Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - Part 8

[1627523]

Which doesn't feel like the X-Men to me at all, much less what would actually happen only a decade removed from a mutant declaring war against humanity on live television, after dropping a stadium around the white house.

The premise of mutants being so widely accepted in Apocalypse is counter to what makes X-Men work as a concept. Where is the struggle? Where is the aspect that the X-Men are always fighting from underneath in terms of how they are perceived (compared to groups like the Fantastic Four and the Avengers, who get better treatment)?

If mutants are so loved and accepted, what are the X-Men movies even *about* at that point?

I see ur point, but you can't have the same conflict with no change in every movie or else u risk losing its punch and becoming monotnous and repetitive. In order to keep the conflict interesting u need to give the x-men some wins and losses. The Dark Pheonix movie is just happen to be an instance where the x-men are finally WINNING, but that doesn't mean that the conflict is completely gone though, it could arise again which i suspect it will once Dark pheonix shows up. The point im trying to give is that its okay for the x-men to be in a good place once in a while when they rarely are in the movies. I don't believe that the mutant conflict will ever be forgotten though.

 

[def28]

Why are folks still in here spamming about how bad X-Men is?
It's highly likely that the comedy version is coming.

It already has, it's called Apocalypse

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Why are folks still in here spamming about how bad X-Men is?
It's highly likely that the comedy version is coming.

It's ironic how some Fox fans regard comedy with such derision and condescension, when the most successful entry in the franchise is a comedy. That must really stick in their craw.

 

[1627523]

It's ironic how some Fox fans regard comedy with such derision and condescension, when the most successful entry in the franchise is a comedy. That must really stick in their craw.

True, but tell me this which ones are the most highely acclaimed?

 

[Phoenix Egg]

Also: According to IGN, Chastain' s character is called...Smith.

I don't get it, but I guess we'll see.

 

[Tymminator]

It already has, it's called Apocalypse

Also: According to IGN, Chastain' s character is called...Smith.

I don't get it, but I guess we'll see.

I hope that's just some type of cover and not the real name.

 

[Kuwolski]

True, but tell me this which ones are the most highely acclaimed?

Only Logan matches the top MCU "comedies" in acclaim (if you mean specifically critics), but Deadpool easily has had the most impact across the board for this franchise.

So far.

Dark Phoenix may have a shot to eclipse it.

 

[BeholdMe]

Why are folks still in here spamming about how bad X-Men is?
It's highly likely that the comedy version is coming.

I'm not a fan of the current MCEU just because I'm strictly an XMen fan so I don't really bother seeing the other movies, the truth of the matter is Fox isn't handling the main roster of the XMen good. Idk why people on here are acting like this isn't true it is. They focus on the same characters movie by movie and the others aren't properly developed those are facts. We don't know how Disney will handle the XMen so jumping to the conclusion that it may just be a comedy like most of the MCEU movies is as big of a reach as those automatically assuming that Dark Phoenix will flop without seeing one trailer your literally doing the same thing that you are getting on the others about just on the opposite end of the spectrum.(Winter Soldier and CW werent comedies they just had elements of it). We don't know how this will all work out, but currently the core team XMen are not being handled right. We need a team ensemble movie, not the continued focus on two villains that have had more then there share of screentime but the actual XMen, what is the harm in wanting that. Storm,Cyclops,Nightcrawler, and Jubilee all deserve proper treatment and shine in this movie along with most of it going to Jean. We wont know until we see something like a trailer.
Any idea when the trailer may be coming out?

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I see ur point, but you can't have the same conflict with no change in every movie or else u risk losing its punch and becoming monotnous and repetitive. In order to keep the conflict interesting u need to give the x-men some wins and losses. The Dark Pheonix movie is just happen to be an instance where the x-men are finally WINNING, but that doesn't mean that the conflict is completely gone though, it could arise again which i suspect it will once Dark pheonix shows up. The point im trying to give is that its okay for the x-men to be in a good place once in a while when they rarely are in the movies. I don't believe that the mutant conflict will ever be forgotten though.

