Dark Phoenix X-Men: Dark Phoenix News and Speculation Thread - Part 9

[kevork89]

Lmfao writing and directing are extremely different from each other. Are you serious right now?

 

[kevork89]

You're rolling your eyes because you've heard it all before.

When a studio hires a questionable person, it just magnifies their mistakes/blunders in the past. So what do you want people to say. He's the next David Yates and Christopher Nolan, well those two don't have a track record as bad as Kinberg. But Snyder... Comparable.

Its also hard to give someone a chance when that person had many chances to write a script for a film and most of it turned out to be mediocre. Writing and directing aren't as different to one another. Its not like changing your job from painting to plumbing.

And no I’m sorry but...no. It’s just that negative approach you have to most things. WB are completely discredited because of Snyder but forget about everything else they’ve done or worked with. Suddenly their track record is questionable just because Kinberg is directing a movie they’re making. Haha again logic.

 

[Ordet]

It really makes me laugh to hear about the 'bad' director Warner, Fox and others are usually to hire, but not Disney.

Than the fact tell us than Fox and Warner have ten times the director's prizes won by Disney (that i think they never won one)

And writing and directing are more different than painting/plumbing. even just for the fact that you need more competence in direction than in plumbing.

said that, I do not have much confidence in Kinberg. But i means i bet that he will be not at the same level of Nolan, Singer, Burton, Snyder, Raimi, Mangold. But neither he will be bad as Bowman, Hood, Story etc... I think He will we in the same average level than Russo e Whedon, maybe a little better, as Gunn.

 

[Davidstorm]

people are a bit unfair to simon
the 3 TV series has produced, had more than 70% approval, stars wars rebels have 100% approval in the rotten.
in the movies, it has in its history, the martian, DOFP, Logan, Cinderella, Deadpool, Sherlock, XMFC, Elysium. Why would this be a bad track record?
if you review each director by rotten tomatoes and box office, there would be no director or producer doing good things nowadays, they all have great hits and big mistakes in their career.

 

[Lip]

Props to Kinberg for getting another gig as a director.

People constantly bring up his resume as a writer because it's a huge point of concern for obvious reasons. But my main problem with him is his vision of the X-Men. I don't want to watch a good movie about Charles and Eric on again off again bromance with the X-Men in the backgroung. Let alone a bad one.

For me he can be the next Academy Award winning director, I don't care. As long as he stays away from the X-Men. It'd be fine by me.

 

[X-Maniac]

Fears over Dark Phoenix haven't come out of nowhere, folks, lol.

And the producer credits of Kinberg don't necessarily mean a huge amount.

We can't always be sure that any producer or executive producer credits mean very much, let's be honest here.

Stan Lee is an executive producer on every Marvel-related project - do you really think he is standing on the set of each project with a pile of comics telling them what is right and wrong?

Kinberg is listed as a producer on Logan, but I seriously doubt he was involved or we wouldn't have had another Caliban than the one already in X-Men: Apocalypse.

I'd like to hear more producers talk about what they actually did on a movie. I remember reading how one producer (Joel Silver, I think) said he just sat in an office for years doing nothing while being paid millions.

The big issue most have is X-Men: Apocalypse, which crapped all over the characters and the mythos.

Kinberg is the sole screenwriter on that film, though three others (Singer, Harris, Dougherty) are also credited with coming up with the story.

The other thing to bear in mind is the studio and its executives, who make their own demands on what/who should be in a movie.

Rothman may be gone but there will still be many cooks in the kitchen. Many big films are decided in a boardroom by execs who want to try to guarantee the studio's investment -'we must have a big star', 'we need a love triangle', etc.

You gotta remember this is the studio where executives asked 'Does Daredevil really have to be blind?'

So it's not just a worry about Kinberg, it's a concern about Fox will do with this movie. They are still pretty clueless with comic book adaptations, even after all this time.

