I get it but what I have never understood about this forum is why some get a free pass but others get scolded and/or condescended to. I'm no troll, I am an intermittent poster at best. Being told to "relax" just irks me as did @WetRats' reply. Can't I register annoyance? I'm not picking a fight, I just felt a certain way about the topic and felt chided in kind.
While we would hope to avoid having to have every post transliterated so everyone understands immediately what the other meant, this is unfeasible and not necessary. I've been accused of being a troll for saying I disagreed with something DC was doing (imagine that) and I've seen others labeled as negative jerks for indicating that something they weren't inclined to buy based on the solicit was something they had "zero interest" in. @WetRats responses can come off as snarky or abrasive sometimes, but I have never sensed any ill-will or malcontent in his more colorful responses. Perhaps withdrawal was the proper response. I don't actually disagree with either of you. I often agree with both of you in other posts.
In fact, I quite enjoy the witty banter and repartee here at CGS forums. yet, it is in these speedy replies that an understanding of the major differences between discussions face-to-face and those taking place in an online environment. For the noobs as well as the seasoned posters, it'd be good form to always pause to recognize the limits of these kinds of communications so that in the future - context, nuance, and overall message are not “lost in translation.” Asking "what did you mean exactly" is usually a better response than a "screw you and your foolish ideas". I've actually edited something like that out before... (chagrin)
As for the Singer stuff, I didn't even know about it until today. Wow. My views on it won't affect my viewing the film. I'm likely not going to spend the money to see this one in theatres, anyway. I'll wait for Blu-Ray or On-Demand.
For the record, I only saw X-Men 1 & X-Men 2 in the theatre. X-Men 3 - The Last Stand, Wolverine: Origins, X-Men: First Class, and The Wolverine were all viewed at home on disc.
I fully expect this film to continue that recent tradition. I'll be waiting for this one.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
I'm sure Fatty Arbuckle would agree.
Keep your righteousness and history listen to yourself. The insinuation that somebody supports that sort of crime because they want to see a movie is insulting and just a little ridiculous. I often come to a comic book forum for my morality lesson.
Relax. @WetRats is not citing history to judge you, he is actually citing a piece of history that agrees with you. Just look at the Arbuckle story.
The history around Fatty Arbuckle is actually about the public rushing to judgment based on shoddy facts, leading to the ruination of a career and infamy that stuck with him the rest of his life. Arbuckle was eventually cleared of all criminal charges, but it was too late to save his reputation and career. The Arbuckle story is actually an example of when people couldn't stick to the subject matter and instead ran wild with tabloid accusation and speculation.
Not every response to you is someone disagreeing with you.
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
M
I'd be game for them to just pretend that X3 never happened.
I actually liked X3... it had more than a few good moments. The overall story was weakened by the shoehorning in the Dark Phoenix elements, but I felt the "cure" storyline had some sufficiently prickly moral implications. I liked the Danger Room sequence, the triangle between Bobby, Rogue, and Kitty. I liked Kitty in general. I really liked the part about Magneto dropping Mystique when she lost her abilities. I found that cold, callous, and somewhat shocking. More Colossus is always good. I didn't mind Beast, although I had a hard time seeing past Kelsey Grammar and his Frasier persona.
All in all, I think the movie gets a bad rap, mainly because of disdain for Brett Ratner. I don't think it's really that bad, if looked at objectively. It's not Ang Lee Hulk bad, or Daredevil bad, or Wolverine Origins bad... If it's on, I will watch it, maybe even more readily than if I see X1 or X2 on tv.
Earlier in the movie, Prof. X is teaching an ethics class, and features Moira McTaggart and one of her patients, who is physically healthy, but brain-dead, in a vegetative state. He is addressing the moral implications of a mutant using their abilities to transplant the mind of a dying person into a brain-dead body. The end-credits scene shows the brain-dead person waking up with Xavier's voice, so he survived being ripped apart by Jean, and Patrick Stewart gets out of his contract.
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
M
I'd be game for them to just pretend that X3 never happened.
I actually liked X3... it had more than a few good moments. The overall story was weakened by the shoehorning in the Dark Phoenix elements, but I felt the "cure" storyline had some sufficiently prickly moral implications. I liked the Danger Room sequence, the triangle between Bobby, Rogue, and Kitty. I liked Kitty in general. I really liked the part about Magneto dropping Mystique when she lost her abilities. I found that cold, callous, and somewhat shocking. More Colossus is always good. I didn't mind Beast, although I had a hard time seeing past Kelsey Grammar and his Frasier persona.
