|
The MSJ posted:Wolverine is in X-Force at some point, right? I wonder if he will be made the leader of the movie X-Force instead of Cable, thus making it another Wolverine-focused X-film. That said, looking at how things are, maybe they'll just go the Ultimate route and make Hugh Jackman both Cable and Wolverine. Hasn't it already been confirmed that it's Hugh Jackman who goes back in time in this film, and that's he is pretty much the main character?
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Hasn't it already been confirmed that it's Hugh Jackman who goes back in time in this film, and that's he is pretty much the main character? Then why is Bishop in the movie? I thought they were going that route? Since he otherwise wouldn't belong in a Days of the Future Past adaption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Then why is Bishop in the movie? I thought they were going that route? Since he otherwise wouldn't belong in a Days of the Future Past adaption. Perhaps buddy team up. Timeline is screwed so he's there to fix it. I'd like to think he's tracking Nimrod, a future super sentinel, or something. The part that confuses me is somehow Kitty is involved with the time travel or is at the source of it with phasing. I'd figure Bishop would be the time travel person helping Wolverine around. Unless something Kitty does jump starts it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:Then why is Bishop in the movie? I thought they were going that route? Since he otherwise wouldn't belong in a Days of the Future Past adaption. http://www.slashfilm.com/x-men-days-of-future-past-footage-description-wolverine-travels-back-in-time/ That article confirms it's Wolverine that goes back in time, it's pretty much his movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Well, nevermind: quote:Director Bryan Singer stated that "Hugh of the future is sent, his consciousness is sent into his younger self [and] Hugh gets to play both parts because [Wolverine] is ageless." Edit: EFB Ugh. The more I read about this movie, the less enthused I am. Why is Bishop in this movie then? Yesterday evening, I tried to sit down and watch X-Men for the first time in several years. I was looking forward to it, honestly. I've been giving those movies a bad rap for a long time, and I was hoping to just sit back and enjoy... It was unwatchable. I got to Senator Kelly & Mystique on the helicopter and shut it off. Then I tried X2, because that's the "good one" out of the series... I got just past Nightcrawler in the White House, when Xavier freezes everyone in the Museum. Why do people go see these movies? They're not good. I don't get it. I would kill to see a good X-Men movie. I think I've resettled with First Class being the best of the bunch, but only marginally, and only because Fassbender is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 14:38
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:They should go over what parts of the old movies they're keeping with a "Previously on X-Men" montage at the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
Wait, so this is basically ANOTHER Wolverine film? I like Jackman and all but talk about overkill..
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Wait, so this is basically ANOTHER Wolverine film? I like Jackman and all but talk about overkill.. Yep. I would've preferred a First Class sequel, but I guess once Singer got involved he couldn't resist playing with his toys instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Wait, so this is basically ANOTHER Wolverine film? I like Jackman and all but talk about overkill.. It's not overkill until we get a 90% Wolverine Exiles movie. Bonus point, one of them can be Aussie Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Bryan Singer is a loving hack piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
I don't think wolverine will be as prominent as that trailer indicates. He'll be one of the thread tying the past and futures but there's definitely going to be more time fuckery. I'm sure in typical x-men movie fashion half of the cast will have at most one scene to go "hey! X is in this movie!" and just focus on 3-5 mutants at most. Then again, the movie may be terrible but I just don't see how one could go "First Class was awesome so let's go ahead and give Michael Fassbender LESS screen time"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
I just did a rewatch of X2 and First Class, and First Class is so much more interesting of a film that it's ridiculous. There's a tonal change halfway through First Class that can turn people off, but that only adds to the charm for me. Kevin Bacon, Fassbender, Lawrence, and McAvoy are all great in it, and they compose 90% of the film as well. I hope Singer didn't think "more Wolverine, less Fassbender," as stated above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Then again, the movie may be terrible but I just don't see how one could go "First Class was awesome so let's go ahead and give Michael Fassbender LESS screen time" Well they could always hire a Director who has his own vision for the franchise and seems a little bitter about the direction it took so wants to basically set the record straight rather than tell a fitting sequel story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
My read on that trailer was that the old cast (future) are going to be the frame story, but the majority of the film will be with the new cast and serve mostly as First Class 2 with Wolverine. I don't really see it as a Wolverine movie so much as him serving as the common bridge since he doesn't have a 'younger' self the same way everyone else does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Electromax posted:My read on that trailer was that the old cast (future) are going to be the frame story, but the majority of the film will be with the new cast and serve mostly as First Class 2 with Wolverine. I don't really see it as a Wolverine movie so much as him serving as the common bridge since he doesn't have a 'younger' self the same way everyone else does. Which still isn't really First Class 2 has it doesn't follow on from any of the theme's or plot thread's set up in that movie, it's just a sudden Wolverine cameo here to tell us how badly the future is going - despite us never seeing that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Wolverine sucks, but Hugh Jackman's grunty anger performance as a malfunctioning Terminator in an endless parade of terrible films is hilarious. The idea of him being doomed to fight increasingly goofy monsters, unable to die, is getting increasingly meta with each new film. I haven't even seen half of them, and don't care to. I just want shirtless Jackman pictures everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Wolverine sucks, but Hugh Jackman's grunty anger performance as a malfunctioning Terminator in an endless parade of terrible films is hilarious. Yeah, Jackman's great- in Origins: Wolverine he's just increasingly exasperated at everything happening to him and buildings falling on him and the like, and he almost makes the film worthwhile. Now if they'd let Wolverine sing and dance...
