Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

X-Men: Days of Future PastFollow

#1 Oct 29 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts

Wolverine is told to go back in time and basically create the X-Men. Nevermind this was essentially a Kitty Pryde storyline. Ooooh no, we gotta focus on Sniktbub.

Edited, Oct 29th 2013 9:01pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2 Oct 29 2013 at 7:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,206 posts
I thought it was the storyline where Bishop had to go back to stop the Sentinel War from starting from the assassination of Kelly.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#3 Oct 29 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
I just remember that it was Olde Kitty who time traveled her brain to Young Kitty to prevent the disaster. I think Bishop was involved, but I never really liked him so my memory of his involvement in anything is sketchy at best.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Oct 30 2013 at 4:19 AM Rating: Excellent
**
827 posts
So... X-Men 1 and 2 happened as did First Class. But are we to ignore X3 if we watch this? Not that I would mind. Hated that movie.
And does the Wolverine abominatio... movie belong to this continuity?

I'm confused.
____________________________
Osseric
#5 Oct 30 2013 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
All the movies exist in this canon. Xavier survived by taking over the body of his braindead twin.

And yeah, I'm sick of Wolverine. He was never a favorite character of mine, and making the X series all about him has really killed a lot of my interest. Particularly with the way they've written him.

And it definitely needs more Kitty Pryde.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#6 Oct 30 2013 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
It has Fassbender Magneto & nearly naked Jennifer Laurence in it.

I would see this movie even if it wasn't about the X-Men. Singer has stated that this flick will resolve some continuity issues. We'll see how...
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#7 Oct 31 2013 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,007 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Wolverine is told to go back in time and basically create the X-Men. Nevermind this was essentially a Kitty Pryde storyline. Ooooh no, we gotta focus on Sniktbub.


Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.

Wasn't sure how they were going to handle Xavier's death in X3, but his twin brother sounds like an okay save. Thought the guy in the bed in X3 had more hair, though.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#8 Oct 31 2013 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh boy, I hope it has January Jones!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Oct 31 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
Mazra wrote:
Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.


She wouldn't be in the "future" though.

Joph wrote:
Oh boy, I hope it has January Jones!


You will be disappointed.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#10 Oct 31 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
You will be disappointed.

There's no outcome to "Will it have January Jones?" that wouldn't disappoint.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11 Oct 31 2013 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Sending back Kitty would make no sense; she's just a teenager in the movies.


She wouldn't be in the "future" though.


Correct. But she's a teenager in the early 2000s, when the first three X-men films occurred. The "in the past" bits will occur in 1973. So she would not have been born yet (at least in the film chronology). While I'm sure the studio's reasons for using Logan are purely profit driven, it actually does make sense to use the character from a story telling point of view. Assuming whomever's mind/soul/whatever is sent back in time wont remember anything they do while "possessed", it can't be any of the main characters who's actions need to be influenced after the possession ends (so can't just send Xavier or Magneto back). Wolverine works because he didn't interact with the X-men (or remember working with them) during the time in question. So no gaps or additional inconsistencies are created.

Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Oct 31 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,206 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves. If they're gonna bring Xavier back, they might as well go all out and bring one from an alternate timeline where Dark Phoenix wiped out the X-Men but left Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Cyclops alive. Smiley: glare
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#13 Oct 31 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves.


Uh... They introduced the braindead body in the same film they killed off Xavier, and the teaser at the end of that same film had him waking up in said body. So that's not exactly a continuity problem. I know that many people try hard to forget X3, but all of those elements were in the film.

The biggest continuity problems with the films were introduced with First Class. IMO, they set it too far in the past to make it fit well with the previous films.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Oct 31 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
The biggest continuity error is their insistence on making Wolverine the key lynchpin of every storyline. Just to get to "Logan saves X-Men" they have to push the timeline back to First Class instead of having the main story happen in the modern time. I guess they want to keep the whole "we done **** up 2013" element as an easter egg to people that know the storyline. I'd rather be done with Wolverine than a meaningless series of numbers in a time travel story.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Oct 31 2013 at 9:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,206 posts
gbaji wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves.


Uh... They introduced the braindead body in the same film they killed off Xavier, and the teaser at the end of that same film had him waking up in said body. So that's not exactly a continuity problem. I know that many people try hard to forget X3, but all of those elements were in the film.


That had to have been after the credits, cause I stopped watching at that part.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#16 Nov 01 2013 at 5:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
Quote:

That had to have been after the credits, cause I stopped watching at that part.


