The Avengers vs X-Men: Days of Future Past

[roach]

The only problem i have with it now is... whenever anyone in the future timeline is in danger... why not just get Kitty to do her thing? It's kind of a cheat really. They are all practically immortal now.

We always know the hero will win and the bad guy will lose. This goes for all films. Not just superhero films. But a good film will engross us and make us feel for the characters anyway. I ask; why should i care for any of the original cast characters now? I also ask, why should i care for the likes of Colossus, Blink and whoever the others are? They are cardboard cut outs.

because a life of being constantly hunted is what lead her to push her powers in this new way
and
Only Wolverine knows about that future

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Both have advantages over one another that I wish the other had.

The Avengers nailed the team dynamic. From the patient build up of the first act, where we are reintroduced to each of the disparate Avenger that will later come together. Whedon is clever to infuse every one of those scenes with the psychological tacks that makes these characters tick. And then he holds that logic throughout the course of the film as these characters, these personalities, these egos interact, clash, explode like an inevitable time bomb and reconcile with each other in completely organic fashion. Whedon gives well coordinated screentime to everyone to matter. Especially and thankfully, Cap. During the entire Hellicarrier siege, Stark gives Cap the orders. It feels wrong. I was actually scared that it would be more of the same come battle time. But no. Whedon simply used the upper hand Stark gained (to fruitless results) to later make the fact that Iron Man and the rest taking orders from Cap more rewarding. And Avengers take the marching orders as part of a perfect orchestra, each having a beautiful part to play. As good as X-men was, it was once again the story of two or three central characters. The team dynamics muted to the framing introductions and conclusions of the picture where cyphers with two lines or less compete for our apathy.

But whereas you care about the characters, you find it hard to care for their care for the safeguarding of NY. The Chitaury are scary, then you see them move. You see them easily be dispatched by mortals like Widow and Hawkeye. You wonder why you should care? Their boss, Loki, is also ineffective here. Without the emotional betrayal and insecurity driving the plot as in Thor, Loki's villainy lacks tangible conviction. The film knows this. The film, through Coulson, points this out. Loki is an ineffective villain. But the film being self aware of this fact does not change the fact that the climax is totally tensionless. The Avengers have a breezy ride once they assemble. This is where days of the future Past positively radiates. The fact that you are mortally anxious for the X-men's (the core ones, not the ciphers) well being despite the fact that time travel makes death and damage naught is a testament to the Sentienls. They were truly formidable. More importantly, Singer makes the stakes viscerally impacting. When Nixon is on the verge of death, you cringe, when Mystique is toying with her trigger finger, ready to fire, you plead her not to. In an age where even "smart" comic movies like Cap TWS, BB, and TDK must coalesce with all out mayhem, Singer displays magnificent restraint. He eschews traditional spectacle and focuses on the seminal choices of the characters. The destruction is only there in the background, to serve, not be served. Yes, his team work needs work. But damn it if you don't care for the characters that do stand out from the pack. After seeing it twice and having weeks to ruminate on this, Days of The Future Past may just have the finest third act in a comic film ever.

If only the two aspects both of these great films were combined somehow. We would get not only the ultimate comic book film, but the most supreme blockbuster.

 

[starscream22]

Avengers!

95% of Fox-men characters have no real backstory or real likeness to their source.

Why kill off a character so significant as White Queen has been in X-men and do it off screen at that?

It's like FOX were saying "Um yeah...lest bring back Cyc and Jean but ruin a few other significant X-characters in their place to keep things equally stupid.


As for Avengers, give Hawkeye a mask and make Ultron's origin a pleasant surprise despite screwing Pim's role in his creation and I'm good.

 

[The Endless]

Both have advantages over one another that I wish the other had.

The Avengers nailed the team dynamic. From the patient build up of the first act, where we are reintroduced to each of the disparate Avenger that will later come together. Whedon is clever to infuse every one of those scenes with the psychological tacks that makes these characters tick. And then he holds that logic throughout the course of the film as these characters, these personalities, these egos interact, clash, explode like an inevitable time bomb and reconcile with each other in completely organic fashion. Whedon gives well coordinated screentime to everyone to matter. Especially and thankfully, Cap. During the entire Hellicarrier siege, Stark gives Cap the orders. It feels wrong. I was actually scared that it would be more of the same come battle time. But no. Whedon simply used the upper hand Stark gained (to fruitless results) to later make the fact that Iron Man and the rest taking orders from Cap more rewarding. And Avengers take the marching orders as part of a perfect orchestra, each having a beautiful part to play. As good as X-men was, it was once again the story of two or three central characters. The team dynamics muted to the framing introductions and conclusions of the picture where cyphers with two lines or less compete for our apathy.