All in all, I think the movie gets a bad rap, mainly because of disdain for Brett Ratner. I don't think it's really that bad, if looked at objectively. It's not Ang Lee Hulk bad, or Daredevil bad, or Wolverine Origins bad... If it's on, I will watch it, maybe even more readily than if I see X1 or X2 on tv.
I only saw it once, and remember really not enjoying it. It was not for me.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
So I guess that is a reminder that there is not way to look at it objectively. It is all subjective. There are so many different ways to approach these characters, or different elements to focus on, that there will be this wide range of feelings about them.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
I also loved the Ang Lee Hulk; I only had a few nitpicks for the most part, though the one thing I did not like were the comic book style captions used throughout the film.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
I also loved the Ang Lee Hulk; I only had a few nitpicks for the most part, though the one thing I did not like were the comic book style captions used throughout the film.
That's actually my biggest issue with the movie; either do it in the whole movie (which would've been off-putting) or not at all. It's the like the kid in Superman Returns or Ryan Reynolds in Green Lantern; the biggest obstacle to get over to enjoy the movie.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
I also loved the Ang Lee Hulk; I only had a few nitpicks for the most part, though the one thing I did not like were the comic book style captions used throughout the film.
It struck me as a very unimaginative approach to filming a comic book. You're filming a comic, so you're going to occasionally frame things like panels on a comic page? Sixties Batman and Electric Company era Spider-Man already covered that. I would have hoped Ang Lee could have brought something stronger to the plate.
And like Matt said, if you're going to do it, own it. Go all in, like Dick Tracy or The Spirit.
I can only remember two instances they did it in the film, and that's because they were so awkward - all the panels of instruments in the lab (great, now we know where all the knobs and buttons are), and Major Talbot caught in the center of an explosion. Both stuck out like a sore thumb, and the audience I was with actually laughed at the latter.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
I also loved the Ang Lee Hulk; I only had a few nitpicks for the most part, though the one thing I did not like were the comic book style captions used throughout the film.
It struck me as a very unimaginative approach to filming a comic book. You're filming a comic, so you're going to occasionally frame things like panels on a comic page? Sixties Batman and Electric Company era Spider-Man already covered that. I would have hoped Ang Lee could have brought something stronger to the plate.
And like Matt said, if you're going to do it, own it. Go all in, like Dick Tracy or The Spirit.
I can only remember two instances they did it in the film, and that's because they were so awkward - all the panels of instruments in the lab (great, now we know where all the knobs and buttons are), and Major Talbot caught in the center of an explosion. Both stuck out like a sore thumb, and the audience I was with actually laughed at the latter.
It was also done when Betty approached the elevator and was greeted by Talbot. I recall thinking "great, so now we have every angle in case either party wants to challenge the sequence of events!"
I wonder if Logan will have the Adamantium claws. Also, any cameos by the initial group? Jean? Scott?
M
A young Cyclops played by a lesser known actor would be easy to fit in. I feel like there should be a chance for a James Marsden appearance, giving all the times that he and Singer have worked together.
I'm figuring the same, especially since Cyclops got short changed in X3 (arguable, the whole cast & fan base did.) I'm curious to see how this corrects some timeline issues from all the movies.
M
I'd be game for them to just pretend that X3 never happened.
I didn't mind Beast, although I had a hard time seeing past Kelsey Grammar and his Frasier persona.
I actually thought that Kelsey Grammar as Beast was pretty excellent casting. He had the look in makeup, would have actually worked as a pre-blue hair Hank McCoy, and his voice is actually who I've heard in my head ever since.
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
I also loved the Ang Lee Hulk; I only had a few nitpicks for the most part, though the one thing I did not like were the comic book style captions used throughout the film.
I rather liked it myself. I also loved the opening credits sequence.
I've watched the trailer many, many times & have been thinking about Xaiver walking around. What if its an illusion created with his mind (similar to The Shadow) to appear that he's walking. The other thought is that maybe he's concentrating with his mutant ability to permit him to walk.
