Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - Part 5

[DACrowe]

Im curious to know why you think Disney would ban the religious/god references from Apocalypse?

I actually suspect there is cut footage of Apocalypse that played up the god stuff more. For example, we know in the teaser he compares himself to Yaweh (original Hebrew word for God), but in the finished film he didn't after a lot of complaints hit that trailer.

I think it's actually a flaw of that movie. If they went into the religious stuff more, Apocalypse would have been more unique and had more of a motive. The only major scene that really keeps it is also his best scene (the nuclear launch code where he starts going all Old Testament on modern governments and, with an assist from Beethoven, it's kind of great). The rest though is generic comic book movie villain cliches. Mind you that also applies to plenty of MCU villains, but they get a pass because they're in the MCU.

Anyway, my point is that even if Disney wouldn't attempt the "god stuff," Fox at least chickened out some and undercut what was already a "problematic" villain.

Funny enough i remember reading that for X-Men Origins: Wolverine they wanted to have wolverine suffering from PTSD but FOX felt it was too dark and so that idea was scrapped and honestly Origins is probably the most Marvel-esk X-Men movie made so far even if quality wise it wasn't done as well.

Just out of curiosity, how so? I only ask because I see what you mean about it being super fan service-y and sequel/spinoff-baiting. But I just wonder if you mean more by that?

 

[Lip]

I understand some concern and I don't agree with a company owning that much of intellectual property. However, talking about how the X-Men would be portrayed in the MCU in one thing, but people are going too far.

Fox does not have the rights for animated series. Can anybody explain how and why there is an adult Deadpool animated series in development?

ABC is owned by Disney. Can anybody explain how and why ABC developed the amazing and critically acclaimed drama American Crime?

History is also owned by Disney and developed Vikings. Hulu is also owned by Disney and developed and highly acclaimed Emmy winning and very, very dark drama The Handmaid's Tale.

The idea the everything produced by Disney or Companies owned by Disney is empty and for kids is very, very, very crazy.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I actually suspect there is cut footage of Apocalypse that played up the god stuff more. For example, we know in the teaser he compares himself to Yaweh (original Hebrew word for God), but in the finished film he didn't after a lot of complaints hit that trailer.

I think it's actually a flaw of that movie. If they went into the religious stuff more, Apocalypse would have been more unique and had more of a motive. The only major scene that really keeps it is also his best scene (the nuclear launch code where he starts going all Old Testament on modern governments and, with an assist from Beethoven, it's kind of great). The rest though is generic comic book movie villain cliches. Mind you that also applies to plenty of MCU villains, but they get a pass because they're in the MCU.

Anyway, my point is that even if Disney wouldn't attempt the "god stuff," Fox at least chickened out some and undercut what was already a "problematic" villain.



Just out of curiosity, how so? I only ask because I see what you mean about it being super fan service-y and sequel/spinoff-baiting. But I just wonder if you mean more by that?

the mcu version of apocalypse would be just like 90's animated version just wanting to destroy world.

i felt version in apocalypse was very approate.you had him as first mutant and one wanting to rule and be worshiped.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Just out of curiosity, how so? I only ask because I see what you mean about it being super fan service-y and sequel/spinoff-baiting. But I just wonder if you mean more by that?

I mean in action also, its a certain type of action that the filmmakers make sure to include to give people their action buzz.

Its hard to describe unless you compare Origins to say Logan and then compare Origins to an MCU movie.

 

[DACrowe]

Agreed.

That's been the usual tired argument. Outside of Deadpool, Legion and Logan X-Men isn't some hardcore mature adult franchise like people are tying to make it out to be. Most fans got brought into this film series when they were kids or teens as well. So the argument that X-Men is some how in another league is also nonsense. It attracts the same exact audience.

It does go for the same audience, but Disney, Marvel Studios, or both just won't go to the dark places (I think it's more MS though, as Rogue One had some real guts for a franchise film).

Beyond Apocalypse things I don't see them putting in an MCU movie that occurred in the good PG-13 X-Men movies:

-An opening sequence (twice) at Auschwitz with Nazis. One had implied death of a child's parents... the other showed it.

