Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The New Mutants' started by SAUspartan, Dec 14, 2017.
I was being sarcastic.
Sorry Lip. But it just seems like they are trying too hard to capitalize on one of the hot flavors of the month rather than staying true to the source material. And now we have a situation where the movie is virtually done and in the can and they push it back practically a year. It seems like something went wrong. New Mutants far predates Stranger Things, and I'm not sure why a new movie had exploit that dynamic.
It just seems like the whole horror movie angle for New Mutants was a mistake from the get-go and the Fox team was too desperate for spin-offs without a real plan here.
Here's what I posted before and don't think you saw:
Apologies psylock, even i have trouble discerning it sometimes.
Not to retread arguments I think you and I have had, but I think most MCU movies still play in very strict tonal boundaries and have a predetermined look, aesthetic, general tone, and plotting. I actually think it worked gangbusters with a space opera (hence why I loved Guardians and liked Guardians 2 and Thor 3), I'm in the minority on the board that doesn't think TWS works as a political thriller. It plays it too safe. (It works fine as a "superhero movie" though).
Generally, I just like the idea of superhero movies that don't view their film as merely a superhero movie with the implicit genre therein. I know Superman: The Movie created the superhero movie origin template, but it was trying to be a grand epic of old Hollywood lore, closer to something like Ben-Hur in terms of tone and sweep than a self-deprecating adventure. The Dark Knight Trilogy, with the The Dark Knight in particular, was more of a crime epic that mostly eschewed formula altogether.
I think the ones that really stick with audiences years later are the ones that try to stand apart from the pack. That includes Guardians, because it was somewhat of a departure from the MCU formula and the most tonally unique (it was also the first real cosmic superhero movie). It also includes The Avengers as being the first team-up, major crossover movie; Logan as an adult, modern Western; Deadpool as a raunchy comedy; I think Spider-Man 2 holds up so well because it actually plays really well as the type of romantic dramedy they used to make in the '60s... but you know, with Spider-Man and Doc Ock occasionally having to duke it out.
So yeah, the idea of a horror movie with superheroes is exciting. It also helped the cast is phenomenal and it wouldn't just be a retread of the main X-Men franchise. Add in visual cues from the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise in the trailer, and those of us who dig '80s horror were grooving on it.
But apparently as cool as the premise was, the execution... must have left something to be desired. Which is a real disappointing shame.
Here we go again.
I dunno, I would say Winter Soldier does things different from the typical Marvel film. For example, you have those action sequences done with a more handheld style and the shorter frame rate.
It's also really the first time we saw Captain America really move like a super soldier and fully utilize all of his abilities. He didn't move this way in Avengers or even The First Avenger. Not to mention, his shield use was very sparing as well until Winter Soldier.
Don't you have a Dark Phoenix thread to post in about how much you still hate Simon Kinberg, and why we need the original cast back because people just looove them while simultaneously swearing to all that is Holy that Fox is awful and you can't wait for the MCU reboot?
I like Winter Soldier. Let's just say that I think it nails Steve Rogers and is the reason why I think so many folks, myself included, love Chris Evans in the role. It just doesn't really work as a spy movie for me, because it is still too beholden to certain tropes within the MCU (making it HYDRA, a "save the world" third act complete with MacGuffins and giant CGI destruction in a major U.S. city, suggesting a status quo is mostly restored by end credits).
But hey, it works very well as a superhero movie. And to bring it back to this thread, it seems that according to the rumors that New Mutants doesn't work as a superhero movie or a horror movie. Getting out of the way of formula is fine, but if what you come up with is actually bad, a more straightforward and conventional superhero movie is preferable. There is something to be said about Marvel's quality control. TWS doesn't work as a serious espionage thriller to me, but it is a damn entertaining film. And at this point it's a mystery if we'll ever say that about New Mutants...
Embrace the source material. If you want to make an experimental film that is different from cb films, then go make a movie that isn't based from a comic book. Like New Mutants isn't an experimental or deep comic book in the first place...
Go create your own Disney MCU skepticism thread.
Spider-Man 2, Superman: The Movie, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Logan, Deadpool, and Guardians of the Galaxy all are faithful enough to the comics while being really good movies. Exceptional ones in TDKT and Logan's case.
Edit: Accidental Post on Superhero genre differentiation meant for here: //forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=36235799&highlight=#post36235799
Anyway, will just say adaptations can't please everyone... These characters written again and again over the years by different writers. Even if faithful, too many preconceived notions out there.
SHIELD gets disbanded by the end of Winter Soldier. How exactly does the status quo get restored at the end? An entire organization is gone.
Winter Soldier is a political thriller with comic booky elements, which is fine because its a movie that is based on a comic book. Dark Knight is a crime drama with a superhero and a super villain in outlandish outfits and a guy who gets half his face burned off but can somehow still talk... basically it has the same aspects that a Batman comic has. Did that make it any less of a crime drama story?
If New Mutants fails, its because the director thought that in order to do horror movie elements he had to remove all the comic booky stuff from the property and rip off the third Nightmare on Elm Street movie for his plot. But why couldn't they have embraced the comic book and still do horror movie elements?
Maybe because Boone's script wasn't that expensive to produce and they could it on the cheap?
Name one movie that has ever 100% embraced the source material, let alone a comic book movie.
No one is asking for a page by page comic book adaptation.
Given half the things you post, that's a surprise coming from you.
Fans are so GD demanding aren't they? The nerve of these people wanting the X-men to be stars in their own movie instead of playing second-fiddle to villains!
No I don't want a page by page adaptation. Just a film that embraces the most basic things of the source material - the tone, the essential heroes/villains, the premise of the source material, the visuals, the costumes, the setting... This one clearly didn't embrace most of those.
So youve never liked a ************** have you? Because none has ever done all of that. Not Deadpool, not Spider-Man, not Batman and not any MCU film.
I can list down films that got the tone, the setting, the premise of the source material, costumes, the visuals right that featured an essential hero and villain. You should watch films that didn't come from Fox.
The closest you'll get to those requirements are the Richard Donner Superman and Spider-Man 2 - even those don't hit every mark on your checklist. Fact of the matter is, you're quite hypocritical when it comes to this.
I'm starting to feel terrible. There were very positive comments for the trailer on youtube, at least compared to negative comments.