Pretty sure, yeah. It's possible it was an extended scene, but I remember seeing it when I watched the movie, and I doubt I watched the extended one.

As for Kitty Pryde being a teenager, we have no clue when the future portion of this movie takes place. Is it the year after Last Stand, or is it a decade? You can tell Iceman has aged a fair bit - mid 20s at least. I have no clue, actually, how old he was supposed to be in The Last Stand. I'm going to guess he was 18, though, or nearly there. And the movie came out 8 years before DoFP.

I'm curious what they're going to do with Rogue, tbh. She wasn't in the trailer, and it'll be BULLSH*T if they just erase her from the movie.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#17 Nov 01 2013 at 5:38 AM Rating: Excellent
**
827 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm curious what they're going to do with Rogue, tbh. She wasn't in the trailer, and it'll be BULLSH*T if they just erase her from the movie.


She is in it. At 00:26 and very briefly at 01:39.
____________________________
Osseric
#18 Nov 01 2013 at 6:05 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
As an X-men fan, reading these comments made me realize how little I know. I'm not tracking Kitty...
As for the hate against the Wolverine take over, we might as well get over it. That's the drawback about creating these types of movies, the true fans are ignored for the rest of nation. Everyone else want to see Wolverine just as much as Hugh Jackman. They are going for money, not fan base accuracy.

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
I thought it was the storyline where Bishop had to go back to stop the Sentinel War from starting from the assassination of Kelly.


This was my thought and what I remembered. Then again, I basically only watched the animated series and that's what happened. Now I'm disappointed. Maybe I should get over it...Smiley: frown

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Kinda depends on how much they intend to change or re-write. If their goal is to basically say "those other films didn't happen", then they can do anything they want. If their intention is to keep the events and major character actions of the films, but clean up the inconsistencies, then they have to be more careful with what they do.


They already said FU to continuity by introducing Xavier's comatose "twin brother", that just happens to be compatible with Xavier's brainwaves. If they're gonna bring Xavier back, they might as well go all out and bring one from an alternate timeline where Dark Phoenix wiped out the X-Men but left Xavier, Magneto, and maybe Cyclops alive. Smiley: glare


Leave Cyclops out of it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#19 Nov 01 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As for the hate against the Wolverine take over, we might as well get over it. That's the drawback about creating these types of movies, the true fans are ignored for the rest of nation. Everyone else want to see Wolverine just as much as Hugh Jackman. They are going for money, not fan base accuracy.

That's the long and short of it. Jackman/Wolverine pretty much owned the previous X-Men flicks and people took to him. Grab some random guy and tell him to name an X-Men and he'll likely say Wolverine. Hollywood's gonna give the (rank and file) people what they want.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Nov 01 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,460 posts
That doesn't mean I have to like it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#21 Nov 01 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
Yeah, but that's still on the studio and the writers. They made the franchise weak by failing to make any other character remotely as notorious as him.

Compare it to what Disney is doing with the Marvel movies. Iron Man is currently leading the pack, but they're giving ample attention to Thor, Loki, and Captain America, too.

Being able to carry a feature-length story on the back of multiple characters makes for a much stronger franchise. But while Disney was doing this, Sony was killing off every freaking mutant they could get their hands on, and then completely failing to develop a solid half the cast. Why big name mutants weren't even introduced until The Last Stand, I'll never understand.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#22 Nov 01 2013 at 7:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Yeah, but that's still on the studio and the writers. They made the franchise weak by failing to make any other character remotely as notorious as him.

You mean they only have to write two or three big actor paychecks per ensemble film instead of six or ten? I'm sure they find that to be a real problem.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 8:47am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Nov 01 2013 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
Not having to cut big checks only matters if your revenue stream isn't going to plummet. And judging by how poorly all their films have done, relative to the Marvel films (which are essentially produced at the same budget point), they could use a breath of new talent to help drive sales.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#24 Nov 01 2013 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And judging by how poorly all their films have done

The last few films have done better returns than twice their cost. "Relative" to whatever aside, that's good money not doing "poorly". Studios enjoy a solid return on a safe thing which is why we have these huge franchises in the first place. Wolverine-centered X-Men is a safe thing.

