Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 42

[psylockolussus]

I did not mean that she is literally dead. She is without any importance for the franchise since the 90s. But if Jubilee is a vampire now, being dead should actually be part of her nature.

Jubilee is active? She is a wallpaper-character in Marvel comics. Used simply to evoke some 90s fanboy nostalgia but without any meaningful character story (besides a brief forgetable plot in Brian Wood's X-Men in 2013 and turning her into a vampire. How ****ing lame is that? If you really has NO idea what to do with a character as a writer you probably turn the character into a vampire...).

She was active during Curse of the Mutant stories and the all female X-Men title. Also had a role in Battle of the Atom and had a mini series with Wolverine.

So still not as deader than Jean Grey. And a lot of character doesn't have much importance in the comics lately other than Cyclops, Emma Frost, Wolverine, Magneto, Rogue, Beast and Magik (half of those are dead or inactive in the current core-titles).

You are arguing that because Jubilee haven't had an "impact" in the comics, its an excuse to just treat her as a wallpaper in the recent X-movie. And no, thats not a good excuse. Jubilee is still a well-known X-Men character even if its just 90s nostalgia.

 

[DavidHaller]

She was active during Curse of the Mutant stories and the all female X-Men title. Also had a role in Battle of the Atom and had a mini series with Wolverine.

So still not as deader than Jean Grey. And a lot of character doesn't have much importance in the comics lately other than Cyclops, Emma Frost, Wolverine, Magneto, Rogue, Beast and Magik (half of those are dead or inactive in the current core-titles).

You are arguing that because Jubilee haven't had an "impact" in the comics, its an excuse to just treat her as a wallpaper in the recent X-movie. And no, thats not a good excuse. Jubilee is still a well-known X-Men character even if its just 90s nostalgia.

:-p

 

[Alison Blaire]

Bill Sienkiewicz so angry https://mobile.***********/sinkevitch/status/758954252861485056

 

[psylockolussus]

@DavidHaller, Cool story bro.

 

[henzINNIT]

:-p

hahah that's awesome.

 

[Legion91]

I have a doubt, Singer has confirmed that in the original timeline Apocalypse did not wake up.

So that begs the question, how exactly did Storm get white hair and Xavier end up bald?

 

[X-Maniac]

I have a doubt, Singer has confirmed that in the original timeline Apocalypse did not wake up.

So that begs the question, how exactly did Storm get white hair and Xavier end up bald?

In the original timeline, Storm must have gone white later on, Xavier must have lost his hair later on. Apocalypse just made it happen sooner.

 

[iacobusleo]

I have a doubt, Singer has confirmed that in the original timeline Apocalypse did not wake up.

So that begs the question, how exactly did Storm get white hair and Xavier end up bald?

I've just replayed the game Bioshock Infinite, and it touches on the concept of 'constants and variables' in parallel universes. Basically, some things are fated to happen in every timeline, it's just how they happen that varies.

An example of a constant here is that Wolverine is always meant to get his adamantium. The variable here is how did he escape Weapon X (in the original timeline, he escaped himself, in the new timeline, the young X-Men freed him).

Same applies with Storm, Xavier, even Jean becoming Phoenix.

 

[dax]

I have a doubt, Singer has confirmed that in the original timeline Apocalypse did not wake up.

So that begs the question, how exactly did Storm get white hair and Xavier end up bald?

Excessive drug use could be the explanation for Xavier going bald. The serum that he used so he could walk again not only shuts off his powers, it may have put a physical strain on his body, hence the hair loss. As for Storm, there's a deleted scene in X-Men Origins: Wolverine where a little black girl with white hair enters the screen just as Wolverine quits Team X and walks away from Victor/Sabertooth. One would assume that the little girl is Storm and that she was born with white hair.

