The reasoning behind "no more mutants" doesn't make sense, does it?

13»

Comments

  • Dormammu
    Dormammu Posts: 3,531 Chairperson of the Boards
    Yeah, it's like Fox never got any further than looking at the covers of any X-Men comics because here is what they seem to vaguely understand:

    Professor X is bald
    Magneto was bad, then good, then bad again
    Emma Frost is hot
    Wolverine can't decide if his claws are bone, or metal
    Wolverine has a shoddy memory
    Angel is stupid and it's hard to make his wings look real

    Everything else is open to interpretation.
  • animaniactoo
    animaniactoo Posts: 486 Mover and Shaker
    Beer40 said:
    Dormammu said:
    Personally, watching the X-Men movies drives me absolutely bananas because of the total and complete fail at any semblance of continuity between films. This is made all the more prominent by the tight continuity the Marvel films have achieved. This is not to say there haven't been good X-films because I enjoy several of them, but with every new film they ignore much of what came prior. It's all made even muddier by the time-traveling soft-reset in Days of Future Past.
    (continued from bold) of even trying to have the original X-Men as the "first class", the promotion of Mystique as good, Havok as Cyclops older brother, that sorry excuse for Apocalypse, missing a GREAT opportunity to make Days of Future Past as a two part movie (future, then present)...I could go on....

    And I continue to have major issues with Halle Berry ever being picked to portray Storm. She's a great actress in many things. But "Statuesque" is not something you can act. And quietly proud, dignified, goddess-warrior-protector does not appear to be in her repertoire.

    I will shut up now. People are tired of hearing my rant already...
  • Jaedenkaal
    Jaedenkaal Posts: 3,357 Chairperson of the Boards
    Beer40 said:
    ...the promotion of Mystique as good...
    I'm leaning towards morally ambiguous. Also, heroes and anti-heroes get sequels. Villians get their 120 minutes of fame, and then get killed. Pick your battles, I guess :)
  • MushroomGenius808
    MushroomGenius808 Posts: 138 Tile Toppler
    It's my understanding that Fox owns the LIVE-ACTION rights to the X/FF universe in TV/Movies. 

    Marvel owns the animation rights still for both forms.
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    Straycat said:
    MaxxPowerz said:
    I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I'm glad Disney doesn't own the X-Men, as much as they aggressively sanitize their properties. Movies like Deadpool and OML would not be possible.

    Marvel owns a lot to Fox. Movies like Blade and the first X-Men movie are responsible for saving their brand, back when Disney had no interest in producing these films.
    To be fair, Blade wasn't a Fox movie, and Disney bought Marvel in 2009, after the start of the MCU.  I don't think Marvel owes X-Men much for brand recognition. I think they owe Blade and X-Men for starting the superhero movie craze, and in that sense they owe the Dark Knight trilogy too. But Marvel built their brand by making the MCU really good. They built the MCU based on good understanding of its characters and building a world. They made the "post credit tease for a future movie" a thing.

    But I agree, I'm glad Marvel doesn't own the X-men. I loved Blade and I know it wouldn't have been made if it was part of the Disney machine. Punisher Warzone definitely wouldn't have existed. But if Disney did have the X-Men, I think we might have had better costumes.

     Don't forget the first two Spider-Man movies, which set box office records when they came out, both before Batman Begins. 

    And I believe Miramax is owned by Disney, and is the studio that's used when they want to run with more adult films. 

    I mean look at the Netflix shows. Those definitely skew more adult. It doesn't seem like those shows have been sanitized too much. 

Categories