Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The WolverineFollow

#27 Jul 31 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,938 posts

____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#28 Jul 31 2013 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If all the major plot elements to explain the events we see are happening off screen, it's not a cohesive film. I'm not interested in seeing irrelevant parts of a story and having to guess at what the real juicy content is. I want the freaking content.


Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that it doesn't make the film "terrible", just not as good as it could have been if they'd allowed for maybe 3-5 minutes of extra screen time for dialog/interaction. It does make me wonder if this was a poor time decision and they did film the bits required. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the overall film and story was good, but (as I stated at the very beginning) it seemed like they cut out key parts of scenes that would have made it a lots less confusing. Part of me wonders if they did that intentionally because they didn't want people to know *any* info about what the different folks were doing until the very end, which made things problematic in terms of reveals because of the linear manner in which various parts of the plot were "dispatched" (hehe).

Quote:
That doesn't mean it needs to be narrated to me.


That's what was kinda frustrating about it. There were two glaringly obvious scenes where they could *easily* have added just a tiny amount additional dialog/action which would have cleared up everything:

When Logan and Yuriko go to the Ministers place to confront him (in their own unique... idiom), he blabs some information whilst trying to save his hide. All they had to do was put in a desperate line of dialog like "Don't kill me! Shingen wanted to kill Mariko to take the inheritance, but I ordered them to just capture her instead! <insert begging and pleading>". Would have added like 20-30 seconds to an already existing scene and required no changes to the overall direction or outcome of the story.

Same thing I mentioned earlier. I suspect they did actually film more of the full plot involving Mariko and Yashida and it included the information which explained why Harada switched sides, but it got cut because they didn't want the reveal regarding who was in the suit to occur yet. This is honestly a toughie, since there's no way to explain his change of heart without the full reveal. By the time they were at that point, it would have required significant reworking of the story to find a way to accomplish this due to events which occur later which make it somewhat difficult to explain things after the fact.

The reason I suspect they originally did film it that way is because there's a seriously abrupt cut. Viper brings her into a room with the motionless Silver Samurai suit, begins hinting to Mariko that the reasons she was selected to inherit weren't what she thought, then the suit starts moving, all ominous like, Mariko looks up at it and starts moving like she's about to say something, or ask something, then <cut>. It was as blatant a mid-scene cut as I've ever seen in a film.


Don't get me wrong, these are signs of either poor planning, or poor post production work, or I suppose nosy production execs demanding changes that don't actually fit with the story as written/filmed (or some combination of all of those). That's not an excuse, but in the grand scheme of things, the problems with the film were relatively minimal. It's not nearly as bad as Io9 makes it out to be (and honestly, that's a relatively tame FAQ from them anyway). There were just a couple of "huh?" aspects to the film that made it difficult to follow as you were going along, but once you saw the entire film and thought about it, actually did make sense. There was just barely enough information to figure things out.


Quote:
The details don't need to be obvious, but the important supplemental details still need to be IN the movie. And for an action film, the basic plot structure needs to be understandable by a casual watcher.


Yup. Which is why I said this is a problem for an action film. There were sufficient details in the film to figure out what was going on and why, but you had to actually think about it. No one comes out and tells you why certain characters did what they did, but there is sufficient information for you to make some reasonable assumptions. Harada's earlier dialog clearly indicates he's in love with Mariko. So the question isn't really "why did he switch sides", but "why was he going along with the plot in the first place". The obvious answer that he didn't know the full depth of what Yashida was planning can be assumed, but is never directly shown. There was even a scene earlier in the film that clearly established that Harada wasn't happy about what they were doing, but felt he had no choice (and "clearly established" and "no choice" included overt threats by Viper in addition to his own oath of loyalty), so it was not unreasonable that one final thing could have tipped his choice. The Minister being the one with the Yakuza contacts was stated, as was the fact that he was the arranged fiance of Mariko, as well as the fact that Shingen wanted to inherit and wanted Mariko dead in order to make that happen. It honestly shouldn't take a genius to figure out why the Yakuza tried to capture instead of kill her (you just had to remember who they actually got their orders from). It certainly would have been more obvious with some additional dialog, but it wasn't totally necessary (unless you're writing for Io9 and looking really hard to find things to make fun of).

