Apocalypse X-Men Apocalypse News and Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 43

[marvelrobbins]

The psychic battle was actually recycled from the comics. Where Xavier fought Shadow King for the first time and decided to form the X-Men afterwards.

yep it was taken from Uncanny X-Men #117

 

[Legion]

Sounds like they pretty much reused those ideas for the psychic battle between Xavier and Apocalypse.

Too bad that turned out pretty lame (IMO), but I won't entirely blame the setpiece in concept, its also the fact that the third act was such a rushed mess and I felt no tension or buildup to that point, and also the fact that I didn't care for Apocalypse as a villain at all.

BTW they should get the FC writers for the next X-Men movie... but they need to get their universe in order first. I think the more they **** up their continuity the less the audience will be invested.

Agreed. The psychic battle was lame. All it did was enable Xavier to stand a throw a punch. He should have been like a god in this realm but instead he was just a man getting squashed by Apocalypse

 

[henzINNIT]

Didnt know where to post this but i thought this was interesting, the original idea for the emma front and Xavier battle for FC

http://www.cinemablend.com/news/157...going-to-have-some-crazy-cool-psychic-battles

Too bad it was cut. Sounds like Apocalypse reused a lot of it but left out the best bits (Xavier constructing the mansion as a safe space and the villain exploiting it)

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

First let me say I have only seen Apocalypse briefly in Xmen Evolution and the little I know of the character he seems like the Xmen version of Darkseid or Thanos.
Either way could this movie have been better if it was split? It seems like a story of this caliber needed to be much longer to do it justice and not have it seem rushed.

 

[Stan Lee]

First let me say I have only seen Apocalypse briefly in Xmen Evolution and the little I know of the character he seems like the Xmen version of Darkseid or Thanos.
Either way could this movie have been better if it was split? It seems like a story of this caliber needed to be much longer to do it justice and not have it seem rushed.

No. This movie was mainly based on X-Factor: Fall of The Mutants. Which wasn't that long.

And Apocalypse is no Darkseid or Thanos. He barely appears in the X-books nowadays.

 

[psylockolussus]

Barely? You mean recently. He was just in Extraordinary X-Men and All New this year.

 

[Stan Lee]

Barely? You mean recently. He was just in Extraordinary X-Men and All New this year.

Yeah, because of the movie. Before that we haven't seen the real Apoc since "Blood of Apocalypse" back in 2006 after a 5 year absence. Ever since then we have seen nothing clones and alternate future versions of the character.

 

[DavidHaller]

Yeah, because of the movie. Before that we haven't seen the real Apoc since "Blood of Apocalypse" back in 2006 after a 5 year absence. Ever since then we have seen nothing clones and alternate future versions of the character.

but he is still one of the central and most cruel villains of the X-Men history. Just look at all the misery he brought into the world, directly and indirectly, by creating Mr. Sinister (Morlock massacre), Stryfe (Legacy Virus), Exodus, Archangel (Dark Angel killing thousands), Dark Beast and Sugar Man, etc., etc.

Even dead he is still haunting the X-Men.

I'm a 90s kid and of course for me he is very central to the X-Men world and "X-Men: Age of Apocalypse" and "Dark Angel Saga" are two of the best X-Men stories of all time. Singer and Kinberg simply choose a extremely basic story to adapt for the movie instead of chosing one of the more complex storylines like "The Dark Angel Saga" and "Age of Apocalypse"...

 

[Havok83]

AoA was the last time Apocalypse had a good story and that wasnt even him but rather an AR version. Apcocalypse is built up to be a much bigger villian than he actually is by fandom. Outside of the stuff done with him during the O5's X-factor, he's barely been a threat or much of an X-men villian. Apocalype as a vilian primarily works as a god, when he is a positionof complete power as we saw in AoA, not one on his way up trying to get power. He loses that appeal when he is brought down to the same level as the heroes. People have fond memories of AoA and the cartoon but 616 Apocalypse's actual utilization within the X-men has always been weak. He's really not that central to the X-men

but he is still one of the central and most cruel villains of the X-Men history. Just look at all the misery he brought into the world, directly and indirectly, by creating Mr. Sinister (Morlock massacre), Stryfe (Legacy Virus), Exodus, Archangel (Dark Angel killing thousands), Dark Beast and Sugar Man, etc., etc.

Even dead he is still haunting the X-Men.