I think one big issue here is that there just aren't that many actors out there with the right charisma to really carry an ensemble franchise. Avengers struck gold with Robert Downey Jr. X-Men did to a lesser extent with Hugh Jackman. Both create an outsized role for themselves purely by virtue of being better in their niche than their surrounding actors.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#25 Nov 01 2013 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
Jophiel wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And judging by how poorly all their films have done

The last few films have done better returns than twice their cost. "Relative" to whatever aside, that's good money not doing "poorly". Studios enjoy a solid return on a safe thing which is why we have these huge franchises in the first place. Wolverine-centered X-Men is a safe thing.

I think one big issue here is that there just aren't that many actors out there with the right charisma to really carry an ensemble franchise. Avengers struck gold with Robert Downey Jr. X-Men did to a lesser extent with Hugh Jackman. Both create an outsized role for themselves purely by virtue of being better in their niche than their surrounding actors.


Do you have cites for that? I was just going off box office mojo. It says First class had a budget of $160m, and a global gross of $353 mil. Origins was $150 mil, with gross $373.

The Wolverine DID do better, with a $120m budget bringing in $405 mil.

The last stand had a budget of $210 million, with a worldwide gross of $460m.

But typically speaking, the first two X-men movies were the highest grossing. The first was $75:296 and the second $110:407.

If your goal is to build a franchise, and your first two movies are the only ones with decent returns, you have a problem. Wolverine was something of a recovery, but even their "reboot" attempt performed badly.

X-men had a solid cast. The writing was just mediocre and the direction weak. The second didn't really improve on that, but it definitely added talent. I think Ellen Page has proven that she could have easily carried Kitty Pryde into the spot light if they gave her the chance. The problems got worse with X-2. Then you have the third one, which sucked, and absolutely gutted the cast.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#26 Nov 01 2013 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Do you have cites for that? I was just going off box office mojo.

I was going off the Wiki for each film (I only looked at the X-Men ones though, not the stand alone films). That said, 160x2=320 which is less than the actual gross of $353 so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Quote:
If your goal is to build a franchise, and your first two movies are the only ones with decent returns, you have a problem

Again, I think you're overestimating what is a "decent return". All of the X-Men films solidly made money. That's not a problem. Studios love films that solidly make money because most of them don't.

[Edit: This goes into the fuzzy world of film profitability. From what I've heard (and I'm no expert) big films need to gross 150% of their budget to be profitable, smaller films closer to 200%. So all of the X-Men films did well better than that mark. That's also theater gross and you add in video sales and all the rest of it. Point being, they were all profitable for the studio and enough so that they keep expanding the franchise.]

Quote:
X-men had a solid cast. [...] I think Ellen Page has proven that she could have easily carried Kitty Pryde into the spot light if they gave her the chance.

Disagree. They had a serviceable cast with a few above average performances. And two of those (Xavier/Magento) are already central to begin with. I would have zero interest, based on the previous films, in seeing Page in a stand alone or headlining role as a superhero. Neither her character nor her acting carried that sort of weight. That's not to say she sucked but she didn't break through any barriers either.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 11:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Nov 01 2013 at 10:25 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
Are you really going to be focusing on a few decimal places. Smiley: dubious

And Page never even remotely had a chance to do anything with the character. Which is my point. The writing and direction of the film was just horrible. She had so few lines to begin with, and the writing for the ones she did have was just bland and uninteresting. She was essentially treated as a stock character. Had you handed me the script with the names blacked out, I NEVER would have guessed those lines belonged to Kitty Pryde.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#28 Nov 01 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Are you really going to be focusing on a few decimal places. Smiley: dubious

Again, I have no idea what you're arguing here. I said all of the X-Men films did better than double their production cost. They all did. What on earth are you on about with "a few decimal places"?

Quote:
And Page never even remotely had a chance to do anything with the character.

Hey, if you say so. I don't think she has the chops for it based on the movies I've seen her in but that's not something I can prove short of her actually being being the lead in a superhero movie.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Nov 01 2013 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
**
827 posts
Wasn't there a planned spin-off about Gambit with Taylor Kitsch? I have not seen enough of the actor to judge him but Gambit has a pretty decent backstory. Althought the whole Marauder/Murlocks/Sinister/Sabretooth deal would be hard to implement this late into the series.
____________________________
Osseric
#30 Nov 01 2013 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Hey, if you say so. I don't think she has the chops for it based on the movies I've seen her in but that's not something I can prove short of her actually being being the lead in a superhero movie.