Mutants should always be feared and hated, or else you are not staying true to the core concept of the X-Men.

Not to mention this idea of the X-Men being popular heroes in this universe doesn't feel remotely earned after the events of Days of Future Past and X-Men Apocalypse, where mutants like Magneto and Apocalypse declared war on humanity and committed genocide against untold numbers of humans. It makes zero sense.

 

[EnDz0n3]

I see ur point, but you can't have the same conflict with no change in every movie or else u risk losing its punch and becoming monotnous and repetitive. In order to keep the conflict interesting u need to give the x-men some wins and losses. The Dark Pheonix movie is just happen to be an instance where the x-men are finally WINNING, but that doesn't mean that the conflict is completely gone though, it could arise again which i suspect it will once Dark pheonix shows up. The point im trying to give is that its okay for the x-men to be in a good place once in a while when they rarely are in the movies. I don't believe that the mutant conflict will ever be forgotten though.

Some would argue the constant flip-flopping of Magneto and the constant reversion to naivete of Xavier is what's become monotonous and repetitive.

It's like Kinberg comes up with these big "What if" ideas (what if mutants are accepted--so JLaw can go without makeup, what if these mutants are national heroes) just so they can supposedly experience growth as characters---but really it's just the characters reverting back to how they were in the previous movie.

What exacerbates the situation is 10 years has passed since we last saw these characters between each movie, they should know better. Xavier should know better...

 

[Marvel united]

Which didn't make any sense to me after Magneto (a mutant) dropped an entire stadium around the white house and declared war against humanity on live television.

Not to mention Mystique pointing a gun at the President and 10 years later, she's a national hero? WTF?

 

[Rike]

yeah, no. she pointed a gun at Trask, a convicted criminal.

 

[1627523]

Some would argue the constant flip-flopping of Magneto and the constant reversion to naivete of Xavier is what's become monotonous and repetitive.

It's like Kinberg comes up with these big "What if" ideas (what if mutants are accepted--so JLaw can go without makeup, what if these mutants are national heroes) just so they can supposedly experience growth as characters---but really it's just the characters reverting back to how they were in the previous movie.

What exacerbates the situation is 10 years has passed since we last saw these characters between each movie, they should know better. Xavier should know better...

U do know x-men have been seen favorably by the public various times in the comics right? This isn't anything new. The x-men stopped APOCALYPSE in the movies so i think they earned being national heroes, IMO if they were still hated after that than it would feel too contrived and forced. It would feel like the conflict wouldn't be going anywhere. Personally i want a sense of progression with this conflict not just an endless time loop.

 

[EnDz0n3]

U do know x-men have been seen favorably by the public various times in the comics right? This isn't anything new. The x-men stopped APOCALYPSE in the movies so i think they earned being national heroes, IMO if they were still hated after that than it would feel too contrived and forced. It would feel like the conflict wouldn't be going anywhere. Personally i want a sense of progression with this conflict not just an endless time loop.

Apocalypse, with the help of of-sound-mind Magneto, Storm, Angel (ok maybe he was drunk) and Psylocke, placed humanity on the brink of extinction but hey who's counting.

Anyways I noticed you didn't have a counter argument to the first part of my post which is the thing that moviegoers find "monotnous [sic] and repetitive."

 

[Lip]

It already has, it's called Apocalypse

Seriously now, Apocalypse attempted to be a more "MCU" movie and tried to be more fun and funny. Nothing really worked for me. Kurt was the only fun part that worked and mostly because of the actor. The rest felt super forced and unnatural. The same with the drama. Despite how good Fassbender is, his drama felt very forced to me. It was like "ok, let's have these two female characters to kill off and be the reason of his man pain".

 

[psylockolussus]

X-Men Apocalypse was more Schumacher than MCU. And MCU usually puts the focus on their heroes and the visual effects rarely look bad. As for the jokes, at least MCU tries to be witty with their jokes.

 

[psylockolussus]

Mutants should always be feared and hated, or else you are not staying true to the core concept of the X-Men.