If Dark Phoenix is good, it will be against all the odds. And it's also a pretty irrelevant project considering the Disney takeover. If it is really good, there is nothing coming afterwards, so it's pointless investing too much of ourselves into it when it comes out. Just shrug it off and wait for someone to do the X-Men better.

There have been so many screw-ups - Beast, Psylocke, Storm, Jubilee, Apocalypse, Angel, Mystique - that they are at least giving Feige and co plenty of opportunity to do it right.

It's not as if the X-Men have been perfect up until now and the takeover is something to sob about, the loss of our precious X-Men. We haven't really seen our precioux X-Men yet.

 

[Ordet]

What i know for sure is that if i have an % on the gross of the movie i prefer to have Feige (and Disney) as producer.
If i want a good movie i prefer Kingberg.

 

[X-Maniac]

What i know for sure is that if i have an % on the gross of the movie i prefer to have Feige (and Disney) as producer.
If i want a good movie i prefer Kingberg.

The X-Men deserve better than they have been getting. Much better.

Box office reflects popularity - and the X-Men should be far more popular with the mainstream viewer.

Fox's strategy hasn't worked, the quality is too inconsistent and they don't know the material well enough to do a good job that satisfies everyone.

 

[SumT]

What i know for sure is that if i have an % on the gross of the movie i prefer to have Feige (and Disney) as producer.
If i want a good movie and a mediocre treatment of the X-Men i prefer Kingberg.

good to know

 

[Ordet]

Box office reflects popularity - and the X-Men should be far more popular with the mainstream viewer.

No. Box office reflects demagogy.
Quality of a movie have nothing to do with box office.

 

[Ordet]

good to know

A good movie that is a mediocre treatment according to your idea is better than a bad movie that is a good treatment (according to your idea)

 

[1627523]

Fears over Dark Phoenix haven't come out of nowhere, folks, lol.

And the producer credits of Kinberg don't necessarily mean a huge amount.

We can't always be sure that any producer or executive producer credits mean very much, let's be honest here.

Stan Lee is an executive producer on every Marvel-related project - do you really think he is standing on the set of each project with a pile of comics telling them what is right and wrong?

Kinberg is listed as a producer on Logan, but I seriously doubt he was involved or we wouldn't have had another Caliban than the one already in X-Men: Apocalypse.

I'd like to hear more producers talk about what they actually did on a movie. I remember reading how one producer (Joel Silver, I think) said he just sat in an office for years doing nothing while being paid millions.

The big issue most have is X-Men: Apocalypse, which crapped all over the characters and the mythos.

Kinberg is the sole screenwriter on that film, though three others (Singer, Harris, Dougherty) are also credited with coming up with the story.

The other thing to bear in mind is the studio and its executives, who make their own demands on what/who should be in a movie.

Rothman may be gone but there will still be many cooks in the kitchen. Many big films are decided in a boardroom by execs who want to try to guarantee the studio's investment -'we must have a big star', 'we need a love triangle', etc.

You gotta remember this is the studio where executives asked 'Does Daredevil really have to be blind?'

So it's not just a worry about Kinberg, it's a concern about Fox will do with this movie. They are still pretty clueless with comic book adaptations, even after all this time.

If Dark Phoenix is good, it will be against all the odds. And it's also a pretty irrelevant project considering the Disney takeover. If it is really good, there is nothing coming afterwards, so it's pointless investing too much of ourselves into it when it comes out. Just shrug it off and wait for someone to do the X-Men better.

There have been so many screw-ups - Beast, Psylocke, Storm, Jubilee, Apocalypse, Angel, Mystique - that they are at least giving Feige and co plenty of opportunity to do it right.

It's not as if the X-Men have been perfect up until now and the takeover is something to sob about, the loss of our precious X-Men. We haven't really seen our precioux X-Men yet.