-Implied Republican politicians targeting and persecuting minorities, even if they're children.

-Cage fighting and character introductions being presented as completely earnest and grim, complete with irony free exchanges between superhero introductions like Rogue and Logan in that first film.

-A villain like Magneto, period, either version. But if we're talking the younger Fassbender one, who was at least a protagonist in XFC, him being heroic while torturing Nazis like a spy and then executing them in another like Sean Connery without any sense of humor.

-Children being literally rounded up and attacked like mansion in X2.

-Attempted political assassination like X2 and DOFP. I know Civil War did have an assassination, but not with a hero potentially pulling the trigger and not of American leaders.

-Heroes grappling with depression or drug addiction like Xavier in DOFP.

-Just the sense of dread and violence without any comic relief lightening the load like the beginning and end of DOFP.

-Anything as vaguely nihilistic as the tone of The Wolverine, complete with the hero suffering actual PTSD. Just throw in the Nagasaki scene at the beginning of that movie and the bullet train scenes and file them under the "too intense and violent" category, especially the former.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I understand some concern and I don't agree with a company owning that much of intellectual property. However, talking about how the X-Men would be portrayed in the MCU in one thing, but people are going too far.

Fox does not have the rights for animated series. Can anybody explain how and why there is an adult Deadpool animated series in development?

ABC is owned by Disney. Can anybody explain how and why ABC developed the amazing and critically acclaimed drama American Crime?

History is also owned by Disney and developed Vikings. Hulu is also owned by Disney and developed and highly acclaimed Emmy winning and very, very dark drama The Handmaid's Tale.

The idea the everything produced by Disney or Companies owned by Disney is empty and for kids is very, very, very crazy.

track record of feige run marvel under disney shows exactly how x-men would be run at marvel studios.like most of marvel studios films laregly comedys.all i need is iron man 2-thor ragnovak to show me what will happen.

feige himself is on record saying marvel is never going dark.that alone tells me all i need to know.add to that his no r rated film stanch.

if peter parker can't have problems besides wanting to join avengers and stark taking away his iron man like suit why would i believe feige would
do the mutant allegary or any of series and somewhat dark elements assoicated with X-men.

we shall see sonn enough if my suspecions on murdocks selling are as good as the fact most people here will celebrate end to X-men CInematic universe as my poll in X-men sequels is proving me right on.

 

[marvelrobbins]

It does go for the same audience, but Disney, Marvel Studios, or both just won't go to the dark places (I think it's more MS though, as Rogue One had some real guts for a franchise film).

Beyond Apocalypse things I don't see them putting in an MCU movie that occurred in the good PG-13 X-Men movies:

-An opening sequence (twice) at Auschwitz with Nazis and parents dying.

-Implied Republican politicians targeting and persecuting minorities, even if they're children.

-Cage fighting and character introductions being presented as completely earnest and grim, complete with irony free exchanges between superhero introductions like Rogue and Logan in that first film.

-A villain like Magneto, period, either version. But if we're talking the younger Fassbender one, who was at least a protagonist in XFC, him being heroic while torturing Nazis like a spy and then executing them in another like Sean Connery without any sense of humor.

-Children being literally rounded up and attacked like mansion in X2.

-Attempted political assassination like X2 and DOFP. I know Civil War did have an assassination, but not with a hero potentially pulling the trigger and not of American leaders.

-Heroes grappling with depression or drug addiction like Xavier in DOFP.

-Just the sense of dread and violence without any comic relief lightening the load like the beginning and end of DOFP.

-Anything as vaguely nihilistic as the tone of The Wolverine, complete with the hero suffering actual PTSD. Just throw in the Nagasaki scene at the beginning of that movie and the bullet train scenes and file them under the "too intense and violent" category, especially the former.

i agree with your points.

i can live with people not liking apocalypse.people have different tastes.and you have put many different things in x-men films and mcu ones.

different in marvel studios and lucasfilm divisons are feige only runs marvel.
kathleen kennedy runs lucasfilm.rogue one while it can be called a lot of fan service film also took chances especilly with what happened to a lot of characters in film.