Not to mention this idea of the X-Men being popular heroes in this universe doesn't feel remotely earned after the events of Days of Future Past and X-Men Apocalypse, where mutants like Magneto and Apocalypse declared war on humanity and committed genocide against untold numbers of humans. It makes zero sense.

I always prefer them to be the underdogs but what's more off putting is they put Mystique in a pedestal like she's some kind of a mutant Messiah to the mutants across the globe. Plus the fact, Raven is in human form for most of her screentime made it worse.

 

[Davidstorm]

The problem of apocalypse is called "bryan singer"
the film has a generic script, a villain wanting to end the world (like almost every hero movie that is currently successful)
but bryan different from other directors, can not get something generic and create interesting things, she has already demonstrated that she does not like to do great action scenes, in apocalypse all the action is very fast and a little badly done, until X3 has action well done and bigger, only the first scene in Egypt has a nice action level, the creative team seems to have been lazy to create, again they were focused on yet another slow-moving scene of the mercury, I think after the success of DOFP bryan and his team, they thought the public would like anything ...

 

[Flint Marko]

I admittedly have a different perspective from most comic book fans, in that I value getting really good creative movies over just faithful representations. I put more emphasis on the story and film than the characters' adaptation, especially after 10 years of Marvel doing relatively faithful adaptations of characters in fun movies that I've found utterly disposable.

Do you hear how this sounds....?

"I value good creative movies, while most comic book fans just want faithful representations."

"Most comic book fans" just don't see what you see in the Fox/Marvel movies for perfectly valid reasons. Barring a few notable exceptions they've basically been remaking the same X-men films for 18 years, yet in your eyes they're apparently the lone bastion of "really good creative comic book films" in Hollywood? Please. It's fine if you feel that way but don't pat yourself on the back because of how much better your taste supposedly is. I know those weren't your exact words but it's basically what you're saying, which is hilarious considering the numerous shortcomings Fox has demonstrated on a regular basis even in their good films.

 

[1627523]

Apocalypse, with the help of of-sound-mind Magneto, Storm, Angel (ok maybe he was drunk) and Psylocke, placed humanity on the brink of extinction but hey who's counting.

Anyways I noticed you didn't have a counter argument to the first part of my post which is the thing that moviegoers find "monotnous [sic] and repetitive."

I do agree about the magneto and Xavier things feeling repetitive, but how was that a counterargument u didn't disprove my point. Personally i want the mutant acceptance conflict to actually go somewhere, to progress, i dont want to see the x-men in the same place as they were 3 movies ago. I want a sense of progression because if nothing changes than i'll start to lose interest. In order for it to stay interesting the conflict needs to feel like its either being solved or getting worse, but u can't leave it in the same place after THREE movies.
Let me put it to u this way what's a more fun ride a roller coaster that travels forward in a straight line with no change or a roller coaster that has ups and downs and loopty loops?

 

[DACrowe]

Do you hear how this sounds....?

"I value good creative movies, while most comic book fans just want faithful representations."

"Most comic book fans" just don't see what you see in the Fox/Marvel movies for perfectly valid reasons. Barring a few notable exceptions they've basically been remaking the same X-men films for 18 years, yet in your eyes they're apparently the lone bastion of "really good creative comic book films" in Hollywood? Please. It's fine if you feel that way but don't pat yourself on the back because of how much better your taste supposedly is. I know those weren't your exact words but it's basically what you're saying, which is hilarious considering the numerous shortcomings Fox has demonstrated on a regular basis even in their good films.

Regarding simply this post (I can't respond to every aggrieved post aimed at me in the last day), I see your point on how that sentence can be read as pretentious.