But whereas you care about the characters, you find it hard to care for their care for the safeguarding of NY. The Chitaury are scary, then you see them move. You see them easily be dispatched by mortals like Widow and Hawkeye. You wonder why you should care? Their boss, Loki, is also ineffective here. Without the emotional betrayal and insecurity driving the plot as in Thor, Loki's villainy lacks tangible conviction. The film knows this. The film, through Coulson, points this out. Loki is an ineffective villain. But the film being self aware of this fact does not change the fact that the climax is totally tensionless. The Avengers have a breezy ride once they assemble. This is where days of the future Past positively radiates. The fact that you are mortally anxious for the X-men's (the core ones, not the ciphers) well being despite the fact that time travel makes death and damage naught is a testament to the Sentienls. They were truly formidable. More importantly, Singer makes the stakes viscerally impacting. When Nixon is on the verge of death, you cringe, when Mystique is toying with her trigger finger, ready to fire, you plead her not to. In an age where even "smart" comic movies like Cap TWS, BB, and TDK must coalesce with all out mayhem, Singer displays magnificent restraint. He eschews traditional spectacle and focuses on the seminal choices of the characters. The destruction is only there in the background, to serve, not be served. Yes, his team work needs work. But damn it if you don't care for the characters that do stand out from the pack. After seeing it twice and having weeks to ruminate on this, Days of The Future Past may just have the finest third act in a comic film ever.

If only the two aspects both of these great films were combined somehow. We would get not only the ultimate comic book film, but the most supreme blockbuster.

Well said. I agree with everything.

 

[scatterax]

The resolution is that they stopped...or at least altered...the future horrors.

Then, it would create drama in future films...what if Apocalypse is WORSE? What if this new threat, that they made possible, is unstoppable? But no worries...they do stop him.

Correct. And the ending showed that to us. Are you suggesting we (as an audience) shouldn't have seen for ourselves that the future had been stopped? How would there have been any resolution if we didn't?

 

[scatterax]

You mean how we knew that Cyclops, Jean and Xavier would all survive X-3? You know...since the heroes never die, so telling us that they never will is perfectly fine.

Jean wasn't the hero, she had become the villain. Xavier was shown to have survived, but in a new body. The only hero who died was the character who had been sidelined since the beginning of the franchise. You can't exactly say cyclops was the hero of the story. I'm not even sure he was on the team at that point.

On the other side of this, have you forgotten that how they handled the cast of characters in x3 is what led to the studio using DoFP to erase that movie. Your example actually illustrates my point that rocking the boat too much leads to a dissatisfying movie. I doubt even you liked x3.

 

[Heretic]

Correct. And the ending showed that to us. Are you suggesting we (as an audience) shouldn't have seen for ourselves that the future had been stopped? How would there have been any resolution if we didn't?

The entire point of the film was that if they stopped Mystique, the horrible future would blink our of existence. They spent the entire movie talking about and struggling to make that happen. Only a complete moron would not understand that they had delayed or destroyed those events.

 

[Heretic]

Jean wasn't the hero, she had become the villain. Xavier was shown to have survived, but in a new body. The only hero who died was the character who had been sidelined since the beginning of the franchise. You can't exactly say cyclops was the hero of the story. I'm not even sure he was on the team at that point.

On the other side of this, have you forgotten that how they handled the cast of characters in x3 is what led to the studio using DoFP to erase that movie. Your example actually illustrates my point that rocking the boat too much leads to a dissatisfying movie. I doubt even you liked x3.

Nope, I hated it.

However, I did not spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make X-Men movies. Despite that, even I know that you simply do not kill off a character that you plan to use in the future. The entire Fox team seems to not understand that. Heck, neither does Marvel comics.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think that given what they were trying to do in the film and what they were trying to prevent, that they really had to show that things had changed. It wasn't like Terminator 2 where all we see is brief glimpses of the bad future. In DoFP the future sequences were a big part of the film and we spent a lot of time getting to know those characters.