 

[Darepool]

all i need is iron man 2-thor ragnovak to show me what will happen.
.

There's your problem right there. All YOU need.

You have no reason to post ever again on this subject.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

It does go for the same audience, but Disney, Marvel Studios, or both just won't go to the dark places (I think it's more MS though, as Rogue One had some real guts for a franchise film).

Beyond Apocalypse things I don't see them putting in an MCU movie that occurred in the good PG-13 X-Men movies:

-An opening sequence (twice) at Auschwitz with Nazis and parents dying.

-Implied Republican politicians targeting and persecuting minorities, even if they're children.

-Cage fighting and character introductions being presented as completely earnest and grim, complete with irony free exchanges between superhero introductions like Rogue and Logan in that first film.

-A villain like Magneto, period, either version. But if we're talking the younger Fassbender one, who was at least a protagonist in XFC, him being heroic while torturing Nazis like a spy and then executing them in another like Sean Connery without any sense of humor.

-Children being literally rounded up and attacked like mansion in X2.

-Attempted political assassination like X2 and DOFP. I know Civil War did have an assassination, but not with a hero potentially pulling the trigger and not of American leaders.

-Heroes grappling with depression or drug addiction like Xavier in DOFP.

-Just the sense of dread and violence without any comic relief lightening the load like the beginning and end of DOFP.

-Anything as vaguely nihilistic as the tone of The Wolverine, complete with the hero suffering actual PTSD. Just throw in the Nagasaki scene at the beginning of that movie and the bullet train scenes and file them under the "too intense and violent" category, especially the former.

How do you know an MCU X-Men movie couldn't have all of these things? Winter Soldier was easily as dark as X2 was, and dealt with heavy themes. Most of the X-Men movies are not Logan or Deadpool (those movies are outliers, not the status quo). X-Men Apocalypse had largely the same tone as Captain America Civil War.

Keep in mind that the Avengers and Spider-Man are NOT the X-Men. Those movies don't deal with the same themes as the X-Men. If an Avengers movie doesn't open up in a concentration camp its not because Marvel is too scared its because it doesn't fit those characters or those stories. X-Men naturally deals with those themes. Why do people here just assume the X-Men would become Avengers Lite under Marvel? At most their costumes would likely become more colorful and there would be crossover with other parts of the MCU, but tonally I don't think an MCU X-Men movie would be all that different from a FOX X-Men movie.

 

[marvelrobbins]

There's your problem right there. All YOU need.

You have no reason to post ever again on this subject.

if haters can continue to post.so can I

if people cand eclare dark phoenix disaster based on kinberg when nothing has been seen yet or almost nothing known then i can declare based on facts on mcu since iron man 2 and feige's own comments what A MCU X-men will be.

 

[marvelrobbins]

How do you know an MCU X-Men movie couldn't have all of these things? Winter Soldier was easily as dark as X2 was, and dealt with heavy themes. Most of the X-Men movies are not Logan or Deadpool (those movies are outliers, not the status quo). X-Men Apocalypse had largely the same tone as Captain America Civil War.

Keep in mind that the Avengers and Spider-Man are NOT the X-Men. Those movies don't deal with the same themes as the X-Men. If an Avengers movie doesn't open up in a concentration camp its not because Marvel is too scared its because it doesn't fit those characters or those stories. X-Men naturally deals with those themes. Why do people here just assume the X-Men would become Avengers Lite under Marvel? At most their costumes would likely become more colorful and there would be crossover with other parts, but tonally I don't think an MCU X-Men movie would be all that different from a FOX X-Men movie.

i like winter soldier but your absoletly wrong.i go by track record of how the heavily micromanaged by Feige MCU version of X-men would be.

how could you do film like dofp without going dark.feige is on record saying marvel will never go dark.

 

[Darepool]

if haters can continue to post.so can I

if people cand eclare dark phoenix disaster based on kinberg when nothing has been seen yet or almost nothing known then i can declare based on facts on mcu since iron man 2 and feige's own comments what A MCU X-men will be.