I honestly dont think fox will mess with this movie. Honestly they seem so far to be really hands off with it. Also i disagree that Dark Pheonix will be shrugged if its good, Logan has no sequel and that wasnt shrugged off when it was good. I think ur being a little too pessimistic. If the movie is good than it absolutely will be remembered by everybody since its a good adaptation of the DARK PHEONIX SAGA,the most famous comic book story of all time.

 

[DACrowe]

Fears over Dark Phoenix haven't come out of nowhere, folks, lol.

And the producer credits of Kinberg don't necessarily mean a huge amount.

We can't always be sure that any producer or executive producer credits mean very much, let's be honest here.

Stan Lee is an executive producer on every Marvel-related project - do you really think he is standing on the set of each project with a pile of comics telling them what is right and wrong?

Kinberg is listed as a producer on Logan, but I seriously doubt he was involved or we wouldn't have had another Caliban than the one already in X-Men: Apocalypse.

I'd like to hear more producers talk about what they actually did on a movie. I remember reading how one producer (Joel Silver, I think) said he just sat in an office for years doing nothing while being paid millions.

The big issue most have is X-Men: Apocalypse, which crapped all over the characters and the mythos.

Kinberg is the sole screenwriter on that film, though three others (Singer, Harris, Dougherty) are also credited with coming up with the story.

The other thing to bear in mind is the studio and its executives, who make their own demands on what/who should be in a movie.

Rothman may be gone but there will still be many cooks in the kitchen. Many big films are decided in a boardroom by execs who want to try to guarantee the studio's investment -'we must have a big star', 'we need a love triangle', etc.

You gotta remember this is the studio where executives asked 'Does Daredevil really have to be blind?'

So it's not just a worry about Kinberg, it's a concern about Fox will do with this movie. They are still pretty clueless with comic book adaptations, even after all this time.

If Dark Phoenix is good, it will be against all the odds. And it's also a pretty irrelevant project considering the Disney takeover. If it is really good, there is nothing coming afterwards, so it's pointless investing too much of ourselves into it when it comes out. Just shrug it off and wait for someone to do the X-Men better.

There have been so many screw-ups - Beast, Psylocke, Storm, Jubilee, Apocalypse, Angel, Mystique - that they are at least giving Feige and co plenty of opportunity to do it right.

It's not as if the X-Men have been perfect up until now and the takeover is something to sob about, the loss of our precious X-Men. We haven't really seen our precioux X-Men yet.

Just to clarify this a little "producer" is a very different credit from "executive producer." A producer means being very hands on in the finances and development of the film. While I suspect Hutch Parker was the one on set every day, Kinberg was probably there quite a bit. Same with any movie he's listed as "producer" on as opposed to "executive producer." It how he cultivated the relationship with Jessica Chastain, which has led to her joining the X-franchise.

As for "if Dark Phoenix is good it doesn't matter," I really hate that kind of logic. Originally this was about having good movies that translate the comics into hopefully faithful, but also quality movie experiences. If, against all odds as you say, Dark Phoenix achieves this, then that is something to savor and enjoy. Not shrug and go, "Yeah but what about the NEXT ONE?!" To me, that is one of the inherent issues I have with the MCU. In many instances, it feels like it has trained people to be caring more about the next movie than the one they are currently watching. I know that is why James Mangold (somewhat unfairly) blew a gasket about post-credits scenes.

In any case, now that it appears the Sky deal will go through for the Murdochs in the UK, this could upset the Disney-Fox deal and potentially delay it an extra year or two. So I would not be so confident anymore that Dark Phoenix will be the final team X-Men film.... unless it is truly wretched and kills the brand for Fox.

 

[1627523]

just to clarify this a little "producer" is a very different credit from "executive producer." a producer means being very hands on in the finances and development of the film. While i suspect hutch parker was the one on set every day, kinberg was probably there quite a bit. Same with any movie he's listed as "producer" on as opposed to "executive producer." it how he cultivated the relationship with jessica chastain, which has led to her joining the x-franchise.