Quote:
Basic plot structures can go deep, though. Avengers managed to have many, many levels of subtext and parallels providing food for thought. The exact reasons they were working together were never bluntly explained. Those you needed to figure out, you needed to think about how their different characters would interact. But the basic plot threshold was sufficient to tie them together so you could accept it was happening, even if you didn't want to dig into it and didn't fully understand it.



I really do think that the plot of The Wolverine was vastly more complex than that of the Avengers. It's why I said that the core problem was that they tried to write too complex a plot and so they ended out skipping or cutting short some of the explanatory scenes. There were a lot more moving parts and factions involved. Avengers basically had one bad guy, and a handful of heroes and their egos to sort out. Pretty darn simple really. The Wolverine involved 4 different major groups of antagonists, each with their own purpose/agenda, and each acting and interacting pretty much simultaneously with each other. Add in three different protagonists, each of which also has their own purpose and agenda, and who each fit into the various plans of the different antagonists in different ways, and things rapidly get complex.

I'm not saying rush out there and watch it right now. But I am saying don't make your decision based on the Io9 FAQ. The flaws in the film aren't nearly that bad, and the action and story are actually quite good. If you're at all a fan of Wolverine, or the X-men, I'd recommend seeing it. If not, wait for it to come on cable. It was certainly not so horrible that I felt I'd wasted my money or anything. Not even close. It just wasn't as good as it could have been, and it was frustrating because you could clearly see where they could have made it much better. Maybe we'll see those scenes on the Blu-ray or something.


Edited, Jul 31st 2013 7:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Aug 01 2013 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts

I laughed so hard at that part.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#30 Aug 02 2013 at 1:51 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
I think my new biggest question is why did they completely reinvent the Viper/Madam Hydra character when the skillset and abilities already existed in June Covington? Viper isn't a mutant geneticist with corrosive saliva. She's just a wonky human. June can alter her DNA to suit whatever she needs it to pretty much, which would include corrosive saliva, and she's a geneticist on top of that. Granted, she's not a mutant either, but still. I'm chalking it up to June being too new or something. She's even a tall blonde babe, as opposed to Viper who shifts between green and black. Be warned the prior spoiler is nerdrage induced.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Aug 02 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sabretooth, who was decapitated with a sword made out of the hate in Wolverine's blood, which turns off all of their healing factors, is running around running his own school.


Say what now? A sword made out of the hate in Wolverine's blood? And this solidified hatred sword can nullify mutations?

Yes, makes sense.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#32 Aug 02 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,926 posts
Mazra wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Sabretooth, who was decapitated with a sword made out of the hate in Wolverine's blood, which turns off all of their healing factors, is running around running his own school.


Say what now? A sword made out of the hate in Wolverine's blood? And this solidified hatred sword can nullify mutations?

Yes, makes sense.


Wolverine once tried to attack Galactus, without adamantium. He was a Skrull too. It gets odd at times in the Marvel universe.

Personally, I enjoyed the movie. I've always enjoyed the character though, despite a lot of crappy stories, and that does help.
Shame that Logan couldn't speak Japanese, but there's one thing that really bothered me: With his healing messed up, why didn't he suffer from adamantium poisoning?

Other than that, it's not a bad movie, with a very interesting mid-credits-scene.
____________________________


#33 Aug 03 2013 at 6:53 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Just got back from this movie and have a few comments. I love X-men, but my nerd level isn't high enough.

1. Doesn't Wolverine speak Japanese?
2. Where was his sense of smell in this movie? He seemed nerfed. There were some scenes where that smell would have came in handy.
3. Watching a movie with Japanese influence in a movie theater in japan with Japanese people is a different experience. The audience literally gasped when he stabbed his food with his chop sticks. 'Twas slightly embarrassing.
#34 Aug 03 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The thing that is really confusing me about this series is why they are even bothering continuing the timeline after The Last Stand. With what they've done to the characters, they desperately need to follow in Sony's footsteps and reboot.