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
I'm sure many will agree with you on that last part, SMG.PriorMarcus posted:Which still isn't really First Class 2 has it doesn't follow on from any of the theme's or plot thread's set up in that movie, it's just a sudden Wolverine cameo here to tell us how badly the future is going - despite us never seeing that. I'm pretty sure they are going to show us the terrible future. That's what the cast of the original trilogy is for. Bryan Singer stated that the movie will be set both 10 years after First Class and 10 years after The Last Stand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Wolverine sucks, but Hugh Jackman's grunty anger performance as a malfunctioning Terminator in an endless parade of terrible films is hilarious. The Wandering Hugh
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Morrison's New X-Men, Whedon's Astonishing, some of Claremont's earlier stuff, all pretty good times. I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Wolverine sucks No, he's the best at what he does, bub.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Bryan Singer is a loving hack piece of poo poo. No he isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Wendell posted:No he isn't. I agree. He's not a hack, however, he doesn't treat the source material with much respect at all. If you look at the referential stuff he did with the first film, you can tell his idea of a wink and nod to the audience has more to do with substance than style. I strongly dislike the Nolan Batfilms, the Raimi Spider-Mans and Zack Snyder's take on Superman, but each and every one of them treated the source material with more respect than Singer could ever muster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Plus Gary Oldman has been exclusively terrible lately so that's a bad suggestion. What the gently caress are you talking about? That's a really nice prop. The design doesn't have much impact - it looks like how I'd imagine the brittle, exposed interior of a Sentinel with all those visible hydraulics and cables and lovely plastic panels. When it comes to giant terrorbots that are built to hunt down and exterminate every possible type of mutant, including ones that control the weather and shoot lasers out of their eyes, I prefer a sturdier look. The stubby minigun arm is a dull cliche. LtKenFrankenstein posted:All y'all naysayers should be glad we didn't end up with this tub of crap from early designs for X-Men 3. That's an unused concept from X2. It's not a Kirby Sentinel (the best kind) but I actually dig it, at least in maquette form. That's a classic, sturdy robot's silhouette. I like those long, heavy arms and the 'ribcage' of concentric circles. You can imagine it busting through a brick wall and lumbering towards an exhausted mutant. It actually reminds me of, I think, some robots from Batman: The Animated Series. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Anything from a comic book that would get excised from a movie because it's just too silly, I like. I'm with you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
I don't get why they just didn't make this a direct sequel to X3. Why bring in the cast from First Class at all? There's simply way too many loving people cast in this film. Now time travel is going to be involved? The whole plot of the sentinels could have easily been doable without any of this time travel horseshit. It seems like the reason Bryan Singer even decided to do another X-men movie is because of the obviously critical disaster of X3, as in he doesn't want the plot ending of the original films to be remembered like that. Devour fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
The 4 main cast members of First Class (McAvoy, Fassbender, Lawrence, and Hoult) is pretty good and we actually want to see them again. If there are any issues at all, it's trying to tie in that movie to the original X-trilogy and apparently making Wolverine the center of the plot again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Devour posted:I don't get why they just didn't make this a direct sequel to X3. Why bring in the cast from First Class at all? There's simply way too many loving people cast in this film. Now time travel is going to be involved? The whole plot of the sentinels could have easily been doable without any of this time travel horseshit. Time travel is kind of an integral part of the classic storyline Days of Future Past. This movie is an adaptation of that storyline. The movie was never going to not involve time travel. Also is it really so hard to imagine how the Sentinels, which have never existed in an X-Men film before, would be introduced in a movie about a dystopian alternate future where mutants are rounded up and put into camps? Movie might still be terrible, but it's not going to be because they're combining Sentinels and time travel. Those two elements aren't like X3's Phoenix saga + mutant cure storyline, they actually fit together pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Devour posted:I don't get why they just didn't make this a direct sequel to X3. Why bring in the cast from First Class at all? There's simply way too many loving people cast in this film. Now time travel is going to be involved? The whole plot of the sentinels could have easily been doable without any of this time travel horseshit. It's going to be ok, Devour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Someone has to send Devour's consciousness back in time so he can stop this horrible future from coming to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
It's really amazing how Devour consistently has the worst opinion. I almost think he might be trolling at this point. Them trying to combine the franchises is a great idea. I don't understand how anyone can think that it's a better idea to just ignore possibly the best movie in the franchise, First Class, and instead focus a sequel on the worst movie in the Franchise, X3. It doesn't make any sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Wait is that the "some midget" guy? gently caress me why did I actually write a real reply to that dude. Sorry everyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Wolverine is in X-Force at some point, right? I wonder if he will be made the leader of the movie X-Force instead of Cable, thus making it another Wolverine-focused X-film. That said, looking at how things are, maybe they'll just go the Ultimate route and make Hugh Jackman both Cable and Wolverine. Wait, what? I need to catch up on things. What run is this where Wolverine is also Cable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Ultimate X-Men.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Ultimate X-Men. Whereabouts in the run? I think the last arc in U-X was where Prof X's son hijacked Psylock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Pretty early on, issue 75 looks like. It sounds really stupid so immediately I assumed Robert Kirkman wrote it and my theory was borne out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
ElmerTheWasabi posted:It's really amazing how Devour consistently has the worst opinion. I almost think he might be trolling at this point. Devour posted:I really don't wanna see a chunky Mystique on film again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Threep posted:This is what the post said before he edited it:  Yeah, you know, chunky. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:
I think he was referring to Jennifer Lawrence, which is still a wrong opinion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:I think he was referring to Jennifer Lawrence, which is still a wrong opinion. I didn't even know the actresses' were different, shows what I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
WickedHate posted:I didn't even know the actresses' were different, shows what I know. Shapeshifters, pfft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2013 00:45
|
|