I don't declare Dark Phoenix a disaster, how can I? I'll hope for the best but considering his track record I'm not expecting anything all that different or memorable. I have extremely low expectations but I may end up being proven wrong. I wouldn't see that as being a bad thing.

 

[StarLord]

if haters can continue to post.so can I

if people cand eclare dark phoenix disaster based on kinberg when nothing has been seen yet or almost nothing known then i can declare based on facts on mcu since iron man 2 and feige's own comments what A MCU X-men will be.

Who's hating?

People are merely speculating as to why they think the X-Men series would be better or improved upon by Feige and Marvel Studios.

 

[Darepool]

the heavily micromanaged by Feige MCU version of X-men would be.

That's a dated and lazy argument. Much of Feige's early tenure was working with the now defunct creative committee under Ike.

Taika has gone on record about how 80% of Ragnarok was improvised. Gunn had freedom on both Guardians (just read comments by Alonso) as did Shane Black on IM3. And the Russo's don't seem to be doing to badly either (wink). If you think the majority of big budget directors in Hollywood have 100% creative freedom all the time then you don't know how the industry works. It's not a charity.

Ignore this and continue to make dated and self-serving arguments. You are the biggest studio shill here.

 

[def28]

It does go for the same audience, but Disney, Marvel Studios, or both just won't go to the dark places (I think it's more MS though, as Rogue One had some real guts for a franchise film).

Beyond Apocalypse things I don't see them putting in an MCU movie that occurred in the good PG-13 X-Men movies:

In Civil War we have a villain trying to shoot himself in the head because heroes are responsible for the death of his wife and child. His goal was to shoot himself after he won. Which in a way he did. Are these really the things of happy safe places for audiences?

Or how about a hero launching a villain with a bomb exploding into a building full of innocent civilians?

There are dark themes in these films. They just are not the same ones as X-Men. Which they should not be.

 

[DACrowe]

How do you know an MCU X-Men movie couldn't have all of these things? Winter Soldier was easily as dark as X2 was, and dealt with heavy themes. Most of the X-Men movies are not Logan or Deadpool (those movies are outliers, not the status quo). X-Men Apocalypse had largely the same tone as Captain America Civil War.

Keep in mind that the Avengers and Spider-Man are NOT the X-Men. Those movies don't deal with the same themes as the X-Men. If an Avengers movie doesn't open up in a concentration camp its not because Marvel is too scared its because it doesn't fit those characters or those stories. X-Men naturally deals with those themes. Why do people here just assume the X-Men would become Avengers Lite under Marvel? At most their costumes would likely become more colorful and there would be crossover with other parts of the MCU, but tonally I don't think an MCU X-Men movie would be all that different from a FOX X-Men movie.

Because Marvel has never shown anything like the scenes listed above. Not all of them are violence. They have never had scenes as intense as Erik's Nazi hunting sequences, or Logan's intro in X1. Even the Logan/Rogue scenes have a quiet, still patience to them that is just not part of the MCU "brand."

If you want to make comparisons to TWS, I'll get more specific (and TWS is far more an outlier than Deadpool or Logan, as that is becoming the norm with X-adjacent films now like Deadpool 2, X-Force, and New Mutants). In TWS, the villains are revealed to be HYDRA. The enemy within is not patriotism run amok, or hyper neoconservative values erring on the side of fascism--it's actual Nazis who've been hiding in the U.S. government and SHIELD for apparently 70 years with a "take over the world!" scheme.

Now I'll admit, that is more ironic now with the U.S. elected a president who likely colluded with Russia. But even that is about (revolting and treasonous) shared interests and/or tradeoffs. Whereas the American villains in TWS are beholden to a cartoonish and politics-free version of the Nazis that aren't called Nazis. It lets America off the hook and turns it into a Saturday morning cartoon where after the bad guys are beaten the government is safe to return to a status quo. In X2 and DOFP, and even better with Senator Kelly and his allies in X1, it is racist, bigoted Americans doing what they think is right. They are not villains because they are part of an evil conspiracy to take over the world. They are villains because they think they are keeping "good people" safe by scapegoating, persecuting, targeting, or literally hunting a minority. And at least in X1 and X2, it is not all solved with a magic wand, because the problem is endemic in human nature. It is messy. They convince one president to change his mind, but the next could be their persecutor again (as happens in the admittedly awful X3).

