Avengers: Age of Ultron vs. X-Men: Apocalypse

[Frankeh]

Both have thin plots about a megalomaniac villain wanting to destroy and create in his own image culminating in an unengaging battle in a wrecked city, but AOU has better acting, pacing (despite coming to a halt with that boring farm scene), visual effects and action, not to mention Ultron is never given a moment as embarrasing as "Leaaaarniiing...."

 

[Mandon Knight]

For me, it was as if X1 was 'sent out' on behalf of the genre to 'test the water' for the whole as to see, if there was a 'taste' for the genre again. Hence the budget, hence the 'scope' and then it was 'if this works', we'll break out'. You can see the build in both X2 for that specific set of films and then Raimi's Spider-man was the modern day 'way back'.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

For me, it was as if X1 was 'sent out' on behalf of the genre to 'test the water' for the whole as to see, if there was a 'taste' for the genre again. Hence the budget, hence the 'scope' and then it was 'if this works', we'll break out'. You can see the build in both X2 for that specific set of films and then Raimi's Spider-man was the modern day 'way back'.

Yep, it was played straight to show people CBMs could be serious and not campy. This was even said at the time.

 

[Erzengel]

For me, it was as if X1 was 'sent out' on behalf of the genre to 'test the water' for the whole as to see, if there was a 'taste' for the genre again. Hence the budget, hence the 'scope' and then it was 'if this works', we'll break out'. You can see the build in both X2 for that specific set of films and then Raimi's Spider-man was the modern day 'way back'.

Budgets
2001 X-Men - $75M
2003 X-2 - $110M
2005 Fantastic Four - $100M
2006 X:TLS - $210
2006 FF ROTS - $130M

Well, one can say they only really broke out 5 years later, however I think I remember that Fox Studios was notoriously cheap when it came to these movies until TLS.

And it's ironic that Deadpool and Logan had the same issues with budget and still succeeded in spite of Fox.

 

[Spider-Fan]

In 2000 though CBMs weren’t highly anticipated and generally thought of as a joke. Superman and Batman’89 didn’t have to things that toxic even when they came out. Due to B&R and others no studio wanted to touch them.

But hey, to each their own.

That doesn't really excuse X1's overall generic feel. I would say Blade, a film not with Batman or Superman and from that same era, was vastly superior. Blade actually had style and a strong plot. X1 lacks style, which is not something I would say about Schumacher's Batman films (though those are dreadful movies). I give X1 credit for launching the franchise and being at the fore front of the CBM boom that would come, but that doesn't elevate the film's actual quality for me. At the end of the day, I just see a generic movie. X2 would be a vast improvement, but X1 is just meh. I never really ever get a desire to rewatch X1. If I rewatch it, it's because I decided to rewatch all the X-Men movies.

 

[Frankeh]

That doesn't really excuse X1's overall generic feel. I would say Blade, a film not with Batman or Superman and from that same era, was vastly superior. Blade actually had style and a strong plot. X1 lacks style, which is not something I would say about Schumacher's Batman films (though those are dreadful movies). I give X1 credit for launching the franchise and being at the fore front of the CBM boom that would come, but that doesn't elevate the film's actual quality for me. At the end of the day, I just see a generic movie. X2 would be a vast improvement, but X1 is just meh. I never really ever get a desire to rewatch X1. If I rewatch it, it's because I decided to rewatch all the X-Men movies.

I disagree, I don't think all X1 has going for it is kickstarting a boom, nor is it merely a product of its time, to me while aesthetically it doesn't pop (with the exception of some design choices like Mystique) it has the feel of a political thriller, which some might not prefer for an X-Men movie, but it worked for me. I think it has a villain with a very sound motivation which is not dime a dozen in comicbook films, his interactions with Xavier are very well written, and the two lead characters (Wolverine and Rogue) are emotionally engaging. The train scene where Wolverine convinces Rogue to come back is one of my favorites. Many memorable moments in it overall despite a lot of people only focusing on the more cringey aspects like the Toad...lightning scene.

 

[mclay18]

Budgets
2001 X-Men - $75M
2003 X-2 - $110M
2005 Fantastic Four - $100M
2006 X:TLS - $210
2006 FF ROTS - $130M

Well, one can say they only really broke out 5 years later, however I think I remember that Fox Studios was notoriously cheap when it came to these movies until TLS.

And it's ironic that Deadpool and Logan had the same issues with budget and still succeeded in spite of Fox.

That was Tom Rothman's doing. Had X-Men and F4 gone to Sony instead of Fox, you know they would've poured more money into them like Spider-man (provided they were as successful).

The reason why Fox poured a lot into X3 was that they had fast-tracked the sequel already, the cast's salaries were significantly higher, and they weren't waiting for Singer to finish Superman Returns before doing X3. Rothman was pretty petty those days.

 

[henzINNIT]

Revisiting this thread, I find it interesting that both directors seem to have had rough times on set, and it can be felt in both cases in different ways. With some films you can just feel the director not wanting to be there. I call it the "Lost World" effect. Or maybe Alien 3 is a better choice.

Not really an excuse, IMO. Superman and Batman 89' are products of their time, but they are still mostly timeless. X1 felt dated even then to me.

I strongly disagree there for 89's soundtrack and Lois' internal monologue alone.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I strongly disagree there for 89's soundtrack and Lois' internal monologue alone.

Both of those work for me.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I disagree, I don't think all X1 has going for it is kickstarting a boom, nor is it merely a product of its time, to me while aesthetically it doesn't pop

One of the most important things about that first X-Men film is that it took the focus off the visuals and put it on theme and character. After a decade of comic book movies which put every emphasis on style and spectacle (not that I don't love The Shadow), X-Men told us that superhero movies could be more than eye candy.

 

[Elayis]

AoU blows Apocalypse out of the water; you almost couldn't pick two more massively divergent in quality films. To me, Apocalypse is one of the worst of the genre, outmatched only by garbage like Fant4stic, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace & Catwoman.

 

[carpenter82]

Nice to see some renewed interest in this thread again. Another thing I would say in favor of Apocalypse is that I feel like AOU wastes Ultron more than X-Men wastes Apocalypse. When you have a villain that's AI there's so many different avenues you can go with that, and the movie fails to explore most of them. Going into it I was sure that Ultron would take over Iron Man's suit, or even the Quinjet at some point. They also say Ultron knows them better than they know themselves which never really pays off. I also never understood why Ultron even needs all these robotic bodies. As soon as he becomes an AI it should've been game over.

 

[FunkMiller]

Jesus Christ - you might as well have made this poll between Age Of Ultron and a small dried up piece of dog turd.

 

[psylockolussus]

AoU blows Apocalypse out of the water; you almost couldn't pick two more massively divergent in quality films. To me, Apocalypse is one of the worst of the genre, outmatched only by garbage like Fant4stic, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace & Catwoman.

Absolutely! Worst X-Men film ever!