As for "if dark phoenix is good it doesn't matter," i really hate that kind of logic. Originally this was about having good movies that translate the comics into hopefully faithful, but also quality movie experiences. If, against all odds as you say, dark phoenix achieves this, then that is something to savor and enjoy. Not shrug and go, "yeah but what about the next one?!" to me, that is one of the inherent issues i have with the mcu. In many instances, it feels like it has trained people to be caring more about the next movie than the one they are currently watching. I know that is why james mangold (somewhat unfairly) blew a gasket about post-credits scenes.

In any case, now that it appears the sky deal will go through for the murdochs in the uk, this could upset the disney-fox deal and potentially delay it an extra year or two. So i would not be so confident anymore that dark phoenix will be the final team x-men film.... Unless it is truly wretched and kills the brand for fox.

amen

 

[carpenter82]

As for "if Dark Phoenix is good it doesn't matter," I really hate that kind of logic. Originally this was about having good movies that translate the comics into hopefully faithful, but also quality movie experiences. If, against all odds as you say, Dark Phoenix achieves this, then that is something to savor and enjoy. Not shrug and go, "Yeah but what about the NEXT ONE?!" To me, that is one of the inherent issues I have with the MCU. In many instances, it feels like it has trained people to be caring more about the next movie than the one they are currently watching. I know that is why James Mangold (somewhat unfairly) blew a gasket about post-credits scenes.

Dude, yes. Contrary to popular belief great superhero comic book films are still few, and far between. For me there have only been two since The Dark Knight that've blown me away. With the amount of comic book films that come out per year, that's ridiculous.

I'm ready to see the comic book movie genre evolve in terms of storytelling, and character development. X2, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight were steps in the right direction, but somewhere along the way those films stopped being the standard. I'm starting to think that your analysis of the MCU is why that is.

 

[SumT]

A good movie that is a mediocre treatment according to your idea is better than a bad movie that is a good treatment (according to your idea)

You know about novel adaptations right?
if a movie adapts a novel worse than the source material not respecting the richness of its main characters, its a mediocre addaptation.

apply that to x-men movies, then. The movies are a mediocre addaptation of the source material and its main characters, and there is absolutely nothing you can say to deffend that.

So as that George Clooney movie: Good night and good luck

 

[DACrowe]

You know about novel adaptations right?
if a movie adapts a novel worse than the source material not respecting the richness of its main characters, its a mediocre addaptation.

apply that to x-men movies, then. The movies are a mediocre addaptation of the source material and its main characters, and there is absolutely nothing you can say to deffend that.

So as that George Clooney movie: Good night and good luck

To play devil's advocate for a minute, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining is a "mediocre adaptation" of the novel. Other examples off the top of my head include Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park, and the Wachowskis' V for Vendetta. But they are all good films. Two of them are arguably masterpieces.

 

[X-Maniac]

Just to clarify this a little "producer" is a very different credit from "executive producer." A producer means being very hands on in the finances and development of the film. While I suspect Hutch Parker was the one on set every day, Kinberg was probably there quite a bit. Same with any movie he's listed as "producer" on as opposed to "executive producer." It how he cultivated the relationship with Jessica Chastain, which has led to her joining the X-franchise.

I find it hard to believe Kinberg was at all hands-on (or on set) with Deadpool or Logan.

As for "if Dark Phoenix is good it doesn't matter," I really hate that kind of logic. Originally this was about having good movies that translate the comics into hopefully faithful, but also quality movie experiences. If, against all odds as you say, Dark Phoenix achieves this, then that is something to savor and enjoy. Not shrug and go, "Yeah but what about the NEXT ONE?!" To me, that is one of the inherent issues I have with the MCU. In many instances, it feels like it has trained people to be caring more about the next movie than the one they are currently watching. I know that is why James Mangold (somewhat unfairly) blew a gasket about post-credits scenes.

