Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sat Jul 13 23:45:36 2024

Utopia Talk / Movie Talk / X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri May 27 04:58:59
...
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri May 27 04:59:04
I liked it! :D

(( assume SPOILERS ))

It had some intense, emotionally-backed sequences and a very dark beginning (particularly Apocalypse's introductory ultraviolence, which was mirrored by Magneto's own intro). That kind of portrayal *really* had me wishing that this could go all the way into R-rated territory, but they had to restrain themselves to keep the PG-13 marketability (even using their obligatory, single use of the word "fuck"). In a lot of scenes (particularly at the end), the effects had that unreal, polished look which showed that it was just a big green screen shot (they needed more textures in the mid-ground), but the effects worked where they needed to work.

It's being panned for "not taking off" (or so says the clickbait that pops up when you Google the movie at the moment: http://mon.../media/xmen-apocalypse-review/ ), but I think the reason behind that perspective actually *adds* to the movie's charm. To explain, basically the movie makes Apocalypse's efforts into an avalanche with very few minor battles; it's mostly a buildup to his almost Ozymandias (Watchmen) "master stroke". So the problem that peeps like the clickbait author will have with that is that it does not follow the predictable five-act structure, instead keeping Apocalypse in power until the inevitable final battle (and this battle arrives almost unexpectedly; he seems unstoppable, and then suddenly the X-Men arrive in a newly acquired jet and simply by virtue of it being 2 hours into the movie it makes sense that this will be the final battle). That could sound negative, but the reason I liked this was that Apocalypse got to be in control for much longer, which really drives the point that he was asserting his powers over a new time and had become largely unstoppable. It also breaks that boring, writerly mold of following Aristotle's Poetics as though that's a good idea (it's not) — the movie was almost a dose of the postmodern in the mainstream.

Apocalypse was also very likeable to me! That clickbait article considered him some depth-less villain (like an excuse for random carnage), but I think this again misses details. Apocalypse's megalomania acts as a part of his near-limitless power and his ancient age — details well-conveyed by Oscar Isaac's performance and the god worship culture of Apocalypse's origin (I hope that this author was aware of the extra scene at the end of "Days of Future Past"). And given the backdrop that the movie supplied, Apocalypse was contending with the idea that he might just be "another false god" — itself a problematic assertion because Apocalypse *does* have a god's power. Not even the Christian and Islamic gods have ever exerted that kind of power (must be terrible for believers that their myths have no manifestation), so it seems natural that he would attempt to refit the world in his grandiose image. I think about this with "Q" from Star Trek; a god's power, but an actual will to use it, whereas any all-encompassing deity would be as inert as an empty soda can — and just as practical a device to direct prayer. Meanwhile Apocalypse directly grants the power wishes of his subordinates and in Milton's Satan style intends to grant these powerful their chance to exert their wills freely upon the world. Even his eugenics seems benevolent, as he intends to leave anyone not strong enough underneath the rubble of the fallen world. The story really was about *him*, with his fall and betrayal having their own kind of tragedy written into it (I *so* hope that this was groundwork for his return in the time of the modern X-Men, and given the setup for Mister Sinister, it seems possible). Even so, while I liked Apocalypse he was likely not *meant* to be liked, especially given that the movie was sure to thank "God" a number of times and featured the "good" characters in theistic prayer/respect (a given for Nightcrawler but not limited to him)

Another bad complaint by that clickbait author was that the movie had too many "callbacks to earlier movies". This is a stupid complaint. I didn't like "Civil War" but I would *not* say it was bad simply because it referenced the movies within its own timeline. It should not be too much to ask audiences to be aware of the *established* cinematic canon. It might be annoying if people had to watch a bad show like "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D" or read some obscure comic in order to follow a dramatic process, but a simple reference to Moira or Raven's history should not be beyond the viewer..