I'm a 90s kid and of course for me he is very central to the X-Men world and "X-Men: Age of Apocalypse" and "Dark Angel Saga" are two of the best X-Men stories of all time. Singer and Kinberg simply choose a extremely basic story to adapt for the movie instead of chosing one of the more complex storylines like "The Dark Angel Saga" and "Age of Apocalypse"...

and that was for the best. There was absolutely no way to do those films here without the proper build up. A post credit scene isnt enough to jump into either story. Dark Angel works as a sequel to a previous Apocalypse plot, which we didnt have here. AoA? Way too soon to do another dark future storyline involving changing the past/present. As dissappointing as the film was, it would have been worse had they attempted to do those storylines here

 

[DavidHaller]

and that was for the best. There was absolutely no way to do those films here without the proper build up. A post credit scene isnt enough to jump into either story. Dark Angel works as a sequel to a previous Apocalypse plot, which we didnt have here. AoA? Way too soon to do another dark future storyline involving changing the past/present. As dissappointing as the film was, it would have been worse had they attempted to do those storylines here

I disagree. of course there are ways. Nobody needs to adapt these storylines directly. But they could have been used to craft a more ambitious and more complex world around Apocalypse. Apocalypse could have taken over Egypt in the first half of the movie and create a new regime in Cairo (like he did in the United States in AoA) instead of solely building a pyramid. It could have been presented as a 'mutant revolution' in the beginning which quickly turns into horrible social darwinism. etc. etc.

What Archangel did as Apocalypse in The Dark Angel Saga is also so much more interestig than everything what Apocalypse did in the movie (for example creating 'Tabula Rasa' instead of solely destroying a human city and building a pyramid).

X-Men: Apocalypse's plot is just so basic and dull: Apocalypse wakes up and wants to destroy the world. End of story. In my eyes, they have been inspired by the most boring comicbook storyline and refused to elevate the source material.

I also dislike Apocalpyse in the comicbooks because he is a boring cliché villain. Normally Singer makes sure to elevate the source material but this time he failed to do so.

 

[Havok83]

I disagree. of course there are ways. Nobody needs to adapt these storylines directly. But they could have been used to craft a more ambitious and more complex world around Apocalypse. Apocalypse could have taken over Egypt in the first half of the movie and create a new regime in Cairo (like he did in the United States in AoA) instead of solely building a pyramid. It could have been presented as a 'mutant revolution' in the beginning which quickly turns into horrible social darwinism. etc. etc.

What Archangel did as Apocalypse in The Dark Angel Saga is also so much more interestig than everything what Apocalypse did in the movie (for example creating 'Tabula Rasa' instead of solely destroying a human city and building a pyramid).

X-Men: Apocalypse's plot is just so basic and dull: Apocalypse wakes up and wants to destroy the world. End of story. In my eyes, they have been inspired by the most boring comicbook storyline and refused to elevate the source material.

I also dislike Apocalpyse in the comicbooks because he is a boring cliché villain. Normally Singer makes sure to elevate the source material but this time he failed to do so.

You say you disagree with me but thats not really represented in your post. The entire premise of AoA was a dystopian reality where Apocalypse was ruler and we got alternate versions of the characters which required them to change reality to make for a better present/future. Simply taking over Egypt doesnt evoke that as you are missing the main defining points that made that story so memorable. The world wasnt even taken over in AoA as it happened before the event as the crossover jumped right into the meat of the story. Spending the first half of the film to introduce him, show him taking over a country, all while dealing with introducing a bunch of new kids would have been too much. The end would most definitely have been rush as there wouldnt have been time to really explore that social Darwinism and have some big epic battle.

Dark Angel? That story necessitates that a character had previously been a Horseman. Apocalypse also needed to have previously been established as a threat. None of that is suitable for a first film as it requires backstory thats presented in a previous one. Your post doesnt really offer solutions on how that could have been adapted here and it couldnt have.

IA that Apocalypse's story was weak but that was a testament to the writing and direction, not the comic stories it chose to base itself off of. X3 chose to DPS which is arguably the most defining story of the entire X-men universe and it was a complete mess onscreen bc of the writing and directing

 

[Stan Lee]

IA that Apocalypse's story was weak but that was a testament to the writing and direction, not the comic stories it chose to base itself off of. X3 chose to DPS which is arguably the most defining story of the entire X-men universe and it was a complete mess onscreen bc of the writing and directing

The Last Stand is a not good example, as it was barely anything like DPS. The only parallels between the comic is that Jean goes crazy, causes death and destruction, and dies at the end. That is it. It's also regulated to a subplot in favor of the cure storyline by Whedon.

While the same can't be said about this film in regards to Fall of The Mutants. It's narrative is structured very similar to the comic and it's lead ups. The film also captures the themes of that story. What it lacked was an awesome battle between the heroes and the villains like in the comic. That and the horsemen's loyality to Apocalypse wasn't as fleshed out as it should.