I mean, all the big names in the X universe are pretty much dead or their characters never got developed enough to lay the groundwork for future titles.

I mean, nearly all the classic X-men heroes were either killed off, or their characters never got developed enough to really make a movie on their shoulders (Shadowcat, Colossus, Beast, Angel, etc.). Then you have Nightcrawler, who just randomly disappears before the third movie. Storm's movie persona wasn't interesting enough to carry a future film, and Iceman wasn't interesting enough (and his story more or less done anyway).

And same for the villains. Either they were randomly killed off (Toad), were removed from the series some other way (Mystique), or they just plain weren't interesting enough to bother caring about (Juggernaut).

This whole series is a pretty classic example of Fox's incredible ability to mismanage...

I just want a **** reboot where they focus more on developing the characters and the conflict, rather than giving every possible mutant a cameo, killing them off, and then running out of stars to do something with.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#35 Aug 03 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Well, I believe "first class" was the reboot.

I hate to say it, but The Wolverine was pretty much a gimmick to make some more money in my opinion. Not that it's a bad movie, I enjoyed it, but it was very Street fighter: Chun li like. There weren't enough "mutants"/cameos like the previous Wolverine movie to make a person see a snap shot and say "This is an X-men movie". I could be wrong, but that's what it seems like to me. Fox/Marvel knows that Wolverine/Hugh Jackman is the favorite and as long as they don't release trash, people will pay to see it.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 11:37pm by Almalieque

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 11:38pm by Almalieque
#36 Aug 03 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
It wasn't a reboot, it was just a prequel. Hard to use the same actors to show the characters as kids/teenagers/young men when they're 40 years older in the next movie. It may be a prequel series, but it's still just a prequel. You won't be seeing Storm, beast, etc. Or maybe you will in a while, but as kids. And casting is extremely limited because of what they did with the original trilogy.

On the other hand, Wolverine (who does not age) was played by Jackman in both.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Aug 03 2013 at 6:49 PM Rating: Good
Bryan Singer has made it no secret that Days of Future Past will be an "in-between-quel" & will probably retconn some of X-Men 3.

I really, really want to know what Darren Aronfsky (Black Swan) was going to do with Wolverine before he quit as director. I'm betting it would have been trippy as all ****, but would have had a helluva lot more to do with the whole "Wolverine tames his inner beast by becoming Samurai" thing this movie sorted started toward, then dropped completely.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#38 Aug 03 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
It wasn't a reboot, it was just a prequel. Hard to use the same actors to show the characters as kids/teenagers/young men when they're 40 years older in the next movie. It may be a prequel series, but it's still just a prequel. You won't be seeing Storm, beast, etc. Or maybe you will in a while, but as kids. And casting is extremely limited because of what they did with the original trilogy.

On the other hand, Wolverine (who does not age) was played by Jackman in both.


Even though it's a "prequel", I consider it a "reboot". I don't recall the story supporting the original three movies. There were some conflicting story differences, i.e. Wolverine. Even if it were supporting of the first three movies, the characters do not have to be "children", just no less than a day younger than the first scene in the original X-men. So, every character can be back doing whatever.
#39 Aug 03 2013 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
The problem is that nearly every popular mutant made an appearance in the first trilogy, and nearly all of them were super young.

Colossus, Iceman, Rogue, Shadowcat, and Pyro were all students. Nightcrawler wasn't a student, but he wasn't old. Angel was still a teenager in Last Stand. Then you had all the runaway kids like Psylocke.

Scott, Jean, and Ororo were clearly meant to be no older than their late 20s, at worst.

Pretty much any popular mutant (sans Gambit, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver) who wasn't a member of the main cast was inexplicably made a teenage student/vagrant.