I also happily disagree with it being bad that Jennifer Lawrence and Olivia Munn were underutilized. I think Jennifer Lawrence cannot act on the level of the credit that she has been given, and in particular example her final speech in this movie was almost cringeworthy (I found myself wishing for a 30 or 40-something Mystique; it's difficult to believe in the rallying cries of the limited worldview of Lawrence). And Psylocke (Munn) was happily minimized, though her facial expressions and posture were often transparent. I almost wonder if she originally had more lines but then Bryan Singer or the editor realized, "wait. She's terrible. We can't give her screen time," and then they cut her scenes. Or maybe they just saw through her fandom and didn't even bother wasting the filming time.

On the other side (people who can act), Sansa Stark did really well, probably because she could draw on so much familial trauma. It was especially impressive that she could hold depth in the Wolverine scene (lots of history to consider for that scene). And while Michael Fassbender was surprisingly effective at communicating the tragedy of his family's death so early in the movie (typically if someone's family were introduced and five minutes later killed, it would be difficult for viewers to care at all), in any cognitive sense it may be difficult to prop up this kind of character work in the future. This already makes the third time that Magneto has dealt with his hate for humanity and his conflicting love of a mutant family, so the trope may risk becoming comically ineffective. This does seem to be the end, however.. because if he was willing to give up a power absolute enough for the world to really and totally be rid of humans, it would be absurd for him to have the same dilemma again. It would of course be fine for him to be violent towards specific humans, but any broad genocide would have to be heavily critiqued.

Anyways! I wouldn't go crazy and say it's the best thing ever, but for me it was a solid summer blockbuster with some dark appeal. I'm not sure how this movie would work for people who don't like the character of Apocalypse, but if you like targeted eugenics, Milton's Satan, and an extreme example of the will to power, then this is definitely worth seeing in theater (whereas Civil War I would have been fine seeing via RedBox/Netflix).
Cherub Cow
Member
Fri May 27 05:04:15
*"This already makes the third time that [the Fassbender] Magneto has dealt with his hate for humanity and his conflicting love of a mutant family"
Palem
Person.
Sun May 29 14:23:24
I like that you landed on using Sansa Stark and not Sophie Turner lol

**Spoilers in the whole post**

I just want to preface this by saying I'm really not a big comic book movie fan and I'm generally not amused by the massive saturation of Marvel Universe movies. I also don't have the whole X-men series under my belt. And before you ask why I even bothered to watch it, it's because of three major factors.

1. I hadn't been out of my house in a long time so I absolutely need to go blow a day somewhere.

2. I like watching movies and this looked like it would be pretty good, despite my general preference against the genre. I also thought the cast looked fairly strong.

3. I was already in the theater after watching The Nice Guys, and it was coming on after (and nothing else was really starting soon), so I was pretty much obligated to watch it.

So fuck off.



All that being said, I was really pretty disappointed with the movie. That's not to say it was horrible or anything but it just felt like it should have been so much better than it actually was. Here's some of my thoughts/questions:

-The story was hit or miss with me. Mageneto's story just seems like a worn-out trope that they're forced into using. Actually a lot of the story lines seem to be getting recycled (I think Jean's was almost the exact same one from either the 1st or 2nd X-men movie). Other than saving Nightcrawler, Mystique didn't do a god damn thing in the entire fucking movie and yet she was basically the central character. That's annoying to me. A lot of the plot just seemed really predictable. I get that the movie is supposed to be more targeted towards a younger audience, but still. I liked the darker places that it started to explore, but it got cut off by their PG-13 rating.

-The fighting scenes (this was an action movie right?) just seemed a little lacking for me. No "woah!" moments or cool uses of powers or anything. Marvel Flash (or whatever his name was supposed to be, I don't actually don't think they said it once) uses his moment to move fast and punch Apocalypse a few times...wow, inspired stuff lol

-I actually liked Apocalypse as a villain. I'm really not sure what people are complaining about. My one real issue is that I don't really understand what his power was. I THINK his power (or his original power) was that he could transfer his consciousness into other bodies and assume their powers along with the powers he was bringing along, but in the x-men universe that doesn't make sense. The powers are a result of genetic mutations, which means your DNA dictates what powers (if any) you have. So if you're just transferring your consciousness, that shouldn't change anyone's DNA to give you your old powers. Idk, the whole thing just didn't make a lot of sense.