Marvel does not allow that nuance or that moral grayness.

To make another comparison, XFC even though it is set in the '60s is not afraid to invoke the actual Cold War, the lingering effects of WWII with Nazis and Holocaust war criminals, or ugly aspects of the time period (the sexism against Moira at the CIA for instance). Captain America: The First Avenger looks like a Star Wars movie when it's on the "battlefield" of World War II. (Wonder Woman's handling of WWI is also another good comparison about how Marvel shies away from anything resembling, even faintly, reality or ugly grim aspects of life). They shoot lasers, the bad guys are never called Nazis, the Holocaust is not mentioned once, and the film pretends the U.S. Armed Forces were not segregated during WWII (they were).

So yes, I can make direct comparisons of tone and content beyond violence.

EDIT: I will add that I think the Guardians films and James Gunn has more latitude than most MCU films. He actually did go to some dark and mature places in Guardians 2 (even though I prefer the first). I am curious if it is a sign Marvel is loosening its tight controls, or if it's because Gunn just enjoys a special amount of control which seems highly possible.

 

[2kt09]

Fox does not have the rights for animated series. Can anybody explain how and why there is an adult Deadpool animated series in development?

ABC is owned by Disney. Can anybody explain how and why ABC developed the amazing and critically acclaimed drama American Crime?

History is also owned by Disney and developed Vikings. Hulu is also owned by Disney and developed and highly acclaimed Emmy winning and very, very dark drama The Handmaid's Tale.

-co-production
-haven't watched
-History and Hulu is co-owned (50% former; 33% latter)

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Because Marvel has never shown anything like the scenes listed above. Not all of them are violence. They have never had scenes as intense as Erik's Nazi hunting sequences, or Logan's intro in X1. Even the Logan/Rogue scenes have a quiet, still patience to them that is just not part of the MCU "brand."

I think that's a matter of opinion.

If you want to make comparisons to TWS, I'll get more specific (and TWS is far more an outlier than Deadpool or Logan, as that is becoming the norm with X-adjacent films now like Deadpool 2, X-Force, and New Mutants). In TWS, the villains are revealed to be HYDRA. The enemy within is not patriotism run amok, or hyper neoconservative values erring on the side of fascism--it's actual Nazis who've been hiding in the U.S. government and SHIELD for apparently 70 years with a "take over the world!" scheme.

Now I'll admit, that is more ironic now with the U.S. elected a president who likely colluded with Russia. But even that is about (revolting and treasonous) shared interests and/or tradeoffs. Whereas the American villains in TWS are beholden to a cartoonish and politics-free version of the Nazis that aren't called Nazis. It lets America off the hook and turns it into a Saturday morning cartoon where after the bad guys are beaten the government is safe to return to a status quo. In X2 and DOFP, and even better with Senator Kelly and his allies in X1, it is racist, bigoted Americans doing what they think is right. They are not villains because they are part of an evil conspiracy to take over the world. They are villains because they think they are keeping "good people" safe by scapegoating, persecuting, targeting, or literally hunting a minority. And at least in X1 and X2, it is not all solved with a magic wand, because the problem is endemic in human nature. It is messy. They convince one president to change his mind, but the next could be their persecutor again (as happens in the admittedly awful X3).

Marvel does not allow that nuance or that moral grayness.

I disagree with this completely. I don't think Days of Future Past is any more or less morally grey than Winter Soldier. Both movies deal with the "freedom verses security" debate about the same way.

HYDRA uses the changing times and neoconservative values of the modern world to manipulate and shape it. Trask does the same thing with the times of the 70's and the mutants. Its not the President or the Government that create the Sentinels, its Trask. He manipulates them into funding it, just as HYDRA manipulates SHEILD into funding Project Insight. Again... what is the difference? Both movies take their complex themes and simplify them by putting the bad guy hat on someone for the heroes to fight at the end. That has more to do with the nature of comic book based summer blockbuster movies than the studios that make them.

