts to "fix" the comic book problem? So which one do audiences want then?

Why this is an exception for comic books and video games I have no idea. If they did it to books, people would scream for there heads.
Click to expand...
This argument works against you because the first two Iron Mans didn't gross more than Man of Steel. Both the first Captain America and Thor didn't either. The Avengers being the success it was ended up helping those properties a lot more. Yes, it only took Marvel 5 movies to finally get to the one that got them soaring high. It also discounts the fact that Man of Steel was trying to ape the Nolan trilogy which has been the most successful superhero franchise and everyone was always moaning about him not being faithful. Clearly it doesn't really matter that much if the end result is good.

Not to mention, if you're really going to use box office as the standard of quality, then you better believe Transformers is better than basically everything.

No one screams their head off. Comic books have about a thousand different interpretations thanks to various different writers and creative leads, so who honestly gives a crap if a filmmaker takes some liberties?
 
Secret_Riddle said:
Did you actually just argue that Marvel Studios makes more money because what audiences really want is strict adherence to a bunch of comic books?

Marvel has made more money mostly because they've made their films broad enough to appeal to those who've never opened a comic book. Their continued success is because all their films are connected, and (more importantly) they're decent in and of themselves. It has nothing to do with their adherence to the source material.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. They realize the source material doesn't need to be "fixed" and this allows them to present the source material and diversify it because they aren't trying to "fix" it.

So because they respect it and aren't "fixing" it, it allows them to pick what would work where and how to create a more diverse movie.

You should read what Avi Arad's suggestions were to "fix" IM.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
No I wouldn't. Because as a new character he is not based on a past character.

No matter what your opinion is of the source material, you should respect it and do your best to transplant who the character's are even if alternate universe because characters have same basic characteristics there.

Quit trying to "fix" comic book properties.

I don't care about the hair or origin or skin color, I care about the basic characteristic being present.

Like how Colossus is an artist and overlyprotective.

Things that define who they are.
Click to expand...
So isn't the most important base characteristic that he runs fast and is the offspring of Magneto? Why is that not sufficient?

I'm all for alternative interpretations, because ultimately, films are alternative representations. I do think it's a bit unfair that just because Marvel has been the most faithful and arguably one of the most successful in translating the essence of the characters to the big screen that it gives a reason to discredit new perspectives. And if you haven't seen the film then, I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that he doesn't represent those base characteristics (or more), even if he does have poor costume design.
 
Crimson, I think you just need to accept that it's going to be different to the comics and try to judge it for what it is. But I have a feeling you can't do that. But judging the film based on how closely it represents comics it doesn't seem interested in being especially faithful to is a bad way to judge a film.

By that measure, Kubrick's The Shining is a terrible film. Nolan's The Prestige is a terrible film. Cuaron's Children of Men is a terrible film.
 
enzo_gt said:
So isn't the most important base characteristic that he runs fast and is the offspring of Magneto? Why is that not sufficient?

I'm all for alternative interpretations, because ultimately, films are alternative representations. I do think it's a bit unfair that just because Marvel has been the most faithful and arguably one of the most successful in translating the essence of the characters to the big screen that it gives a reason to discredit new perspectives. And if you haven't seen the film then, I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that he doesn't represent those base characteristics (or more), even if he does have poor costume design.
Click to expand...

The offspring is a secondary trait. He just doesn't run fast. He is constanlty moving and thinking faster than we are. It makes him disgruntled. This is present in everything.

Also the only reason I brought up sales was somebody said Fox has to adapt it to a product that sells.

ALright how about half the cast is there just for SFX and cool powers and gets no progression while the movie focuses entirely on four out fo the large cast? Is that not a relevant argument?

And for the last time, I DON'T want it to match the comics. Seriously, I want the core characteristics to remain the same.
 
One of the few comic accuracies I want in the X-Men are the smaller characters like Iceman (Give him a bigger role!) And Rogue. Their comic incarnations are so much more interesting and enjoyable. And Storm.
 
Scullibundo said:
Crimson, I think you just need to accept that it's going to be different to the comics and try to judge it for what it is. But I have a feeling you can't do that. But judging the film based on how closely it represents comics it doesn't seem interested in being especially faithful to is a bad way to judge a film.

By that measure, Kubrick's The Shining is a terrible film. Nolan's The Prestige is a terrible film. Cuaron's Children of Men is a terrible film.
Click to expand...

Or Contact.

Or the Godfather.

Or Jurassic Park.

Audiences don't care about if it is faithful to the comic -- they are reading the comics. All they care about is if the movie is good
 
Not The Droid You're Looking For said:
One of the few comic accuracies I want in the X-Men are the smaller characters like Iceman (Give him a bigger role!) And Rogue. Their comic incarnations are so much more interesting and enjoyable. And Storm.
Click to expand...
The characters never really matured, but if they were given the time in the universe to mature, maybe something could have come from that. It's all still one big origin story, almost. If they ever decided to do an X-Men film that takes place down the line
and retcon more of X3
I think it's possible we could see the characters mature a bit.