I'm not a fan of post-credits scenes either, but where we are seeing films in a franchise/series that is building some sort of world and mythology, there are clearly going to be some thoughts (and hopefully excitement) about where the story goes next.

Even with the doom-laden dirge and finality of Logan, people were getting all excited about the possibility of an X-23 spin-off (which was eventually announced).

The MCU has its issues but treatment of beloved characters, audience awareness and make-up/special FX aren't among them.

In any case, now that it appears the Sky deal will go through for the Murdochs in the UK, this could upset the Disney-Fox deal and potentially delay it an extra year or two. So I would not be so confident anymore that Dark Phoenix will be the final team X-Men film.... unless it is truly wretched and kills the brand for Fox.

I would rather Dark Phoenix be the final ATTEMPT at a team X-Men film because I don't think the creatives and studio are willing or able to do a proper team ensemble movie. The focus is all wrong.

Fox has no knowledge or faith in the source material, shying away from the more fantastical elements only for other studios to do it first instead. So the X-Men films never feel innovative. Except for DoFP (time travel) and Deadpool (R-rating, breaking 4th wall).

A friend of mine says he dislikes the X-Men films because 'they're too far-fetched' and yet he loves GoTG and Black Panther.

I tried to find out what he meant and he feels the X-Men are too restrained and grounded so that when any fantastical elements are introduced, they feel out of place. On the other hand, the MCU embraces the material and makes it come alive even when it's totally fantastical. That's clear with things like Rocket Raccoon, Groot, etc, and Thanos in the Avengers trailer looks more convincing than Apocalypse.

It's partly down to the technical level of make-up and FX, partly because Fox shies away from the fantasy and seems unable to make it convincing most of the time (the future part of DoFP being a notable exception).

I expect Kinberg to improve on the make-up and FX from what was seen in X-Men: Apocalypse but it's still going to be a grounded affair. Maybe that's for the best, because i doubt Fox could pull off a full-on Phoenix Saga. But we all know for sure that Disney/Marvel could do it easily.

 

[Jh7058622]

To play devil's advocate for a minute, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining is a "mediocre adaptation" of the novel. Other examples off the top of my head include Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park, and the Wachowskis' V for Vendetta. But they are all good films. Two of them are arguably masterpieces.

Most comic to film adaptions are bad if that was the case. None of the current ones are panel for panel adaptions. Some here are being silly in thinking that X-Men are any different than any other movie studio that have been making movie version of another medium since it's inception. Just because they don't focus on the things you would like in the past doesn't mean that all other adaptions from other studios are "better" as those films take liberties too.

Yes there have been many times where I've scratched my head at a few of the ways they've presented characters, however, normally they are story reasons.

Mostly it was First Class that set a standard that Simon Kinberg had to abide same way with X3 he inherited the franchise each time! He wasn't the mastermind making decisions to piss people off that some try to paint him out to being. That being said now that he seems to have more autonomy than usual I hope he proves to be a capable at the helm with his directorial debut.

I want to make it clear if he misses the mark in any way at my favorite comic run I will be for some of the hate but as it stands now we know far to little to pass any judgement in my opinion.

 

[Jh7058622]

I find it hard to believe Kinberg was at all hands-on (or on set) with Deadpool or Logan.

Yet he was so... Many people have praised Kinberg's work as a producer and his involvement regardless if you want to give him credit for it or not.

I'm not a fan of post-credits scenes either, but where we are seeing films in a franchise/series that is building some sort of world and mythology, there are clearly going to be some thoughts (and hopefully excitement) about where the story goes next.

Even with the doom-laden dirge and finality of Logan, people were getting all excited about the possibility of an X-23 spin-off (which was eventually announced).

The MCU has its issues but treatment of beloved characters, audience awareness and make-up/special FX aren't among them.



I would rather Dark Phoenix be the final ATTEMPT at a team X-Men film because I don't think the creatives and studio are willing or able to do a proper team ensemble movie. The focus is all wrong.

