Actually that WAS the pre-title sequence at first (when Singer posted the first picture of the script), IDK what happened that they changed it to an old, decrepit Apoc getting a body swap.Apocalypse lacked a real display of his power in the past. I would have ditched the transferance and showed him and the horseman causing mass destruction in Egypt instead. That way you would know what he is capable of. The stakes are established when he wakes up.
Apocalypse lacked a real display of his power in the past. I would have ditched the transferance and showed him and the horseman causing mass destruction in Egypt instead. That way you would know what he is capable of. The stakes are established when he wakes up.
Genuine question, do you not think the after credits scene in DOFP did this? Plus also the fact that people worshipped him at the start of Apoc?
Damn, I forgot about that script page. Well it sucks more that they had this idea and dropped it. The transference was a massive sequence that did very little besides introducing (and not even really explaining) the film's main maguffin.
Not really, no. The DOFP teaser is pretty disconnected from this film, and Apocalypse's history is largely glossed over. The cult are insignificant in the story.
I still get why folks are disappointed with Apocalypse. The makeup left something to be desired, and Kinberg's script (save for the nuclear weapons scene) gave him very little of interest to do. However, I do think as time has passed Oscar Isaac was quite entertaining in the role. I remember him far better than any comic book villain in the last two or three years of superhero movies. And his "soothing" voice and look of disdain at everything is fun. I might also be a sucker for Mummy type stories.
As for the beginning, I do agree if we got a sense of his power, like we saw him conquer a whole army by himself, in Ancient Egypt before he was trapped, the film would have been better. I actually think that was the original idea since the first page of the screenplay that Singer sent out on social media seemed to be talking about a battle. My guess is it was cut for budgetary reasons, but showing Apocalypse just lay waste to someone before having his victory parade which goes awry would have made the movie stronger.
Agreed on Apoc, he had more memorable moments than the majority of villains over the last few years. Isaac did great in the role for me, soothing when he needed to be, intimidating and and bombastic when it came to business. I also like that he was so formidable. A powered Magneto didn't even have a chance against him if it wasn't for the X-Men and Pheonix. I also love the performance, his disgust and disdain for what the world had become was translated not just through his words but through his facial expressions. He had some awesome Apocalypse style speeches as well.
Apocalypse lacked a real display of his power in the past. I would have ditched the transferance and showed him and the horseman causing mass destruction in Egypt instead. That way you would know what he is capable of. The stakes are established when he wakes up.
I agree, I really liked Isaac's performance as Apocalypse, with his disdainful manner and his elaborate speeches.
That's interesting but it doesn't jive with the portrayal of Apocalypse. He was born tens of thousands of years ago and became a god/ruler for various early civilisations. He wiped out those civilisations when they turned against him. He didn't cause any mass destruction until the people rose against him. Why would he? He wanted to be revered so he needed people to be around to revere him.
In the case of Ancient Egypt, he had no chance to do any such thing because there was no uprising - instead, the betrayal was planned in secret and happened during his vulnerable transference process.
That's interesting but it doesn't jive with the portrayal of Apocalypse. He was born tens of thousands of years ago and became a god/ruler for various early civilisations. He wiped out those civilisations when they turned against him. He didn't cause any mass destruction until the people rose against him. Why would he? He wanted to be revered so he needed people to be around to revere him.
In the case of Ancient Egypt, he had no chance to do any such thing because there was no uprising - instead, the betrayal was planned in secret and happened during his vulnerable transference process.
Apocalypse wiping out a civilization in the past would directly mirror his actions in the present. Surely that jives? It's consistant with his backstory, and gives him a more impressive introduction. It also establishes his powerset and destructive capabilities, which would have been useful.