 

[The Endless]

We did? They were all just cardboard cut outs apart from Xavier, Mags and Wolverine.

 

[MarvelU]

I would not say we got to know them a lot or at all at a really personal level, but we did get to see a glimpse of how they live in the bad future and we saw their desperation and effort in trying to buy Kitty/Wolverine enough time to end the bad future once and for all.

 

[Rock Sexton]

This is where days of the future Past positively radiates. The fact that you are mortally anxious for the X-men's (the core ones, not the ciphers) well being despite the fact that time travel makes death and damage naught is a testament to the Sentienls. They were truly formidable. More importantly, Singer makes the stakes viscerally impacting. When Nixon is on the verge of death, you cringe, when Mystique is toying with her trigger finger, ready to fire, you plead her not to. In an age where even "smart" comic movies like Cap TWS, BB, and TDK must coalesce with all out mayhem, Singer displays magnificent restraint. He eschews traditional spectacle and focuses on the seminal choices of the characters. The destruction is only there in the background, to serve, not be served. Yes, his team work needs work. But damn it if you don't care for the characters that do stand out from the pack. After seeing it twice and having weeks to ruminate on this, Days of The Future Past may just have the finest third act in a comic film ever.

If only the two aspects both of these great films were combined somehow. We would get not only the ultimate comic book film, but the most supreme blockbuster.

The Sentinels were defacto "formidable" because the movie told you that. The X-Men's teamwork to try and take them down was entirely lacking, instead what we got were quick 1-on-1's where the Sentinel could use a power that neutralizes that of the X-Men's they were fighting. That whole area of the movie was painfully glossed over.

I actually lost interest in the 3rd act of DOFP for the same reasons you were with the Avengers. I knew how it would play out. I did not find the dialogue the least bit intriguing. I thought Magneto's control over the Sentinels was too convenient, especially ordering one verbally without having changed it's AI. They also were heavily under-utilized.

I need a balance of action and pontificating when it comes to these movies and DOFP was too much of the latter by that point in the movie.

 

[KangConquers]

We did? They were all just cardboard cut outs apart from Xavier, Mags and Wolverine.

This is a problem I've always had with the X-films. They always center around Wolverine, with 3 strong supporting roles, and a bunch of cardboard cut outs.

 

[KangConquers]

it has far superior acting

Wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

The Line delivery in DoFP took me out of the film several times. Even academy award winner Jennifer Lawrence had some incredibly phoned in moments.

Basically any time someone who wasn't playing Wolverine, Magneto, Xavier or Trask opened their mouth, it took me out of the film. I have nightmares about Daniel Cudmore, in particular.

 

[jmc]

The Sentinels were defacto "formidable" because the movie told you that. The X-Men's teamwork to try and take them down was entirely lacking, instead what we got were quick 1-on-1's where the Sentinel could use a power that neutralizes that of the X-Men's they were fighting. That whole area of the movie was painfully glossed over.

And Loki is just the villain in Avengers. The movie went into great detail about the Sentinel program, what their objectives were and the man behind them. Also, DoFP had about 3 times as many characters in its story compared to the Avengers. You can't seriously expect there to be characters arcs for each team member in the amount of time the movie had.

 

[OB12]

This is a problem I've always had with the X-films. They always center around Wolverine, with 3 strong supporting roles, and a bunch of cardboard cut outs.

Yeah, the Xmen films have basically been all about Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and to a lesser extent Jean. I really enjoyed this movie, but something that rang a bit false to me was how much Mystique was pushed to the forefront in this story. I mean it made some sense in the story, but I got the feeling that she was such a large part was helped by the fact that Jennifer Lawrence is so big right now.

 

[Rock Sexton]

And Loki is just the villain in Avengers. The movie went into great detail about the Sentinel program, what their objectives were and the man behind them. Also, DoFP had about 3 times as many characters in its story compared to the Avengers. You can't seriously expect there to be characters arcs for each team member in the amount of time the movie had.

Where in my comments did I bring up character arcs?

Loki is a far more complicated villain than the Sentinels. It's not even worth a comparison.

 

[jmc]

Where in my comments did I bring up character arcs?