Makes any sort of prequel attempt at a reboot difficult. Even if they retcon the events, it's still just a poor choice. They SHOULD have just relaunched the series with Last Stand, rather than bother making it the same timeline. Spider-Man did it, and it's way better off for it. Fantastic Four may or may not do it, but they certainly couldn't be worse off if they do.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#40 Aug 03 2013 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idd wrote:
The problem is that nearly every popular mutant made an appearance in the first trilogy, and nearly all of them were super young.


Which was contradictory to the story anyway, i.e. Jubilee and Rogue being the same age. In any case, bringing the same characters back as originally portrayed wouldn't be too difficult to pull off in a prequel. Even if the times overlapped with the original series, as long as it doesn't contradict it, it's all good. This is what I believe is being done in the future movie anyway.

Idd wrote:

Pretty much any popular mutant (sans Gambit, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver) who wasn't a member of the main cast was inexplicably made a teenage student/vagrant.


I don't recall seeing Gambit, only his name.

Idd wrote:
Makes any sort of prequel attempt at a reboot difficult. Even if they retcon the events, it's still just a poor choice. They SHOULD have just relaunched the series with Last Stand, rather than bother making it the same timeline. Spider-Man did it, and it's way better off for it. Fantastic Four may or may not do it, but they certainly couldn't be worse off if they do.


It's only more difficult in preventing contradictions, but definitely feasible. I understand the concept of "rebooting" and not having to worry about contradictions. I agree with you on that; however, I don't want to follow the same story line again. There's only so many times I want to see Batman and Spiderman become who they are. Likewise, there are only so many times I want see Jean Grey die. After that, get right to the point. At least with the prequel, it's a different environment.

I'm not against a reboot at all, but I would rather for them to do a 3 part prequel series leading into the reboot. That way, it doesn't seem like I just saw the movie.
#41 Aug 03 2013 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Which was contradictory to the story anyway, i.e. Jubilee and Rogue being the same age. In any case, bringing the same characters back as originally portrayed wouldn't be too difficult to pull off in a prequel. Even if the times overlapped with the original series, as long as it doesn't contradict it, it's all good. This is what I believe is being done in the future movie anyway.


This is a new canon, and not actually part of the marvel multiverse at all. I have no clue if they've added the Marvel movies to the verse (it would be inherently weird for them not to, of course), but X-men's license is currently owned by Fox and Marvel has no rights to it.

The movie's canon is what they establish as canon. And because the canon they've established has nearly every single character being born in the mid to late 80s, it's an issue if they want to do a movie set before then.

And Gambit was a moderately large role in the first X-men, placing him in his mid-late 20s sometime in the 60s. He could realistically join up with TLS's cast (and I'm pretty sure his actor IS officially signed on, but I don't care enough to check).

But most of the other classic characters people would want to see are pretty much established as being WAY younger than would be possible here.


As for reboot vs. prequels and sequels, I have nothing against prequels, the problem is that the original series here was so ****** up that it gave the prequels and sequels very little wiggle room for what characters they could use, with the added bonus of leaving the sequels with a limited cast few people care about.

A reboot, however, gives them a golden opportunity. There are so many ways to do the origin story. They could do some kind of spinoff of Ultimate X-Men, they could decide to start somewhere more interesting than the Mutant Registration Act. They could have bothered to bring in the freaking Sentinels. They could have started with concentration camps and mutants running away from home to protect their families, etc.

And there's so many ways they can take the story. Focus of the first movie, Sentinels. Focus of the second movie, mutant X and introduce Phoenix. Third movie, Phoenix and Ultimatum-esque stuff.

That leaves you with a culled, but solid cast of characters (including X-23) for sequels. All the other Mutant X stuff for prequels. And a solid cast of characters for the main movies. And the other thing, don't just toss in some of the most loved characters just for a half-assed cameo. And don't kill off nearly the entire Brotherhood in the first **** movie.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#42 Aug 03 2013 at 9:46 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idd wrote:
And Gambit was a moderately large role in the first X-men, placing him in his mid-late 20s sometime in the 60s. He could realistically join up with TLS's cast (and I'm pretty sure his actor IS officially signed on, but I don't care enough to check).