Storm really doesn't hold up when you go back and rewatch the original films IMO, and being that she's already been at the Institute for a while, I sort of retroactively expected more.
 
I'm trying to avoid this thread until after I've watched the movie, but...

...a certain company spoils something I didn't know was in the movie until it just popped up on my Facebook feed earlier today.

THANKS
OAKLEY
=P

(Spoiler alert)
http://ow.ly/x6WEx
 
The mutant struggle in X-Men is a metaphor for the civil rights movement which was absolutely relevent when the comics first appeared. Then it expanded to be universal for any kind of outsider group. The movies have translated those narratives pretty well, which may or may not be more important than the visual adherence to the comics.

I say both narrative and aesthetic adherence are equally important, but Singer's X-Men gets the point across.
 
Just saw this, yeah, it was great. Not sure if it was better than First Class, but it definitely feels like a sort of a combination of Singer's previous X-Men movies and FC, if that makes any sense. It definitely manages to bring it all together in a satisfying way. Anyway, it's really good, you should see it, I might post some more impressions tomorrow when I'm not this tired.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
Yes it does. They realize the source material doesn't need to be "fixed" and this allows them to present the source material and diversify it because they aren't trying to "fix" it.

So because they respect it and aren't "fixing" it, it allows them to pick what would work where and how to create a more diverse movie.

You should read what Avi Arad's suggestions were to "fix" IM.
Click to expand...

I was solely talking in terms of $$$, but since you went there...

Marvel Studios operates under two principle philosophies: the first is that they don't fix what isn't broken. They look to the source material above all else. There's at least some semblance of quality control in staying faithful to tried and true characters, as well as critically acclaimed stories. Their second major philosophy is to stay broad, and cast as wide a net as possible. The MCU movies all share at least one common trait besides faithfulness and that's accessibility. That might sound like a bad thing, but it's really not. It's smart, from a business point of view. At the same time, it's held them back from taking on some of the more interesting and thematically compelling stories in the Marvel Universe.

Singer's approach is different. So was Raimi's. So was Nolan's. They don't care so much about strict faithfulness. Often, these filmmakers weren't really fans of the material to begin with. Their adaptations are loose, to say the least...and a sense of directorial style permeates through them a lot stronger than it does in any of the MCU films. The best of these films generally fail when judged as strict adaptations... and yet they garner huge amounts of critical acclaim, and make a lot of money for the filmmakers. In my personal opinion, the best of them (X2, SM2, BB, and TDK) have a bit more going on under the hood as far as storytelling is concerned. I'll sacrifice some faithfulness for that....but that's just me.

Both approaches have brought a lot of success... and both approaches continue to change and evolve. Personally, I'm just thankful people are making good comic book movies.
 
First Class is on FX, watching it again confirms two things:

Kevin Bacon was awesome as Shaw (I forgot about that fur coat, that shit was insane).

January Jones was indeed fine as fuck, but Emma Frost needs a better actress.
 
Zoqh7sS.jpg


Haven't been to a midnight showing since Dark Knight Rises in 2012. Ironically they don't have any midnight showings, just a 10PM showing.
 
Future Foundation said:
First Class is on FX, watching it again confirms two things:

Kevin Bacon was awesome as Shaw (I forgot about that fur coat, that shit was insane).

January Jones was indeed fine as fuck, but Emma Frost needs a better actress.
Click to expand...

Yeah Bacon did a great job. In general, the acting in First Class is among the best in the series if not the best overall.
 
Marvel spent a decade "fixing" their properties for movie purposes through the Ultimate line. Now that the movies are out the comics are changing to be more like them.

It's ironic because Blade and X-Men 1 were directly responsible for this.
 
MisterHero said:
Marvel spent a decade "fixing" their properties for movie purposes through the Ultimate line. Now that the movies are out the comics are changing to be more like them.

It's ironic because Blade and X-Men 1 were directly responsible for this.
Click to expand...

No doubt some of the costumes were outlandish and I am fine with that.

But look at Hawkeye's costume who they "fixed" the most. It is the most hated one out of the group. Don't fix. Modify.

Figure out what works of the costume and what doesn't.
 
crimsonspider89 said:
Okay again where did I say to translate it for panel and panel?

When you do an adaptation, you need to maintain the character's core personalities.

ALso trying to remember, how much did Avengers/Cap2/IM make again?

And how much did the past X-Men movies make and MoS make which were all attempts to "fix" the comic book problem? So which one do audiences want then?

Why this is an exception for comic books and video games I have no idea. If they did it to books, people would scream for there heads.
Click to expand...