Loki is a far more complicated villain than the Sentinels. It's not even worth a comparison.

Sorry, I was reading two different posts and got them mixed up. Regardless, The Sentinels aren't even the real villain of the film, it's Trask.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Yeah, the Xmen films have basically been all about Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and to a lesser extent Jean. I really enjoyed this movie, but something that rang a bit false to me was how much Mystique was pushed to the forefront in this story. I mean it made some sense in the story, but I got the feeling that she was such a large part was helped by the fact that Jennifer Lawrence is so big right now.

Oh you can can bet that's what it was and marketing-wise I understand it.

However, I didn't find her sudden arc in this all that interesting. It was just more of the same ..... shape shifts to break in somewhere, beats up some helpless lacky. She became a necessity because of the explanation for the Sentinels abilities.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Sorry, I was reading two different posts and got them mixed up. Regardless, The Sentinels aren't even the real villain of the film, it's Trask.

They're the real villain in the future because by that time they're self-aware and operating without Trask, but like I said that portion of the movie is entirely glossed over.

When I say they were under-utilized in the 70's I wasn't proclaiming they needed to be front and center the entire time, but the action sequences involving them were weak. We got Wolverine dodging them and Beast biting one of them. That was about it. It's a damn shame too because I loved their design in that era.

 

[jmc]

They're the real villain in the future because by that time they're self-aware and operating without Trask, but like I said that portion of the movie is entirely glossed over.

When I say they were under-utilized in the 70's I wasn't proclaiming they needed to be front and center the entire time, but the action sequences involving them were weak. We got Wolverine dodging them and Beast biting one of them. That was about it. It's a damn shame too because I loved their design in that era.

But they are not the real villain of the entire movie, it's Trask. The film was primarily set in the 70's, or course the future is going to get glossed over as you put it because the main guts of the film happens 30 years earlier. What the Sentinels in the future are like are kinda irrelevant because the main story doesn't happen there.

 

[Rock Sexton]

But they are not the real villain of the entire movie, it's Trask. The film was primarily set in the 70's, or course the future is going to get glossed over as you put it because the main guts of the film happens 30 years earlier. What the Sentinels in the future are like are kinda irrelevant because the main story doesn't happen there.

Is there some sort've handbook that says if you want to set part of the movie in the 70's, you have to gloss over the future?

What I find ironic is you'll probably go to bat for the deaths of Colossus and Storm in the future even though the Sentinels in the future are "kind've irrelevant". But that's my point, they tried meshing key emotional points in the future in such tightly crammed spaces of the movie.

Why did this happen? Because Singer was trying to retcon almost every single freakin' thing that happened post-X2. As the movie began to develop I started noticing that was Singer's entire priority and it hurt my personal viewing experience.

 

[KangConquers]

Yeah, the Xmen films have basically been all about Wolverine, Xavier, Magneto, and to a lesser extent Jean. I really enjoyed this movie, but something that rang a bit false to me was how much Mystique was pushed to the forefront in this story. I mean it made some sense in the story, but I got the feeling that she was such a large part was helped by the fact that Jennifer Lawrence is so big right now.

To be fair, Mystique is a major character in their prequels, even before J Law broke out in hunger games. She was the #3 protagonist in First Class.

 

[jmc]

Is there some sort've handbook that says if you want to set part of the movie in the 70's, you have to gloss over the future?

What I find ironic is you'll probably go to bat for the deaths of Colossus and Storm in the future even though the Sentinels in the future are "kind've irrelevant". But that's my point, they tried meshing key emotional points in the future in such tightly crammed spaces of the movie.

Why did this happen? Because Singer was trying to retcon almost every single freakin' thing that happened post-X2. As the movie began to develop I started noticing that was Singer's entire priority and it hurt the movie for me personally.

I was going to give you a reply but now that you've had the sheer audacity to assume what I was going to say I'm not going to waste my time discussing anything with you.

 

[OB12]

To be fair, Mystique is a major character in their prequels, even before J Law broke out in hunger games. She was the #3 protagonist in First Class.

Sure, she had a size able part in First Class, it is just that it could really be argued that this movie is really her story. There is nothing wrong with that and the movie didn't suffer because of it, but it is a bit jarring knowing that Mystique was not much more than a henchman in the original trilogy.