Watch Super (directed by the dude who's directing Guardians of the Galaxy & who directed the awesome Slither). Her sidekick character rapes the male lead (Dwight from the Office) & is pretty crazy & amazing.

X-2 is still the best X-Men film & if you disagree, you're wrong. Fassbender Magento was AMAZING in First Class, but a lot of the other stuff in the movie wasn't.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:23pm 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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#31 Nov 01 2013 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Her sidekick character rapes the male lead (Dwight from the Office) & is pretty crazy & amazing.

Haven't seen it so I can't comment on her overall performance but this doesn't seem like all that much of a bar to hurdle.

Also, Wiki says that Super cost $2.5mil to produce and raked in an astounding $327,000 at the box office Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Nov 01 2013 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
I thought it was direct to Video/On Demand/Netflix, lol. Has Kevin Bacon, Merle from TwD (& Slither, & Guardians of the Glaxy) & Liv Tyler in it too.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:44pm 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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#33 Nov 01 2013 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,206 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Her sidekick character rapes the male lead (Dwight from the Office) & is pretty crazy & amazing.

Haven't seen it so I can't comment on her overall performance but this doesn't seem like all that much of a bar to hurdle.

Also, Wiki says that Super cost $2.5mil to produce and raked in an astounding $327,000 at the box office Smiley: laugh


Audiences love a dominant female lead.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#34 Nov 01 2013 at 1:05 PM Rating: Good
Besides the scene I mentioned above, there's another pretty out of nowhere seen with her in it too. If you liked Kick Ass, you'll like Super.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#35 Nov 01 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Besides the scene I mentioned above

Wait, you're saying she actually (within the movie) rapes him? I thought you just meant she seriously out-acted the guy. Hence my "low bar" comment.

I was thinking about Woody Harrelson and how he can be entertaining in the sort of role he played in Zombieland and Natural Born Killers*. Not that I know of a superhero who would fit that personality but then thinking about Kick-Ass & Super made me remember that he was in that terrible quasi-hero film Defendor. Granted he wasn't a "real" super hero in that film. Also, I think it was written by a committee. Of monkeys. On laudanum.

*While Natural Born Killers is incredibly tedious to me as a whole these days, Harrelson still did a good job with the role. Also (just to be recursive), Robert Downey Jr's performance is still fun watching.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Nov 01 2013 at 1:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,206 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Besides the scene I mentioned above

Wait, you're saying she actually (within the movie) rapes him? I thought you just meant she seriously out-acted the guy. Hence my "low bar" comment.


It's not rape if a hot girl does it. Smiley: sly
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#37 Nov 01 2013 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Wait, you're saying she actually (within the movie) rapes him?


Yes. She gets really turned on by costumes, apparently.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#38 Nov 01 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
If your goal is to build a franchise, and your first two movies are the only ones with decent returns, you have a problem. Wolverine was something of a recovery, but even their "reboot" attempt performed badly.


I'll second the questioning of labeling of this as "performing badly". The X-men franchise has done quite well. And frankly, they've focused on Wolverine, because that's the character people like the most and Hugh Jackman has done a very good job playing it. Giving fans what they want isn't usually a mistake.


Quote:
I think Ellen Page has proven that she could have easily carried Kitty Pryde into the spot light if they gave her the chance.


Honestly, I don't think the problem is with Ellen Page (I also have no opinion on whether she can pull a lead off well). The problem is with the character. Kitty Pryde just isn't that popular/interesting a character to carry a feature. She never has been. There are reasons why certain characters have had solo books, and others have not. We can debate what those reasons are specifically, but it's clear that there are characters that for one reason or another capture the interest (and money) of fans, and others that do not. Wolverine has had multiple solo titles. Spider man has as well (arguably the most solo titles in the Marvel universe). Gambit did for awhile. Punisher has had a few titles. Thor has. Hulk has. Iron man has. Captain America has (seeing a theme when it comes to the Avengers?).

Want to know who hasn't? Kitty Pryde. Storm. Cyclops. Actually, I don't believe *any* of the main X-men characters has aside from Wolverine and Gambit (and Gambit only briefly IIRC). They all work well as ensemble characters. As part of a team, they fit and fill out a book. As solo characters carrying a title by themselves? Not strong enough. That's why Wolverine has been the focus within the X-men franchise. Fair or not, he connects the stories and brings the money in.

Edited, Nov 1st 2013 2:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Nov 01 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
Kitty Pryde's return & arc across Whedon's run of Astonishing X-Men was pretty Kitty centric. Focused a lot on Cyclops & Colossus too. Granted he basically did Buffy with the X-Men, but still, it was pretty great.