I'm referring to the x-men movie series, not the actual story.

Idd wrote:

But most of the other classic characters people would want to see are pretty much established as being WAY younger than would be possible here.
....

A reboot, however, gives them a golden opportunity. There are so many ways to do the origin story.


I understand that. The point is that the original cast in the original movie could be back in a prequel the day before the first day of the original X-men movie. Is that a good idea? I wouldn't think so, but as I said, First class didn't seem to support the original three movies anyway. So, they could do a "reboot" from the prequel, which was what I proposed. From First Class, they can grow older and re do the first three movies, but better. I would much rather from them to build off of First Class and reboot as opposed to simply starting over again.


#43 Aug 04 2013 at 5:49 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Idd wrote:
And Gambit was a moderately large role in the first X-men, placing him in his mid-late 20s sometime in the 60s. He could realistically join up with TLS's cast (and I'm pretty sure his actor IS officially signed on, but I don't care enough to check).


I'm referring to the x-men movie series, not the actual story.

Idd wrote:

But most of the other classic characters people would want to see are pretty much established as being WAY younger than would be possible here.
....

A reboot, however, gives them a golden opportunity. There are so many ways to do the origin story.


I understand that. The point is that the original cast in the original movie could be back in a prequel the day before the first day of the original X-men movie. Is that a good idea? I wouldn't think so, but as I said, First class didn't seem to support the original three movies anyway. So, they could do a "reboot" from the prequel, which was what I proposed. From First Class, they can grow older and re do the first three movies, but better. I would much rather from them to build off of First Class and reboot as opposed to simply starting over again.




Sorry, that was supposed to say first Wolverine movie, not first X-men. IIRC, he had a seaplane and was the one who actually brought Wolverine to the island where they were making Deadpool. And I know he shows up again at the end.

And I'm fine with First Class turning into a reboot, but if they want to do that they have to take the steps needed to differentiate the series, and leave the old one in the past. It seemed possible they'd be going that route, until the new Wolverine movie firmly continues the timeline from The Last Stand.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#44 Aug 04 2013 at 3:21 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idiggory wrote:
Sorry, that was supposed to say first Wolverine movie, not first X-men. IIRC, he had a seaplane and was the one who actually brought Wolverine to the island where they were making Deadpool. And I know he shows up again at the end.

And I'm fine with First Class turning into a reboot, but if they want to do that they have to take the steps needed to differentiate the series, and leave the old one in the past. It seemed possible they'd be going that route, until the new Wolverine movie firmly continues the timeline from The Last Stand.


He's in the first Wolverine movie. I just watched it again yesterday.

As to the story line, it appears that it will follow both First Class and Last Stand.

X-Men: Days of Future Past is an upcoming American superhero film co-written, produced and directed by Bryan Singer and featuring the X-Men characters appearing in Marvel Comics. It is intended to be the seventh installment in the X-Men film series. The screenplay is written by Simon Kinberg, Matthew Vaughn, and Jane Goldman, with Singer writing the story. The film is based on the 1981 Uncanny X-Men storyline "Days of Future Past" by Chris Claremont and John Byrne. It is the third X-Men film directed by Singer after 2000's X-Men and 2003's X2.

Days of Future Past acts as a sequel to both 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand and 2011's X-Men: First Class, featuring cast members from both: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Shawn Ashmore, Ellen Page, and Daniel Cudmore return from the X-Men: The Last Stand, while James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult and Lucas Till return from X-Men: First Class. Peter Dinklage, Omar Sy, Booboo Stewart, Fan Bingbing, Adan Canto, Evan Peters and Josh Helman round out the film's principal cast. Principal photography began in April 2013 in Montreal, Canada.[2] The film is being shot in 3D.