Also, I'm wondering if Wolverine has the bone or adamantium claws. This takes place in the 70s. If the Origins incident resulted in the Three Mile Island incident, which was March 1979, then I guess this could've occurred afterward, he could have the adamantium.
I've watched the trailer many, many times & have been thinking about Xaiver walking around. What if its an illusion created with his mind (similar to The Shadow) to appear that he's walking. The other thought is that maybe he's concentrating with his mutant ability to permit him to walk.
Also, I'm wondering if Wolverine has the bone or adamantium claws. This takes place in the 70s. If the Origins incident resulted in the Three Mile Island incident, which was March 1979, then I guess this could've occurred afterward, he could have the adamantium.
M
Yeah, it's very curious.
There is a scene at about :35 where you see Wolverine watching young Xavier roll down a corridor in his wheelchair. Wolverine is in the same clothes that you see him wearing while talking to a "walking" Xavier at the start of the trailer. An illusion would be as good of an explanation as any.
Why isn't the Beast blue? He turned blue after trying to become "normal" in the last movie. At the 1:59 mark we see him blue again..but it makes you wonder why he is changing back and forth. Perhaps Xavier is behind this as well so Hank can feel normal around other people.
Wolverine pops bone claws @ 2:08. I'd assume the Wolverine from the future has the adamantium claws. So I'd guess there will be a flashback or Wolverines from two different time periods running around.
I've watched the trailer many, many times & have been thinking about Xaiver walking around. What if its an illusion created with his mind (similar to The Shadow) to appear that he's walking. The other thought is that maybe he's concentrating with his mutant ability to permit him to walk.
Also, I'm wondering if Wolverine has the bone or adamantium claws. This takes place in the 70s. If the Origins incident resulted in the Three Mile Island incident, which was March 1979, then I guess this could've occurred afterward, he could have the adamantium.
M
Yeah, it's very curious.
There is a scene at about :35 where you see Wolverine watching young Xavier roll down a corridor in his wheelchair. Wolverine is in the same clothes that you see him wearing while talking to a "walking" Xavier at the start of the trailer. An illusion would be as good of an explanation as any.
Why isn't the Beast blue? He turned blue after trying to become "normal" in the last movie. At the 1:59 mark we see him blue again..but it makes you wonder why he is changing back and forth. Perhaps Xavier is behind this as well so Hank can feel normal around other people.
Wolverine pops bone claws @ 2:08. I'd assume the Wolverine from the future has the adamantium claws. So I'd guess there will be a flashback or Wolverines from two different time periods running around.
In the original, it is only Kitty's mind that is sent back in time, into the body of her younger self. The same is happening here with Wolverine. Bone claws is his past body. Adamantium claws is his future body. Both bodies have his future mind in them at various points.
In the original, it is only Kitty's mind that is sent back in time, into the body of her younger self. The same is happening here with Wolverine. Bone claws is his past body. Adamantium claws is his future body. Both bodies have his future mind in them at various points.
Actually, depends on when in time his mind was sent back to. It could be adamantium.
Also, is there a gap from The Wolverine's conclusion to be sure what he's got on the claws?
The answer to your query @Matt is that there will be bone AND adamantium claws in this film. In fact, Bryan Singer responded to this very question in a January 2014 Empire interview.
Jt read this from Screenrant: In X-Men: Days of Future Past, fans get two versions of Wolverine, one from the future, and a younger version with bone claws. We can assume that since X-Men: Apocalypse is a continuation of the younger core cast from X-Men: First Class, rounding out the prequel trilogy (sort of), that we’ll see this bone claw version of Wolverine continue with them into the ’80s, when we see the formation of the X-Men heroes we met years ago in director Bryan Singer’s original film that started it all. Singer has already hinted as much interviews, teasing possible introductions of a younger Cyclops, Jean Grey and Storm, alongside Gambit and Nightcrawler.
The bone or adamantium claws question answered...?
Jt read this from Screenrant: In X-Men: Days of Future Past, fans get two versions of Wolverine, one from the future, and a younger version with bone claws. We can assume that since X-Men: Apocalypse is a continuation of the younger core cast from X-Men: First Class, rounding out the prequel trilogy (sort of), that we’ll see this bone claw version of Wolverine continue with them into the ’80s, when we see the formation of the X-Men heroes we met years ago in director Bryan Singer’s original film that started it all. Singer has already hinted as much interviews, teasing possible introductions of a younger Cyclops, Jean Grey and Storm, alongside Gambit and Nightcrawler.