She would not carry a movie. Fassbender Magneto already has & should. I would give Holloywood all of my dollars for a prequel to first class called Eric Lensher: **** hunter.

____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#40 Nov 01 2013 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,736 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I would give Holloywood all of my dollars for a prequel to first class called Eric Lensher: **** hunter.


Didn't they already make that?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#41 Nov 06 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,007 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As for Kitty Pryde being a teenager, we have no clue when the future portion of this movie takes place. Is it the year after Last Stand, or is it a decade? You can tell Iceman has aged a fair bit - mid 20s at least. I have no clue, actually, how old he was supposed to be in The Last Stand. I'm going to guess he was 18, though, or nearly there. And the movie came out 8 years before DoFP.


Doesn't matter how old Kitty is in the future. The time travel works by sending a person back to their own body at that point in time. Kitty would not be able to go back to a time to when Xavier and Magneto were young men, because she hadn't been born yet. There would be no Kitty body to travel to.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#42 Nov 06 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Watch Super

If I ever meet you, I am going to punch you in the neck so very, very hard for telling me this.

Dear God, that was a terrible movie.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Nov 06 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
If I ever meet you, I am going to punch you in the neck so very, very hard for telling me this.

Dear God, that was a terrible movie.


Not quite what you were expecting, was it? I love to be surprised by movies, but I found myself wondering WTF i just watched after viewing.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#44 Nov 06 2013 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,484 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
If I ever meet you, I am going to punch you in the neck so very, very hard for telling me this.

Dear God, that was a terrible movie.


Not quite what you were expecting, was it? I love to be surprised by movies, but I found myself wondering WTF i just watched after viewing.


And you just had to share that experience, didn't you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Nov 06 2013 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
******
43,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
Want to know who hasn't? Kitty Pryde. Storm. Cyclops. Actually, I don't believe *any* of the main X-men characters has aside from Wolverine and Gambit
They've all had solo books.
____________________________
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 Nov 06 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,683 posts
And Kitty has definitely been a pretty major character recently. Particularly with Ultimate Comics, where Wolverine is dead and she's pretty much the leader of the group.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Nov 06 2013 at 8:09 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
And you just had to share that experience, didn't you?


Sharing is caring!
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#48 Nov 06 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Omegavegeta wrote:
Not quite what you were expecting, was it?

Actually, it had the same general tone as Defendor so that part wasn't a surprise. The fact that it sucked that much was a little surprising though. Especially since you presented it as evidence for an Ellen Page superhero vehicle.

Edited, Nov 6th 2013 9:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Nov 09 2013 at 6:29 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,944 posts
Mazra wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
As for Kitty Pryde being a teenager, we have no clue when the future portion of this movie takes place. Is it the year after Last Stand, or is it a decade? You can tell Iceman has aged a fair bit - mid 20s at least. I have no clue, actually, how old he was supposed to be in The Last Stand. I'm going to guess he was 18, though, or nearly there. And the movie came out 8 years before DoFP.


Doesn't matter how old Kitty is in the future. The time travel works by sending a person back to their own body at that point in time. Kitty would not be able to go back to a time to when Xavier and Magneto were young men, because she hadn't been born yet. There would be no Kitty body to travel to.


Initially I was thinking that was a really stupid way of time traveling, less "Back to the Future" and more "Quantum Leap" like. After thinking it over, I guess it removes the possibility of having two versions of yourself at the cost of very limited time travel. Unless I was planning on trying to change a specific moment in my life (which I gather is the plot of the movie), I wouldn't want to warp to relive a time in my life.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#50 May 23 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
It's good, go see it. It's a good movie in its own right & its the first satisfying X flick since X-2. The action is well done & unlike first class, there isn't a huge gap between very good scenes and cheesy ones. Most of its very good and sometimes its exceptional (Quicksilver is **** AWESOME).

You have to stay until the VERY end of ALL the credits to get a teaser of the next flick. I won't discuss spoilers yet, but it resolves the original trilogy pretty well and continues the story of the First Class characters excellently. Thumbs up.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#51 May 23 2014 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
52 posts
Oops... I forgot there was a thread about this already... In short this was a good movie, certain things had to be retconned in order to work but it was for the better. It was far better than the trilogy, first class and both wolverine movies. Should go see it.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 24 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (24)