 

[marvelrobbins]

In the original timeline, Storm must have gone white later on, Xavier must have lost his hair later on. Apocalypse just made it happen sooner.

be logicil here.the real answer is withs torm singer recyclyed idea he had for storm origin scene that got cut from script of first X-Men film of storm having brown hair before her powers manifested.he did same thing partly for cyclops powers recycling ideas he had for first film.

with Xavier's hair it is more they wanted some event to cause it.we really don't know when the ending of origins and prologue of Last Stand are suspose to take place.

Despite the time travel "reboot" of DOFP they want to view all 6 films as one films.

 

[X-Maniac]

be logicil here.the real answer is withs torm singer recyclyed idea he had for storm origin scene that got cut from script of first X-Men film of storm having brown hair before her powers manifested.he did same thing partly for cyclops powers recycling ideas he had for first film.

with Xavier's hair it is more they wanted some event to cause it.we really don't know when the ending of origins and prologue of Last Stand are suspose to take place.

Despite the time travel "reboot" of DOFP they want to view all 6 films as one films.

The original Storm origin scene for X1 didn't have her hair going white.

In the original Storm origin scene her hair was already white, she was being bullied by other kids in the village and then she made giant hailstones fall on them.

 

[marvelrobbins]

The original Storm origin scene for X1 didn't have her hair going white.

In the original Storm origin scene her hair was already white, she was being bullied by other kids in the village and then she made giant hailstones fall on them.

I swore the novelization which had the storm and cyclops origins scenes in it her hair didn't go white till she used her powers.

 

[X-Maniac]

I swore the novelization which had the storm and cyclops origins scenes in it her hair didn't go white till she used her powers.

I just checked, I was wrong.

At first she had dark hair with a white streak. The other kids laughed at her when she failed at a game of tag, using a stick.

She fell and broke the stick, lol. The kids started taunting her and hitting her. She yelled at them to stop, then she subconsciously made snow start to fall. It turned to big chunks of ice. And her hair turned totally white.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I just checked, I was wrong.

At first she had dark hair with a white streak. The other kids laughed at her when she failed at a game of tag, using a stick.

She fell and broke the stick, lol. The kids started taunting her and hitting her. She yelled at them to stop, then she subconsciously made snow start to fall. It turned to big chunks of ice. And her hair turned totally white.

That is fine.

 

[GuestStar2004]

its out in japan in 10 days

 

[GuestStar2004]

Suicide squad is getting meh reviews it seems.

 

[henzINNIT]

Looks like Psylocke got a better role there.

 

[DavidHaller]

Suicide squad is getting meh reviews it seems.

"The year's most muddled piece of storytelling."

uff, how can anything be more muddled thatn "Batman vs. Superman"? Looks more like 'Suicide Squad' will be a trainwreck...35 % at the moment at rottentomatoes. And still people will show up to see it...

 

[TWayneP]

"The year's most muddled piece of storytelling."

uff, how can anything be more muddled thatn "Batman vs. Superman"? Looks more like 'Suicide Squad' will be a trainwreck...35 % at the moment at rottentomatoes. And still people will show up to see it...

Hmm, I remember hearing the same about Apocalypse... yet it wasn't a train wreck.

Yes people will still show up to see it because I still believe people want to form their own damn opinion on things.

 

[DavidHaller]

Hmm, I remember hearing the same about Apocalypse... yet it wasn't a train wreck.

Yes people will still show up to see it because I still believe people want to form their own damn opinion on things.

But "X-Men: Apocalypse" was definitely not a good movie also. Maybe it was bearable for fans but for casual audiences the movie had large ridiculous plotholes, no story and bad choreographed action scenes.

People may want to form their own opinions but they also don't want to risk spending money on too many horrible blockbuster movies throughout the year because these movies tickets are ridiculously expensive. Most blockbuster movies under 80 % on rottentomatoes are a mess. It is super easy to achieve a high score on rottentomatoes when your movie is not overly insulting (see Star Trek III for example and most MARVEL movies). Movie critics have very low standards when it comes to mainstream movies and it is not difficult to get a good rating for a very mediocre movie.