Let's not go into box office--first off, a large part of the box office is China, and they know nothing about the comics. You might as well attribute Iron Man's greater success there due to their fascination with guys in metal suits (Pacific Rim did almost as well as Iron Man 3 there). Secondly, this is probably going to do very well in China (I noticed 2 theaters near me in Guangzhou are only going to be showing XMen on all their screens), not because of some comic book desire, but more likely because of Fan Bingbing.
 
Am I correct to infer that this pretty much ignores the mid-credits teaser scene from The Wolverine? i.e.
the bone claws are dispensed with in a throwaway line, and there's no explanation as to how Xavier is alive again in a body identical to his old one?
 
Father_Brain said:
Am I correct to infer that this pretty much ignores the mid-credits teaser scene from The Wolverine? i.e.
the bone claws are dispensed with in a throwaway line, and there's no explanation as to how Xavier is alive again in a body identical to his old one?
Click to expand...

They don't mention the Xavier being alive again stuff, although that is kind of hinted to in the credits of X-Men 3. As for the claws, they don't really go in to that either as far as I remember; to be honest it's not something you even worry yourself with during the film.
 
94% with 49 reviews. More positives with one new negative.

The most ambitious and ingenious of the long-running series, X-Men: Days of Future Past keeps the key crew of mutants busier than ever.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, after initially running hot with breathtaking 3D effects and a fascinating premise, Days Of Future Past gradually cools into an unnecessarily convoluted, compromised product.
Click to expand...
 
Latest tracking just hit.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/b...ial-weekend-with-100-million-plus-1201188308/
“X-Men: Days of Future Past,” a time-bending adventure that brings together several generations and incarnations of superheroes, is shaping up to be a juggernaut when it debuts Stateside on Thursday night. For the four-day weekend, the film is on pace to earn north of $100 million and could even hit $110 million, according to pre-release tracking.

20th Century Fox, which is releasing the film, is being more conservative, putting the debut at $95 million-$100 million.
Click to expand...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-preview-x-men-706307
Bryan Singer's X-Men: Days of Future Past is expected to score the top opening of the year so far in North America, where it rolls out in theaters 10 p.m. Thursday night.

Prerelease tracking indicates the 20th Century Fox tentpole will cross $100 million over the long Memorial Day weekend, with more bullish observers suggesting $125 million. Either way, that would best the $95 million debut of Captain America: The Winter Solider in late April.
Click to expand...
 
Just rewatched the trilogy (well I'm halfway through X3)

X1 is decent enough on it's own, I don't feel like it's aged very well, but it's still an enjoyable flick.

X2 is just leagues above the first movie, and aside from a few cheesy moments, is a great film. Brian Cox is an absolutely fantastic pick for Stryker, loved every second he was on screen. The character interactions are great, but I could go without the whole rogue/bobby relationship sideplot. Action sequences are fantastic, and aside from some goofy wirework from time to time, the film still holds up. I was really able to appreciate the nightcrawler intro far more than I was kid, just really well done and tense all around.

X3... What the fuck happened to all the characters. I feel like most of them behave so much differently than the previous films. It's hard to explain exactly what I mean, but maybe it's the mediocre dialogue that makes me think that. Definitely has some great action scenes though. The danger room sequence, Jean in her old house, and the golden gate bridge/all out war come to mind.

After reconsidering, X2 may be my favorite over First Class, they both seem to outclass the rest of the main movies considerably. Also, I feel like the films really destroyed Cyclops, using him as a side character rather than the badass team leader I was accustomed to from the 90's cartoon. And those leather suits, jesus...

X2>First Class>The Wolverine>X1>X3>>>Wolverine Origins
 
WyndhamPrice said:
I feel like this movie could hit a billion.

I don't know why.
Click to expand...

Eh the rest of the world would have to carry it, it would have to be some monumental event. Seeing Cap 2 not breaking $300 in US is kind of telling. X-Men is bigger than Cap but I don't think the movie is as good.

I hope it explodes but it won't break a billion.
 
MiamiWesker said:
Eh the rest of the world would have to carry it, it would have to be some monumental event. Seeing Cap 2 not break $300 is kind of telling. X-Men is bigger than Cap but I don't think the movie is as good.

I hope it explodes but it won't break a billion.
Click to expand...

Hah, I would never put money down on it or anything but I got this weird notion after looking at the reviews and tracking info that at the very least this would be a huge film (somewhat against all odds, I was not very confident at the start).

Figured I'd put it out there in case I can dredge the post up later and get internet points for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

31 Days of Horror 2025 |OT| OP got banned, so now I have to summon the demons
|OT| Social Community 
43
663
Days like these... replied
The Legend of Korra and Last Airbender Sequel First Look
News 
11
517
lifa-cobex replied
Spider-Man The Animated Series is Getting the X-men 97 Treatment...
23
1K
Beretta replied
We didn't know how good we had it Re: X-Men 2000
2
81
1K
CGNoire replied
Weak Hero: Class 1 (Class 2 soon on Netflix)
30
7K
AJUMP23 replied
Top Bottom