The bone or adamantium claws question answered...?
I highly, highly doubt we'll be going half backwards, half forward in time for the next movie. There maybe different versions of the characters, but I anticipate the next movie taking place roughly in the present 2016-2020.
I also fully expect 1960s Wolverine to not stay with the team and continue on to his normal origin and get adamantium claws off screen before the next movie.
I see your point, but since this is Singer's vision now (again) - if XMDoFP does well and he goes forward with Apocalypse, then it would reasonably round out the "First Class" trilogy with the younger team.
I'm just curious... does anyone know if Chris Claremont and John Byrne are getting any compensation for this movie? They did plot and write the original storyline upon which it was based. Or did FOX get the free reign to adapt any X-Men storyline when they licensed the properties? Anyone know the details on this?
I'm just curious... does anyone know if Chris Claremont and John Byrne are getting any compensation for this movie? They did plot and write the original storyline upon which it was based. Or did FOX get the free reign to adapt any X-Men storyline when they licensed the properties? Anyone know the details on this?
I'm just curious... does anyone know if Chris Claremont and John Byrne are getting any compensation for this movie? They did plot and write the original storyline upon which it was based. Or did FOX get the free reign to adapt any X-Men storyline when they licensed the properties? Anyone know the details on this?
Is it just me or does this poster make Professor X look like he's got rocket butt and that's how he keeps himself floating?
That's the future. He no longer needs wheels, or even telepathy. Just gas.
Well, this is just idle speculation, but I feel VERY confident they aren't being reimbursed in any way, unless they were hired as some kind of writer for the movie. I find it very hard to believe that any writer working on major characters that are entirely owned by a parent company retain any rights regarding stories they create.
I'd say you're correct, but think of the possibilities for FOX or anyone adapting these stories. They get the benefit of (often) great plots and stories with some dialogue possibly along with top notch story boarding. How could they have messed things up in the past?
I'm just curious... does anyone know if Chris Claremont and John Byrne are getting any compensation for this movie? They did plot and write the original storyline upon which it was based. Or did FOX get the free reign to adapt any X-Men storyline when they licensed the properties? Anyone know the details on this?
Is it just me or does this poster make Professor X look like he's got rocket butt and that's how he keeps himself floating?
That's the future. He no longer needs wheels, or even telepathy. Just gas.
There may be different things built into some creator contracts (especially name ones) these days, but I would guess that the work that Claremont and Byrne did in 1981 was solidly work for hire and they are not legally owed anything if that story gets adapted to other media.
However, in recent years, WB/DC and Marvel have been known to send people checks anyway, for optics and goodwill reasons, or maybe in some cases based on when and whether they created a particular character or story. I feel like I have heard more stories from creators about WB/DC making good on things than you hear stories about Marvel. But it might be that Marvel is working to change that. Len Wein had long told stories about how amazed he was that he got checks because Lucius Fox, who he co-created, was used in the recent Batman movies. But more recently he also said that he got a check for the last Wolverine movie . So it may be that Marvel is starting to try to buy some of the same goodwill and PR. And perhaps to try to avoid stories like this interview with Jim Starlin when Avengers came out--
HC: I spoke to Jerry Robinson once and I congratulated him on the billion-dollar success of “The Dark Knight” and he winced like I had poked him in the eye. Of course I instantly realized that watching Alfred, the Joker, Two-Face, etc. fill the coffers of Warner Bros. was like watching a son raised in another house with another family’s name. I don’t know the arrangements on this film, but has this project and its success been a mixed experience in any way?
JS: Very mixed. It’s nice to see my work recognized as being worth something beyond the printed page, and it was very cool seeing Thanos up on the big screen. Joss Whedon and his crew did an excellent job on “The Avengers” movie and I look forward to the sequel, for obvious reasons. But this is the second film that had something I created for Marvel in it — the Infinity Gauntlet in “Thor” being the other – and both films I had to pay for my own ticket to see them. Financial compensation to the creators of these characters doesn’t appear to be part of the equation.