Fox has no knowledge or faith in the source material, shying away from the more fantastical elements only for other studios to do it first instead. So the X-Men films never feel innovative. Except for DoFP (time travel) and Deadpool (R-rating, breaking 4th wall).

A friend of mine says he dislikes the X-Men films because 'they're too far-fetched' and yet he loves GoTG and Black Panther.

I tried to find out what he meant and he feels the X-Men are too restrained and grounded so that when any fantastical elements are introduced, they feel out of place. On the other hand, the MCU embraces the material and makes it come alive even when it's totally fantastical. That's clear with things like Rocket Raccoon, Groot, etc, and Thanos in the Avengers trailer looks more convincing than Apocalypse.

It's partly down to the technical level of make-up and FX, partly because Fox shies away from the fantasy and seems unable to make it convincing most of the time (the future part of DoFP being a notable exception).

I expect Kinberg to improve on the make-up and FX from what was seen in X-Men: Apocalypse but it's still going to be a grounded affair. Maybe that's for the best, because i doubt Fox could pull off a full-on Phoenix Saga. But we all know for sure that Disney/Marvel could do it easily.

I can see where you're coming from but that's just one persons perspective yet some here all dismiss people telling there perspectives if it is anything pro this film as just that (opinions). Why did you bring it to this thread as some kind of evidence of problems? Your sample size will have to get much larger than that.

 

[SumT]

To play devil's advocate for a minute, Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining is a "mediocre adaptation" of the novel. Other examples off the top of my head include Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park, and the Wachowskis' V for Vendetta. But they are all good films. Two of them are arguably masterpieces.

are the main characters of the novels treated well in the movies?
if so, then they are good adaptations. Not faithful maybe, but good adaptations, if the main characters are treated with respect and are still the leads.

I havent read those novels, so cant judge.
But I can judge the x-men world, because I know both the source material and other adaptations (the 4 tv shows, that all payed more respect to the comics than 80% of the 6 x-men movies)

 

[X-Maniac]

Yet he was so... Many people have praised Kinberg's work as a producer and his involvement regardless if you want to give him credit for it or not.

I give him zero credit for it, until I know what his actual involvement was in those movies.

I can see where you're coming from but that's just one persons perspective yet some here all dismiss people telling there perspectives if it is anything pro this film as just that (opinions). Why did you bring it to this thread as some kind of evidence of problems? Your sample size will have to get much larger than that.

Of course there are problems, lol! Where have you been hiding?

Look at the box office and critical performance of X-Men: Apocalypse.

Look at what many of the X-Men fans are saying in here.

Look at the inconsistency of this series, the way it has treated beloved/classic characters and ethnic minorities.

Come on, wake up!

 

[DACrowe]

are the main characters of the novels treated well in the movies?
if so, then they are good adaptations. Not faithful maybe, but good adaptations, if the main characters are treated with respect and are still the leads.

I havent read those novels, so cant judge.
But I can judge the x-men world, because I know both the source material and other adaptations (the 4 tv shows, that all payed more respect to the comics than 80% of the 6 x-men movies)

Stephen King despises The Shining adaptation, because the main character in it was an avatar of how he saw himself: a good man and struggling creative whose drinking problems unleashes demons. Jack Nicholson and Kubrick turned him into a psychopath before the booze or ghosts got in his system, and an unsympathetic monster. So I wouldn't call that a "good adaptation."

Jurassic Park's Hammond went from a symbol of everything wrong with capitalism in science, and profit motive, and unrepentantly greedy to Dinosaur Walt Disney, because Spielberg related to his "visionary" status. Characters who died in the book, like Hammond and Wu, lived, and characters who lived like Muldoon, died. So that was a pretty poor adaptation that also removed the book's central thesis: a damning critique of modern day scientific research (not just InGen) and of humanity in general.