X-Men: Days of Future Past is scheduled to be released on May 23, 2014.[3]


Edited, Aug 4th 2013 11:22pm by Almalieque
#45 Aug 05 2013 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This is a new canon, and not actually part of the marvel multiverse at all. I have no clue if they've added the Marvel movies to the verse (it would be inherently weird for them not to, of course), but X-men's license is currently owned by Fox and Marvel has no rights to it.
They changed the costumes for a while to the black leather from the movies, but I can't think of any other changes. Marvel owns the overall rights, Fox just owns the rights to exclusively make movies using those characters. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a contractual clause in there that forces Fox to make these little infuriating changes to characters to differentiate between the two.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Aug 05 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
I think that a lot of this is academic. They *are* continuing the story as a single story. First Class was *not* a reboot. It was a prequel. The Wolverine is an intro into the next X-men film, and both follow the events in Last Stand. It's entirely possible that the next film itself includes changes to the past/present (cause of the whole time travel bits), but it doesn't look like they're going to do a reboot from a film making point of view.

If you stop and think about it, this next film allows them to retcon changes that they want *without* having a reboot. So all the problems of fixing things with reboots and whatnot really aren't problems.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 05 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I forgot.. Isn't Bishop supposed to be in this next movie? If that's the case, the whole story line does allow for change without contradiction. However, I watched some of the old movies this weekend and there are definitely enough contradictions within the story lines, that you can say that they "generally" follow the same time line, but could also be seen as an independent movie.
#48 Aug 05 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
I forgot.. Isn't Bishop supposed to be in this next movie? If that's the case, the whole story line does allow for change without contradiction. However, I watched some of the old movies this weekend and there are definitely enough contradictions within the story lines, that you can say that they "generally" follow the same time line, but could also be seen as an independent movie.


Screenshot


X-Men Fist Class was not a reboot, it was a prequel. Days of Future Past will continue that prequel, but will also continue the core X-Men Trilogy & the Wolverine Flicks by way of time travel.

None of the movies are independent, except for the parts of X.O: Wolverine I choose to willfully ignore because they are awful.

Edited, Aug 5th 2013 8:52pm by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#49 Aug 05 2013 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
******
49,907 posts
Xavier, Magneto, Havok, Wolverine, Dane Cook and Al Harris?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Aug 05 2013 at 9:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Quote:

X-Men Fist Class was not a reboot, it was a prequel. Days of Future Past will continue that prequel, but will also continue the core X-Men Trilogy & the Wolverine Flicks by way of time travel.

None of the movies are independent, except for the parts of X.O: Wolverine I choose to willfully ignore because they are awful.


I understand that First Class is a prequel, but it could be used as a reboot. If Days of Future Past *truly* follows the actual COMIC Days of Future Past plot, then First Class is a true prequel. However, if it doesn't, then the time travel only allows the directors to redo stuff without having to start completely over. In other words, reboot.

I know that they aren't independent, but if you watch them altogether, you have to ignore certain parts of the other movies. Only the first three movies are truly dependent. In any case, I prefer Origins over the last Wolverine movie.
#51 Aug 06 2013 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I understand that First Class is a prequel, but it could be used as a reboot. If Days of Future Past *truly* follows the actual COMIC Days of Future Past plot, then First Class is a true prequel. However, if it doesn't, then the time travel only allows the directors to redo stuff without having to start completely over. In other words, reboot.


Except that's not a reboot from a film making point of view. I guess it does depend on how strictly you want to use the term, but I don't think the objective here is to re-tell the whole storyline with changes (which is what a reboot is about). I think they intend to keep the existing storyline, but introduce changes via time travel effects. I suppose the test will be whether they continue with future movies going forward time wise from the "current" time (ie: after Last Stand), or if they go back to an earlier point of time and re-tell the story.

If the former, it's just introducing changes within the same storyline (events already told did happen, but with some minor changes). If it's the latter, then we can call it a reboot (events are erased and we're going to re-tell them).

Quote:
I know that they aren't independent, but if you watch them altogether, you have to ignore certain parts of the other movies. Only the first three movies are truly dependent. In any case, I prefer Origins over the last Wolverine movie.


Aside from the whole age/time issues (which is kind of a comic book staple that you have to just ignore, cause otherwise Peter Parker would be in his 60s), what inconsistencies are you talking about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)