To make another comparison, XFC even though it is set in the '60s is not afraid to invoke the actual Cold War, the lingering effects of WWII with Nazis and Holocaust war criminals, or ugly aspects of the time period (the sexism against Moira at the CIA for instance). Captain America: The First Avenger looks like a Star Wars movie when it's on the "battlefield" of World War II. (Wonder Woman's handling of WWI is also another good comparison about how Marvel shies away from anything resembling, even faintly, reality or ugly grim aspects of life). They shoot lasers, the bad guys are never called Nazis, the Holocaust is not mentioned once, and the film pretends the U.S. Armed Forces were not segregated during WWII (they were).

So yes, I can make direct comparisons of tone and content beyond violence.

Captain America The First Avenger was trying to go for the same pulpy feel that Raiders of the Lost Ark went for. It was simplistic and black and white because they were going for a modern take on the Saturday Morning serials of the 1940's. It wasn't meant to be a dark and gritty take on WWII, it was meant to be pulpy and cartoony. Dealing with the realities of segregation or the Holocaust would've been tonally off to what they were trying to make.

X-Men First Class dealt with that stuff because that was a big part of Magneto's origin story. A big part of what makes him tick as a character. Magneto is not Captain America, and First Class and First Avenger were both designed to be different movies. Why would they both movies deal with their subject matter the same way when they both had different storytelling goals?

Again, Marvel Studios has never made an X-Men movie before. We don't really know for sure how they would handle the property. But I don't see how it would necessarily be that different from how FOX handles most of their X-Men movies. FOX didn't create the X-Men. All the themes the movies have explored came from the X-Men comics. Marvel would be drawing on the same source material FOX has been drawing from.

 

[psylockolussus]

Psst... that's because Universal/Blumhouse made a sequel to their ancient Unbreakable movie on the sly and then that turned out to be a big hit, so they came aboard. Prior to that, they were finishing out Spielberg's contract at Disney (he's since gone to Universal and, heh, Fox) and a few dubious animated films and a bad attempt at an Oscar bait film with The Light Between Oceans. In other words, they don't make many movies anymore, because (ahem) adult fare and medium budget films are not a priority for Disney anymore. You're right, they make fewer films, because they have doubled down on IP, franchises, brands, and remakes. If it ain't being produced by Pixar or WDAS, it's likely something rooted in nostalgia.

So them in control of Fox's resources (or shuttering them) is not exactly thrilling.



You do realize movies are more than franchises, right?

In just the last few years, 20th Century Fox has produced: Hidden Figures, The Revenant, The Martian, and Gone Girl. On the franchise side, they have touched things Disney will not. Again Deadpool and Logan, but also the Planet of the Apes franchise which has gotten downright lyrical with the last two Matt Reeves entries, as well as Kingsman. Of those I see Disney green lighting maybe Hidden Figures.

But then when you factor in Fox Searchlight (which fanboys rarely do), we also had: Battle of the Sexes, Patti Cake$, My Cousin Rachel, A Bigger Splash, Jackie, Brooklyn, Mistress America, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and freaking Birdman pretty recently. They also have coming out later this year Martin McDonagh's Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Guillermo del Toro's The Shape of Water, both of which are supposed to be fantastic. Disney would produce zero of those movies.

So yes, if you care about more than comic books, this would be a huge loss.

Its a lost if you're a Fox fan though you should blame the Fox people for agreeing to be bought by another company.

And like I said, creativity doesn't stop at Fox. Whos to say good writers won't get new projects and other studios won't dare releasing movies like you just mentioned.

 

[DACrowe]

I disagree with this completely. I don't think Days of Future Past is any more or less morally grey than Winter Soldier. Both movies deal with the "freedom verses security" debate about the same way.