V for Vendetta turned its central anti-hero from being an unrepentant anarchist and terrorist to being a roguish defender of classical liberalism and democracy. It also gave him a romance with Evee, who is an emotionally dead prostitute in the book, yet is a strong-willed but politically intimidated television intern played by Natalie Portman, who falls in love with V in the film.

... My point is the quality of an "adaptation" has little to do with the quality of the film. It is why I think Logan, First Class, and Days of Future Past are all excellent X-Men movies, even if they all make drastic changes.

 

[DACrowe]

I find it hard to believe Kinberg was at all hands-on (or on set) with Deadpool or Logan.

I mean, he was. So I can't help you there. He was also on set for The Martian (hence why Chastain is in Dark Phoenix) and Cinderella, and on the flip side, Fantastic Four, and X-Men: Apocalypse.

I'm not a fan of post-credits scenes either, but where we are seeing films in a franchise/series that is building some sort of world and mythology, there are clearly going to be some thoughts (and hopefully excitement) about where the story goes next.

Even with the doom-laden dirge and finality of Logan, people were getting all excited about the possibility of an X-23 spin-off (which was eventually announced).

The MCU has its issues but treatment of beloved characters, audience awareness and make-up/special FX aren't among them.

I would just love to see an awesome Dark Phoenix movie. I don't really care how it affects a movie that might literally be 6-7 years away. I want this movie to be good. I have warmed more to the MCU in Phase Three, but I think world building is overrated. When it is done well, that's great, but it is not a virtue unto itself, which is why I can't get excited for some of the more mediocre MCU films like Ant-Man, just because it is connected to The Avengers and has a teaser in it for Civil War.

I would rather Dark Phoenix be the final ATTEMPT at a team X-Men film because I don't think the creatives and studio are willing or able to do a proper team ensemble movie. The focus is all wrong.

Fox has no knowledge or faith in the source material, shying away from the more fantastical elements only for other studios to do it first instead. So the X-Men films never feel innovative. Except for DoFP (time travel) and Deadpool (R-rating, breaking 4th wall).

A friend of mine says he dislikes the X-Men films because 'they're too far-fetched' and yet he loves GoTG and Black Panther.

I tried to find out what he meant and he feels the X-Men are too restrained and grounded so that when any fantastical elements are introduced, they feel out of place. On the other hand, the MCU embraces the material and makes it come alive even when it's totally fantastical. That's clear with things like Rocket Raccoon, Groot, etc, and Thanos in the Avengers trailer looks more convincing than Apocalypse.

It's partly down to the technical level of make-up and FX, partly because Fox shies away from the fantasy and seems unable to make it convincing most of the time (the future part of DoFP being a notable exception).

I expect Kinberg to improve on the make-up and FX from what was seen in X-Men: Apocalypse but it's still going to be a grounded affair. Maybe that's for the best, because i doubt Fox could pull off a full-on Phoenix Saga. But we all know for sure that Disney/Marvel could do it easily.

Well agree to disagree regarding wanting Dark Phoenix to be the last one. Especially if the Fox-Disney deal is delayed by another 1-2 years after 2019. Life is short, and if Fox (preferably without Kinberg) can make some good X-Men movies before then, I'm game.

For what it is worth, I have a few friends who absolutely care nothing about comics, and really like the better X-Men films and dislike the MCU entirely. With that said, I am well aware they are in the vast minority, and would be considered downright heathens to comic book fans who frequent this board. I am just providing my own anecdotal evidence that it is not just one opinion out there.

 

[Jh7058622]

I give him zero credit for it, until I know what his actual involvement was in those movies.




Of course there are problems, lol! Where have you been hiding?

Look at the box office and critical performance of X-Men: Apocalypse.

Look at what many of the X-Men fans are saying in here.

Look at the inconsistency of this series, the way it has treated beloved/classic characters and ethnic minorities.

Come on, wake up!

oh whatever the comic book fan community is a dying one so to try to say that the narrow view here is the consensus is ludicrous. GA still love the X-Men and don't know about the studio politics we comic fans concern ourselves with.