Sure it remixes character roles, but so does The Walking Dead show.

X-Men: Apocalypse's plot is just so basic and dull: Apocalypse wakes up and wants to destroy the world. End of story. In my eyes, they have been inspired by the most boring comicbook storyline and refused to elevate the source material.

I think you're only looking at the plot of this film and Fall of The Mutants at surface level. The idea in both works is that Apocalypse is foil for Xavier and a dark messiah. Notice the Tower of Babel and Noah's arc parallels? It's the reason why Magneto was easily seduced by Apocalypse, he's the God he worships.

 

[marvelrobbins]

The Last Stand is a not good example, as it was barely anything like DPS. The only parallels between the comic is that Jean goes crazy, causes death and destruction, and dies at the end. That is it. It's also regulated to a subplot in favor of the cure storyline by Whedon.

While the same can't be said about this film in regards to Fall of The Mutants. It's narrative is structured very similar to the comic and it's lead ups. The film also captures the themes of that story. What it lacked was an awesome battle between the heroes and the villains like in the comic. That and the horsemen's loyality to Apocalypse wasn't as fleshed out as it should.

Sure it remixes character roles, but so does The Walking Dead show.



I think you're only looking at the plot of this film and Fall of The Mutants at surface level. The idea in both works is that Apocalypse is foil for Xavier and a dark messiah. Notice the Tower of Babel and Noah's arc parallels? It's the reason why Magneto was easily seduced by Apocalypse, he's the God he worships.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.having recently reread fall of mutants it's very obvious it was inspiration for Apocalypse.Magneto replaced angel key role.

Apocalypse isn't a very deep villain.Apocalypse was more true to him than
some want to admit.

 

[Havok83]

The Last Stand is a not good example, as it was barely anything like DPS. The only parallels between the comic is that Jean goes crazy, causes death and destruction, and dies at the end. That is it. It's also regulated to a subplot in favor of the cure storyline by Whedon.

While the same can't be said about this film in regards to Fall of The Mutants. It's narrative is structured very similar to the comic and it's lead ups. The film also captures the themes of that story. What it lacked was an awesome battle between the heroes and the villains like in the comic. That and the horsemen's loyality to Apocalypse wasn't as fleshed out as it should.

Nah, its a good example. It was barely anything like the comic book version bc of the writing and directing. They failed and screwed it up. Apocalypse may have been more like the comics but the writing was awful here. They didnt do the new characters justice and it had bad pacing. The basic premise of the plot was fine and could have made for a better film with a different take on the writing and directing we got. Simply being based on FotM wasnt the films flaw. Its how that plot was executed and the vision of the director that adapted to screen

IDA about the fighting. That was about the only thing it did do well. The final battle was the most enjoyable part of the film and its a shame we didnt get more like that spliced throughout the film as opposed to loaded up at the end

 

[Stan Lee]

Nah, its a good example. It was barely anything like the comic book version bc of the writing and directing. They failed and screwed it up. Apocalypse may have been more like the comics but the writing was awful here. They didnt do the new characters justice and it had bad pacing. The basic premise of the plot was fine and could have made for a better film with a different take on the writing and directing we got. Simply being based on FotM wasnt the films flaw. Its how that plot was executed and the vision of the director that adapted to screen

IDA about the fighting. That was about the only thing it did do well. The final battle was the most enjoyable part of the film and its a shame we didnt get more like that spliced throughout the film as opposed to loaded up at the end

By "new" characters I assume you mean the Scott, Jean, Nightcrawler and the horsemen? I can understand the horsemen but not the young X-Men. Scott and Jean got enough screentime and agency for being the tritagonists. And despite having the least development Nightcrawler was the most useful X-Men and brought some humor.

 

[Fervid09]

So using the previous movies as example, does anyone have an idea when's the earliest they can announce another X-Men team movie featuring the new cast? For example, how early was X2 announced after X-Men 1 came out? How long was the wait after FC before DOFP was announced? (I'm leaving out X3 because it was very obvious that X2 will definitely have a sequel as soon as Jean Grey died and we saw the firebird silhouette in the water. Also, X-M:A was announced before DOFP even came out.)

I'm just curious because for all of XM:A's faults, I really really loved the new cast and would absolutely welcome a new trilogy focused on them, and I'd like to have an idea if it's worth holding out for that hope waiting for an announcement within the next couple of months or so, lol. I know they're planning on New Mutants and X-Force and the solo films have to be released first, but they must have some kind of plan for THIS cast, right? I mean, they picked out some pretty talented and relatively well-known youngsters, so I'm not convinced that they intend to just abandon this flagship because X:MA did less than expected (critically and financially).