Let me further contextualize it then by saying I do think I have a preference for storytelling diversity and pursuing creative, new ideas within the genre, which yes I would say is a minority opinion to have when saying that is a bigger deal to me than faithful representation of comic book characters. I understand that this is the sticking point that it comes down to for most fans--how much like the comics are your interpretation of the character?--and for me I am more interested in how much they can push it in new directions and use cinematic vocabulary to explore these characters in new ways. That includes Logan becoming a Western, how they used Deadpool to make a very raunchy romantic comedy, the prospect of a New Mutants horror movie, etc. Even among the mainline X-films, you scoff that they have remade the first two X-films ad nauseam, but First Class actually embraced '60s spy movie language and was more of a '60s spy film than any other supposed espionage superhero movie to date. Days of Future Past used time travel in a really smart way, as no superhero movie has, and had an emphasis on characters' emotional depth to emphasize stakes over just the same-old computer destruction that drives most third acts in superhero movies, including X-Men: Apocalypse.

Saying those diversions interest me more than faithful representations of a character from how they're generally depicted the comics is a minority opinion, and admitting that is not the pretension you insinuate.

And just one more thing, Fox is no "lone bastion." Wonder Woman was a great achievement, and no one has made better superhero movies than Christopher Nolan. It is just in the current studio environment, Fox is the studio that is most embracing experimentation, and... well we've discussed this part before, so I will leave it here.

 

[psylockolussus]

Experimentations that also led to films like Dark Phoenix, Fant4stic, X-Men Apocalypse, The New Mutants... No thanks.

 

[Davidstorm]

Putting movies that have not even been released and that nobody has watched, alongside unsuccessful movies

 

[Lip]

Regarding simply this post (I can't respond to every aggrieved post aimed at me in the last day), I see your point on how that sentence can be read as pretentious.

Let me further contextualize it then by saying I do think I have a preference for storytelling diversity and pursuing creative, new ideas within the genre, which yes I would say is a minority opinion to have when saying that is a bigger deal to me than faithful representation of comic book characters. I understand that this is the sticking point that it comes down to for most fans--how much like the comics are your interpretation of the character?--and for me I am more interested in how much they can push it in new directions and use cinematic vocabulary to explore these characters in new ways. That includes Logan becoming a Western, how they used Deadpool to make a very raunchy romantic comedy, the prospect of a New Mutants horror movie, etc. Even among the mainline X-films, you scoff that they have remade the first two X-films ad nauseam, but First Class actually embraced '60s spy movie language and was more of a '60s spy film than any other supposed espionage superhero movie to date. Days of Future Past used time travel in a really smart way, as no superhero movie has, and had an emphasis on characters' emotional depth to emphasize stakes over just the same-old computer destruction that drives most third acts in superhero movies, including X-Men: Apocalypse.

Saying those diversions interest me more than faithful representations of a character from how they're generally depicted the comics is a minority opinion, and admitting that is not the pretension you insinuate.

And just one more thing, Fox is no "lone bastion." Wonder Woman was a great achievement, and no one has made better superhero movies than Christopher Nolan. It is just in the current studio environment, Fox is the studio that is most embracing experimentation, and... well we've discussed this part before, so I will leave it here.

I'm sorry, but now you used a different word: diversions. It isn't the word you've been using lately when you say you prefer "quality movies"(please don't make me quote you). I'm sorry but there is a lot of arrogance when you say something like that implying your taste is superior and we don't like good stuff. And that bothers a lot of people.

We all get you enjoy Fox taking risks and making more character driven movies like Logan (which we all enjoyed), but you have to realize our point isn't about just being "faithful", which is another form to try to discredit our point, because we don't need literal adaptations. You need to understand that our concept of quality is having supporting characters that we can actually call characters. Having supporting characters with a unique voice, a personality, arc, motivations... It gets worse when you realize the X-Men is supposed to be an ensemble movie. Civil War is a Captain America solo movie and it does a much better job being an ensemble than any X-Men movie.

So our problem isn't just about being faithful, is about delivering a good (ensemble) movie.

It's also important noticing those are existing characters and those properties and characters might have a deep personal meaning for us. For us either being a minority, a person of color, a woman, a misfit. So there's got to be a lot of attention while adapting those stories and characters to not lose their essence.

 

[Jh7058622]

Putting movies that have not even been released and that nobody has watched, alongside unsuccessful movies

Pretty much that user in a nutshell.