HYDRA uses the changing times and neoconservative values of the modern world to manipulate and shape it. Trask does the same thing with the times of the 70's and the mutants. Its not the President or the Government that create the Sentinels, its Trask. He manipulates them into funding it, just as HYDRA manipulates SHEILD into funding Project Insight. Again... what is the difference? Both movies take their complex themes and simplify them by putting the bad guy hat on someone for the heroes to fight at the end. That has more to do with the nature of comic book based summer blockbuster movies than the studios that make them.

I was mostly comparing in that post TWS to X1 and X2, specifically Senator Kelly (who isn't even necessarily depicted as evil) and Colonel Stryker, as well as the POTUS in that film, who is also not depicted as evil but orders a secret operation on a school where children are shot and later changes his position... but it hardly seemed firm.

As per DOFP, you are right in a sense that it is a bit broader in that stopping Trask seems to change the course of history in a major way (Kelly and Stryker did not seem so definitive). However, Trask is a military contractor who works with the U.S. government and the president and his administration is shown to be complicit, with the POTUS being a paranoid, racist, vulgar (in the Rogue Cut) piece of work... because Richard Nixon was all those things. So it's hardly a radical view, still quite a bit different than the highest official saying, "Heil Fictional Saturday Morning Conspiracy Theory Organization."

And if you are asking about the key difference to the endings of TWS and DOFP? Well it's that DOFP is character driven. It is about Charles trying to talk Raven out of her cynicism. It comes down to a conversation about not firing a gun in the context of being betrayed and lied to by authority figures (it is set in the '70s). By making it so intimate, it also helps increase the stakes (as does killing all those mutants in the future) giving the scene genuine emotion. TWS, by contrast, is typical MCU whiz-bang fun with Steve having to place MacGuffins into three separate slots like in a video game, while Falcon and Nick Fury share one-liners and make eye-puns with the bad guys, even though one of the bad guys is supposedly Fury's BFF. It gets better when it becomes about Bucky and Steve, but as that was setup only 20 minutes before hand... I'll just stop because I'll admit this part is getting nitpicky.

Captain America The First Avenger was trying to go for the same pulpy feel that Raiders of the Lost Ark went for. It was simplistic and black and white because they were going for a modern take on the Saturday Morning serials of the 1940's. It wasn't meant to be a dark and gritty take on WWII, it was meant to be pulpy and cartoony. Dealing with the realities of segregation or the Holocaust would've been tonally off to what they were trying to make.

X-Men First Class dealt with that stuff because that was a big part of Magneto's origin story. A big part of what makes him tick as a character. Magneto is not Captain America, and First Class and First Avenger were both designed to be different movies. Why would they both movies deal with their subject matter the same way when they both had different storytelling goals?

Again, Marvel Studios has never made an X-Men movie before. We don't really know for sure how they would handle the property. But I don't see how it would necessarily be that different from how FOX handles most of their X-Men movies. FOX didn't create the X-Men. All the themes the movies have explored came from the X-Men comics. Marvel would be drawing on the same source material FOX has been drawing from.

But I would contend Wonder Woman gets a lot closer to that Raiders of the Lost Ark feel than Indiana Jones does. Indiana Jones isn't afraid t go dark in its pulpy roots. He fights Nazis. Cartoonish Nazis, but it isn't afraid to look like the period it's set in... whereas TFA looks like a sci-fi movie once it leaves Brooklyn. Also like most MCU movies (with exception to, curiously, Cap sequels and the guardians movies), TFA is under the mandate to keep everything up and upbeat. It never has a moment like when that one Nazi burns his hand or the faces melt. I know Cap loses Bucky but even that is just... quick and perfunctory.

I know I'll never convince you, but suffice to say the reason I think people responded more to WW which was similar despite being in a different war is because it wasn't afraid to slow down and really let its characters be less than quippy and charming, and it wasn't afraid to put some dirt and ugliness in its fantasy. To be fair, I think even Marvel is aware that TFA was too light, as they rectified that in the sequels.

 

[DACrowe]

Its a lost if you're a Fox fan though you should blame the Fox people for agreeing to be bought by another company.

And like I said, creativity doesn't stop at Fox. Whos to say good writers won't get new projects and other studios won't dare releasing movies like you just mentioned.

