Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by Hmarrs, Aug 28, 2013.
I like him as a AI
I understand that
As do i, but still one of the most inaccurate, that's all i'm pointing out.
It's inaccurate, but it's not insulting.
Even Mandarin was still a formidable opponent when all is said and done, unlike a plethora of other villains we can name.
Cyclops is the leader of the team the movie is friggin' named after!
Boy that whole fiasco gets me worked up, haha. This should be a poll! Then you would all have the confirmation that Cyclops is the slap that stings the worst.
The purpose of the film medium is to experiment and try different interpretations of characters and events. Doing panel-to-panel adaptations is unoriginal and defeats the purpose of film; why bother hiring some of the best creative minds, when the storylines can be done as motion comics? Besides, the notion of disservice is arbitrary; the comics are still present--Marvel is not going to take them away. If anything, being a fan of the comic genre - at a time when continuity is an illusion-presupposes an ability to accept and negotiate innumerable interpretations. If anything, the criticisms should be able successful executions of ideas, not devolving to a binary, where there is a 'yes' and 'no'; said binary is not present in the comics; half a century's worth of artists, regime changes, reboots, soft reboots, retcons, and everything in between have made made the characters and canon unstable, bound to change at any moment.
^ Excellent Post ^
I only saw the movie once but i only remember him drinking, watchin Footie and walking around in his pants
That's why I'm fine with changes that work for a film. Case in point, the ending to Watchmen in the film felt better than the squid thing. Doing what they did to Mandarin really hurt the film. I have no emotional ties to IM or Mandarin, but that just really hurt the film for me.
So you missed the scene at the end where Killian explicitly states that he is the Mandarin?
Yeah the Watchman ending was a good original element added to the movie, I especially liked how it all tied in with Dr. Manhattan.
The Mandarin was changed during adaptation, but it was done in a way that, to me, made the character more interesting for cinema. Taking away the rings or whatever is not an injustice to the character, introducing Trevor wasn't either because that character was not the Mandarin. And they still get all the essential elements of the character in there. Just a different power set.
Compared to say, Angel, who is thrown in X3 for some reason or another, and literally doesn't do anything.
Right. Killian was the Mandarin, not Slattery. Saying Ben Kingsley played the Mandarin is like saying Ken Watanabe played Ra's Al Ghul.
No. i saw the scene where Killain said that, i also saw a scene in TBBT where Sheldon Copper said he was Batman.
I queued to see the Mandarin they advertised
Type "Iron Man 3 Mandarin Poster" into Google and see what comes up.
Compare that to a "Batman Begins Ra's al Ghul Poster" search
Right, Killian was the true Mandarin, but it was just disappointing that the Ben Kingsley Mandarin that had been hyped up since the very first trailer, the one who actually sort of bore a resemblance to the comic version, was just a decoy. At least with Ken Watanabe as "Ra's Al Ghul", there was very little seen of him in the marketing campaign and it didn't make it seem like he was the main focus of the film.
Professor X and Storm butted heads with Logan a few times throughout the trilogy, if that makes a difference. Which it probably doesn't.
Glenn Close and Jamie Foxx I'll give you, but I think Del Toro and Spader fit their characters perfectly. The Collector's got sort of a wild look to him that Del Toro is good at pulling off, and Ultron needs a unique voice that can be cold and calculating, which I think Spader is more than capable of.
Meh. I've seen panel for panel work perfectly for audiences and I've seen major changes work as well. I don't have a problem with either as long as they are not losing what makes the characters work in first place. Besides Watchmen, I've rarely heard complaints that something was so accurate it didn't work. It still takes alot of creative work to bring these characters and stories to life either way. I don't think it defeats the purpose of film at all. But that's subjective to the viewer I guess.
None of those were nitpicks. They were all major problems that impacted the quality of the films. Why do you think that none of the X-films or the FF franchise ever broke out to become major blockbusters? Because they were low-quality films for the most part, made by a studio that didn't want to lay out the cash to make great ones.
The amount of money a film makes has nothing to do with quality. Spider-Man 3 was hated by fans, critics, and to a lesser extent the GA. It was the top Marvel Movie at the BO till TA.
In the case of the Fox films, I would argue that their quality has a lot to do with their box office performance. The X franchise has been chugging along for over a dozen years with many installments but it has never caught fire, despite being based on some of the most popular comic books in history. In contrast, Iron Man shot to A-list status with a character whom many derided as a D-list hero nobody other than geeks knew about. Iron Man/Tony Stark is now more popular and recognized than Wolverine, who was long touted as Marvel's second most popular character behind Spider-Man. The difference between the Iron Man and the X-Men films is quality, plain and simple.
Too much boring story and substance and not enough one-liner jokes or ya i imagine.
Agreed. One has more, the other has three movies.
I thought X2 and First Class were considered better than IM2 and IM3 at least.
The Wolverine is also considered better than those from some polls i've seen.
Iron Man has only one great movie, the first. After that well.
As for the X-Men franchise having never caught fire. Well according to this
X-Men, X2 and First Class are considered better than 2/3 of the Iron Man trilogy
And according to this. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm
are 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th and 17th of the highest grossing Marvel movies.
Out of 31 that's damn good
X2=IM3 > FC > IM2.
Of course these are all our own opinions so let's try not passing off this info as fact. Especially when it comes to box office numbers or RT scores as a standard for quality.
In my personal opinion it goes FC > X2 > TW > X1 >IM3 > IM2.
Depends on ones interests of course
I remember enjoying First Class in theatres but haven't seen it since. I don't recall it being better than the originals, a lot of people have high praise for it though I will have to watch it again.
Shane Black's complete bastardization of "Iron Man: Extremis", one of the character's greatest stories.
I thought FC was on par with X3. Both of those films completely disregarded continuity, featured badly-written dialog, almost everyone was out of character and the action sequenced were poorly designed and executed. The makeup and effects are just slightly better than a SyFy movie. FC is shockingly bad and completely overrated by fans. The GA took a pass on FC because the ads revealed its low quality and even hardcore fans didn't go back for repeat viewings in the theater. Hence its low BO total.
Except that Watanabe didn't make a pathetic excuse for a joke out of his character. THAT hurt the movie.
His character was a joke in the scene where he was supposed to be. Not a joke through out the whole movie. I don't recall any one laughing at his broadcasts.
Now I really have to watch it again. I too was irritated how the movie disregarded trying to mesh with the events from Singers films, especially with him producing. Vaughn did say the movie was not intended to follow the continuity of the originals, which some people liked, but I thought it was a mistake. Even more so now since with DoFP we know the movies are connected.