I would guess that Marvel would rather have creators out there more often saying 'I got a check when I wasn't owed one', or even having creators like Brubaker with a cameo in a film largely inspired by their work (and, now that I think of it, I think Claremont had a cameo in an X-movie. . .and maybe a check as well?) They would rather have those talking points out there than ones like Starlin saying that he had to buy his own ticket to see things he created on the screen.
Comments
In fact, I quite enjoy the witty banter and repartee here at CGS forums. yet, it is in these speedy replies that an understanding of the major differences between discussions face-to-face and those taking place in an online environment. For the noobs as well as the seasoned posters, it'd be good form to always pause to recognize the limits of these kinds of communications so that in the future - context, nuance, and overall message are not “lost in translation.” Asking "what did you mean exactly" is usually a better response than a "screw you and your foolish ideas". I've actually edited something like that out before... (chagrin) For the record, I only saw X-Men 1 & X-Men 2 in the theatre. X-Men 3 - The Last Stand, Wolverine: Origins, X-Men: First Class, and The Wolverine were all viewed at home on disc.
I fully expect this film to continue that recent tradition. I'll be waiting for this one.
All in all, I think the movie gets a bad rap, mainly because of disdain for Brett Ratner. I don't think it's really that bad, if looked at objectively. It's not Ang Lee Hulk bad, or Daredevil bad, or Wolverine Origins bad... If it's on, I will watch it, maybe even more readily than if I see X1 or X2 on tv.
:)
Of course, I've seen Ang Lee's Hulk more than once, and love it. I know it was not for many people, but that one was for me.
So I guess that is a reminder that there is not way to look at it objectively. It is all subjective. There are so many different ways to approach these characters, or different elements to focus on, that there will be this wide range of feelings about them.
M
And like Matt said, if you're going to do it, own it. Go all in, like Dick Tracy or The Spirit.
I can only remember two instances they did it in the film, and that's because they were so awkward - all the panels of instruments in the lab (great, now we know where all the knobs and buttons are), and Major Talbot caught in the center of an explosion. Both stuck out like a sore thumb, and the audience I was with actually laughed at the latter.
M
Also, I'm wondering if Wolverine has the bone or adamantium claws. This takes place in the 70s. If the Origins incident resulted in the Three Mile Island incident, which was March 1979, then I guess this could've occurred afterward, he could have the adamantium.
M
There is a scene at about :35 where you see Wolverine watching young Xavier roll down a corridor in his wheelchair. Wolverine is in the same clothes that you see him wearing while talking to a "walking" Xavier at the start of the trailer. An illusion would be as good of an explanation as any.
Why isn't the Beast blue? He turned blue after trying to become "normal" in the last movie. At the 1:59 mark we see him blue again..but it makes you wonder why he is changing back and forth. Perhaps Xavier is behind this as well so Hank can feel normal around other people.
Wolverine pops bone claws @ 2:08. I'd assume the Wolverine from the future has the adamantium claws. So I'd guess there will be a flashback or Wolverines from two different time periods running around.
M
Also, is there a gap from The Wolverine's conclusion to be sure what he's got on the claws?
M
M
As long as you don't mind a few possible spoilers...
And this premise is not unheard of...
The bone or adamantium claws question answered...?
I also fully expect 1960s Wolverine to not stay with the team and continue on to his normal origin and get adamantium claws off screen before the next movie.
Is it just me or does this poster make Professor X look like he's got rocket butt and that's how he keeps himself floating?
However, in recent years, WB/DC and Marvel have been known to send people checks anyway, for optics and goodwill reasons, or maybe in some cases based on when and whether they created a particular character or story. I feel like I have heard more stories from creators about WB/DC making good on things than you hear stories about Marvel. But it might be that Marvel is working to change that. Len Wein had long told stories about how amazed he was that he got checks because Lucius Fox, who he co-created, was used in the recent Batman movies. But more recently he also said that he got a check for the last Wolverine movie . So it may be that Marvel is starting to try to buy some of the same goodwill and PR. And perhaps to try to avoid stories like this interview with Jim Starlin when Avengers came out-- I would guess that Marvel would rather have creators out there more often saying 'I got a check when I wasn't owed one', or even having creators like Brubaker with a cameo in a film largely inspired by their work (and, now that I think of it, I think Claremont had a cameo in an X-movie. . .and maybe a check as well?) They would rather have those talking points out there than ones like Starlin saying that he had to buy his own ticket to see things he created on the screen.