 

[GuestStar2004]

They could announce it at anytime from now to next year possibly at some comic-con or something, i mean even new mutants and gambit is hardly flooding in the release dates and casting news right now, its all being very slow and quiet so you have no idea whats going on right now.

I think the next movie will be 2019, i think there will be a year break since DOFP to apocalypse was probably the shortest timespan they have ever done these movies as they usually have at least a year break inbetween and with this new movie there will likely to be alot of ideas being thrown around because unlike apocalypse there likely isn't a plan there yet for the next one is about or even who the director will be.

i also think new mutants may be an issue depending on when its meant to be set, if its written to be set at a certain point after apocalypse than chances are you want the film to be released before the next X-Men movie which means they need to get that wagon moving already.

 

[X-Maniac]

So using the previous movies as example, does anyone have an idea when's the earliest they can announce another X-Men team movie featuring the new cast? For example, how early was X2 announced after X-Men 1 came out? How long was the wait after FC before DOFP was announced? (I'm leaving out X3 because it was very obvious that X2 will definitely have a sequel as soon as Jean Grey died and we saw the firebird silhouette in the water. Also, X-M:A was announced before DOFP even came out.)

I'm just curious because for all of XM:A's faults, I really really loved the new cast and would absolutely welcome a new trilogy focused on them, and I'd like to have an idea if it's worth holding out for that hope waiting for an announcement within the next couple of months or so, lol. I know they're planning on New Mutants and X-Force and the solo films have to be released first, but they must have some kind of plan for THIS cast, right? I mean, they picked out some pretty talented and relatively well-known youngsters, so I'm not convinced that they intend to just abandon this flagship because X:MA did less than expected (critically and financially).

They don't have any kind of plan.

They might well do New Mutants and set it in 1754 with an adult Jubilee, another Caliban and a new incarnation of Angel.

The timeline and continuity are in more of a mess than ever with these spin-offs. They hire directors who insist on their own creative vision and do whatever they want, while Kinberg pretends to be in charge of this universe but clearly has no supervisory Feige-like role to make sure things fit together.

 

[Legion]

I disagree. of course there are ways. Nobody needs to adapt these storylines directly. But they could have been used to craft a more ambitious and more complex world around Apocalypse. Apocalypse could have taken over Egypt in the first half of the movie and create a new regime in Cairo (like he did in the United States in AoA) instead of solely building a pyramid. It could have been presented as a 'mutant revolution' in the beginning which quickly turns into horrible social darwinism. etc. etc.

What Archangel did as Apocalypse in The Dark Angel Saga is also so much more interestig than everything what Apocalypse did in the movie (for example creating 'Tabula Rasa' instead of solely destroying a human city and building a pyramid).

X-Men: Apocalypse's plot is just so basic and dull: Apocalypse wakes up and wants to destroy the world. End of story. In my eyes, they have been inspired by the most boring comicbook storyline and refused to elevate the source material.

I also dislike Apocalpyse in the comicbooks because he is a boring cliché villain. Normally Singer makes sure to elevate the source material but this time he failed to do so.

It was a mistake to have Apocalypse "wake up" in this film. Apocalypse's strength is that he's immortal and he can wait years for his plans to unfold. This makes him the perfect big bad for a franchise that is decade hopping through different periods.

They should have thought of a way to tie him to First Class and DoFP. Shaw's plan embodied the "survival of the fittest" philosophy way more than Apocalypse's own plan. Reveal that Shaw was Apocalypse's servant. He also provided Trask with advanced technology for he Sentinels.

The third film also should have been Age of Apocalypse. A film should be about the single most important event that happens to character. In this case the villain. Something should have went wrong with the mission that led to an even darker path like Xavier had alluded to.

 

[Frankeh]

Apocalypse waking up to destroy the world isn't a bad plot per se. The problem is that the movie lacks the urgency, the tension, the action, the build up for this kind of story.

The first half is an array of little side-stories of the major characters that doesn't advance the plot at all. The Avengers did give each member an introductory scene but they didn't take it much further than that. In Apocalypse there's whole subplots with Moira investigating mutant cults, Mystique smuggling Nightcrawler, Magneto being victim of mutant paranoia, etc. These are precious minutes of screentime that should've been used to give better material to Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

I thought the recruitment of Horsemen would be interesting but it just takes too long for Apocalypse to become any sort of threat while he's looking for these mutants at random. This story needed to be condensed, characters needed to be axed, rehashed plot points needed to be disposed of for more fresh ideas, and maybe the movie could've worked.