If the rating is 35 %. There is DEFINITELY something wrong.

p.s.

and introducing 100 characters in one movie never seemed to be the smartest way to create a good movie...

 

[GuestStar2004]

But "X-Men: Apocalypse" was definitely not a good movie also. Maybe it was bearable for fans but for casual audiences the movie had large ridiculous plotholes, no story and bad choreographed action scenes.

You are talking for the casual audience right there based on your own opinions

 

[RalphieRandy]

But "X-Men: Apocalypse" was definitely not a good movie also. Maybe it was bearable for fans but for casual audiences the movie had large ridiculous plotholes, no story and bad choreographed action scenes.

People may want to form their own opinions but they also don't want to risk spending money on too many horrible blockbuster movies throughout the year because these movies tickets are ridiculously expensive. Most blockbuster movies under 80 % on rottentomatoes are a mess. It is super easy to achieve a high score on rottentomatoes when your movie is not overly insulting (see Star Trek III for example and most MARVEL movies). Movie critics have very low standards when it comes to mainstream movies and it is not difficult to get a good rating for a very mediocre movie.

If the rating is 35 %. There is DEFINITELY something wrong.

p.s.

and introducing 100 characters in one movie never seemed to be the smartest way to create a good movie...

People don't want to waste money yet they go to multiple viewings of certain movies and on top of that buy around $10-20 of theater snacks? Ok.

 

[X-Maniac]

No one really cares about Rotten Tomatoes anyway.

That website and its scores are not the way most people decide whether or not to see a movie.

Fans of particular genres or franchises will probably go to see a movie in their genre/franchise regardless of its score. Harry Potter and Twilight fans would have turned out to see each movie regardless of its review ratings. Superhero fans might also be inclined to see most if not all releases in the genre.

The regular family doesn't go rushing to RT to decide if they'll see movie. They might look in the newspaper (if they buy one) and see a review, or they might get pestered by the kids to go to certain movie. They might also just decide to go to the cinema one weekend and look what's on at their nearest one so they determine what time to go.

Rotten Tomatoes is irrelevant.

There's always silly talk that certain studios pay off the critics. I've never known that to happen in the UK (I can't speak for the USA) but I guess it's possible that studios fund/sponsor/own/run some of the growing number of blog sites contributing to Rotten Tomatoes.

There's also talk that Disney funds Rotten Tomatoes, even though it is owned by Flixter which is owned by Warner Bros.

Regardless of any biases built into the system, Rotten Tomatoes is not part of the average person's life. It just gives bragging rights to studios and online fanboys.

 

[moonclaw]

don't care about rotten tomato still seeing this thursday night. I wasn't impressed by BvS but it wasn't 27%"transformers" bad.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

No one really cares about Rotten Tomatoes anyway.

That website and its scores are not the way most people decide whether or not to see a movie.

Fans of particular genres or franchises will probably go to see a movie in their genre/franchise regardless of its score. Harry Potter and Twilight fans would have turned out to see each movie regardless of its review ratings. Superhero fans might also be inclined to see most if not all releases in the genre.

The regular family doesn't go rushing to RT to decide if they'll see movie. They might look in the newspaper (if they buy one) and see a review, or they might get pestered by the kids to go to certain movie. They might also just decide to go to the cinema one weekend and look what's on at their nearest one so they determine what time to go.

Rotten Tomatoes is irrelevant.

There's always silly talk that certain studios pay off the critics. I've never known that to happen in the UK (I can't speak for the USA) but I guess it's possible that studios fund/sponsor/own/run some of the growing number of blog sites contributing to Rotten Tomatoes.

There's also talk that Disney funds Rotten Tomatoes, even though it is owned by Flixter which is owned by Warner Bros.

Regardless of any biases built into the system, Rotten Tomatoes is not part of the average person's life. It just gives bragging rights to studios and online fanboys.

You realize RT is just a "basket" holding the reviews right?

The critics making those bad reviews are still the ones people will see/hear.