I'm not a Fox fan. I'm not a fan of any studio, really. Albeit some are more "problematic" than others. I am a fan of film. And there is a limited amount of resources at a studio level to pay for films, as well as to have the distribution and marketing apparatus large enough to release smaller films (in FS' case) in a way that they make an impact and get seen.

Film resources believe it or not are eroding because more studios (with Disney literally being the worst offender) choosing to invest solely in tentpoles, franchises, and pre-existing IP. As a result, audiences and talent alike turn more to television and streaming, which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a major studio goes under or sells, there will simply be less money in the marketplace to invest in good writers and directors, and to be able to make sure those movies get seen.

Yes, I am very annoyed at the Murdochs (for many reasons). But that they're trying to kill 20th Century Fox to finance their awful legacy-building as glorified propagandists is nothing I'm going to cheerlead just because it means Marvel might get Wolverine to slap Tony Stark on the back. Hell, even though I do want Marvel to have the Fantastic Four back does not mean I want to pay this steep of a price.

 

[psylockolussus]

Well film companies come and go. And like I said, creativity doesn't stop at Fox. Even if you list more good films that they have made they have also a lot of stinkers which is the case for all studios. There are a lot of independent studios out there and the major studios release all kind of films, if they can't get a job in the Disney owned Fox, then pitch it to other studios.

As for the buyer of Fox, Disney is the best candidate as they have a good track record with their Marvel and Pixar films and have also brought back their Disney animated studio and Star Wars in the spotlight. And if you think they are all about making family movies, then I think you are mistaken as someone already brought up American Crime from ABC which is owned by Disney so who's to say Fox would just be making family movies from then on especially if they'd continue to use Fox's logo.

 

[X-Maniac]

Days of Future Past would not have resembled the Fox version at all, with main characters from the OT losing and dying over and over, and one of the principle characters essentially being a drug addict. That would not be a thing in the MCU version. But if you want specific examples from Apocalypse:

• The opening scene from X-Men: Apocalypse is more brutal than anything we got in Civil War
• In the MCU the "weak have taken the earth" scene with the Vatican, Wallstreet etc would also probably have been taken out
• "You can fire your arrows from the tower of Babel, but you can never strike God," would also not have made the cut
• "He got that one from the bible." "Or maybe the bible got it from him." as well
• The destruction of Auschwitz also unlikely
• Angel's transformation scene would have to be tuned down
• Ditto for Wolverine's escape scene
• Heck even the Magneto scene with him essentially yelling at 'god' and asking him if this is what he truly is

And that is all still within the PG-13 rating.

Those are interesting points but I don't think the film was made any better by featuring brutal, sadistic violence and blasphemy.

I could live without the sadistic violence and blasphemy if we'd instead had a better Apocalypse, a better Mystique, more characterisation for the classic X-Men and overall a more polished film.

 

[First Avenger]

Ultron: Upon this rock,I will build my Church.

Ultron: When The Earth starts to settle,God throws a stone at it,and believe me,he's winding up.


There are tons of violent scenes in Marvel movies, that Thor Ragnarok comedy has plenty of them alone. Zemo wanted to kill himself, Winter Soldier killed Tony's parents,people get impaled,beheaded and amputated continously. Meredith Quill died with a brain tumor which was purposefully planted by a self-proclaimed God. And so on. X-Men will be more than fine with Marvel just like they've been mostly fine at Fox. As much as I love X2,FC and DoFP
I'm still waiting for a proper team movie featuring them instead of ''*insert Wolverine,Xavier or Lawstique* and his gifted friends''.


And bring my F4 back home.

 

[GuestStar2004]

Marvel are not certainly PG, I don't think anyone is saying that.

Marvel have gone dark but would they for example have magnetos wife and daughter be impaled by the one of the same arrow before magneto slices the necks of everyone around him with a necklace?

And in a deleted scene you was gonna see him then burying his dead daughter while he sang to her.

Would X-Men be fine under marvel? Sure but I suppose It depends on what type of popcorn you like... Salt or sweet