 

[Stan Lee]

It was a mistake to have Apocalypse "wake up" in this film. Apocalypse's strength is that he's immortal and he can wait years for his plans to unfold. This makes him the perfect big bad for a franchise that is decade hopping through different periods.

It was explaination to why he was absent in Days of Future Past.

The third film also should have been Age of Apocalypse. A film should be about the single most important event that happens to character. In this case the villain. Something should have went wrong with the mission that led to an even darker path like Xavier had alluded to.

Making an Age of Apocalypse movie after Days of Future Past would have been a stupid move as it's another time travel story. And that story only works with Apocalypse being established.

Apocalypse waking up to destroy the world isn't a bad plot per se. The problem is that the movie lacks the urgency, the tension, the action, the build up for this kind of story.

The first half is an array of little side-stories of the major characters that doesn't advance the plot at all. The Avengers did give each member an introductory scene but they didn't take it much further than that. In Apocalypse there's whole subplots with Moira investigating mutant cults, Mystique smuggling Nightcrawler, Magneto being victim of mutant paranoia, etc. These are precious minutes of screentime that should've been used to give better material to Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

I thought the recruitment of Horsemen would be interesting but it just takes too long for Apocalypse to become any sort of threat while he's looking for these mutants at random. This story needed to be condensed, characters needed to be axed, rehashed plot points needed to be disposed of for more fresh ideas, and maybe the movie could've worked.

Moira's investigation is what led to Apocalypse's awaken. So it was more like set-up than a subplot. And Mystique saving Nightcrawler showed us Angel losing his wings, which served as a motive for him joining Apocalypse.

The Magneto plot ties into the main narrative too and he wasn't a victim of mutant paranoia. That was just the cops trying catch a wanted criminal and innocents accidentally getting caught in the crossfire. Cops were in the right, expect for trying use Erik's daughter to lure him out.

And it wasn't much about the end of the world but the idea of Mutants being lost and looking for guidance as Xavier mentioned in the intro. Magneto's story was completely relevant to that. When Erik kills the men he shouts to the sky “Is this what you want from me!? Is this who I am!?”, obviously talking to God. Now remember how one of Apocalypse’s names through out the ages was Elohim, a name for God used frequently in the Hebrew Bible? This is further backed-up Moira Mactaggert saying that the bible got the concept of the four horsemen from him. So basically, he is the God Erik worships and is telling him that is indeed who is: a tool of destruction. The "destroy the world and remake it" aspect is just apart of the God theme.

As for the recruitment scenes, they happened in a very similar way as the comic. All of them were brief except Warren's.

 

[GuestStar2004]

The first half is an array of little side-stories of the major characters that doesn't advance the plot at all. The Avengers did give each member an introductory scene but they didn't take it much further than that. In Apocalypse there's whole subplots with Moira investigating mutant cults, Mystique smuggling Nightcrawler, Magneto being victim of mutant paranoia, etc. These are precious minutes of screentime that should've been used to give better material to Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

I disagree, the mystique and nightcrawler stuff was used to introduce angel and bring nightcrawler into the fold aswell as explain what mystique is doing in her life, the moira investigation is obviously for exposition so there is a voice to explain apocalypse to xavier and to the audience and as for magneto being a victim... i dunno about that one but in the long run its not about taking scenes or characters out for others its about whether they use screen time well or not and so things have to go.

After all we know singer cuts stuff to basically make the movie tighter no matter what it involves so often 10 minutes gets cut anyway so its not like they are stuck on a certain movie length.

 

[GuestStar2004]

The third film also should have been Age of Apocalypse. A film should be about the single most important event that happens to character. In this case the villain. Something should have went wrong with the mission that led to an even darker path like Xavier had alluded to.

So basically they would go from one time travel story to another time travel story and a dark future story to another dark future story?

 

[Havok83]

Honestly based on how things were actually done, Age of Apocalypse only would have worked as a sequel to X-Men: The Last stand. It wouldnt have worked for them to have jumped into it here but having that film set up a dark future where Apocalypse was in complete power and we got alternate takes on the characters from the OT would have made sense. Going from DOFP to AoA doesnt work bc they tackle a very similar premise. The execution is different but AoA would have made DOFP pointless

 

[Legion]

So basically they would go from one time travel story to another time travel story and a dark future story to another dark future story?

It would have been a direct sequel to Dofp. Like how Empire leads into Jedi. Anyway how would that be different than the recycling of material in the franchise?