-It was pretty clear that Psylocke (Olivia Munn) was going to either be featured or at least make another appearance in the next movie, so that explains why she wasn't more prominently featured in this one. Not sure why you're knocking her acting, I thought she was pretty great in The Newsroom, but maybe it's just my old Attack of the Show fanboy coming out lol. There's not a lot of content to defend/attack in this one since she delivered like.....3 lines of dialog lol



Overall rating: meh
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon May 30 02:21:43
Yeah I hate Munn for her Attack of the Show fanboy popularity .. I'll honestly admit to being super critical of her just for that :p .. probably unfair, but I'm petty :D

..
"Other than saving Nightcrawler, Mystique didn't do a god damn thing in the entire fucking movie and yet she was basically the central character"

+1. It's a bit weird to me that they're making her out to be some kind of revolutionary inspiration (residue from Lawrence's Hunger Games role?). I mean I get the idea of her standing up for mutants publicly against Magneto in DoFP, but I'm hoping that they've artificially inflated her only so that she can re-become a cynical Mystique in future movies... plus, I was a bit disappointed that Nightcrawler wasn't revealed to be her son.. *she* didn't even seem to know, which makes me wonder if they'll be using time travel to make it work.. though maybe they'll just avoid the issue altogether.

..
"Mageneto's story just seems like a worn-out trope that they're forced into using. Actually a lot of the story lines seem to be getting recycled (I think Jean's was almost the exact same one from either the 1st or 2nd X-men movie)"

True :/ .. now I'm kind of thinking that maybe they've figured out that the key to franchise longevity is to remake identical stories while pretending it's because it's in the same comic universe ;D
Damian DB
Moderator
Mon May 30 13:55:16
I would say, I absolutely loved the xavier/magneto conversation at the end, matching word for word the same conversation from the first x-men movie.

aside from that, I'm very tired of comic movies killing the villians off, and I hope apocalypse some how survived thanks to his body jumping abilities.
Cherub Cow
Member
Mon May 30 22:44:11
"I hope apocalypse some how survived thanks to his body jumping abilities."

Me too! I'm hoping he starts manipulating timelines and stuff
The Children
Member
Tue Jul 26 06:29:02
dayum...what a shit movie.

im glad i didnt paid 4 da ticket. dayum wuldve been serious bummer if i had. lol

i cant believe how they fcked up such a badass villain like apocalypse. he looked like shit in this movie.

most of da characters were boring as shit. and they slaughtered whole characters.

dayum i wuld definitely not give this more than a 5.5/10

such a shame 2.
The Children
Member
Tue Jul 26 08:32:55
dayum apocalypse was one piece of weakass shit in da movie.

it kinda sucks how they bank everything on jean grey all da time. can she fkin die now or what. ive had it with her. every fkin xmen movie is about the dark phoenix.

ohhhh apocalypse so stronk, but oh here comes jean grey saves the day. fck that bullshit. horse fkin shit. wtf gives. and she isnt even grow up in the movie. more like early 20s/ teens and still singlehandedly beat apocalyse. fck that shit.

and seein da cast...nightcrawler, young cyclops, jean...kinda points 2 them going with xmen cartoon series from 2000. and herein lies the problem...those r some bullshit cartoon series. who the fck even watched that?

everyone wanted the 90s xmen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IzSGvXc_PM

xmen is fcked. apocalypse is a big fkin pussy. can instantly incincerate everyone. but then gets beat by a young jean grey. wow, am i rlly the only one that fkin hates this plot.

why is fkin apocalypse made 2 strong 2 be begin with. this is da classical "lets make da villain super duper powerfull" and then later "let him get killed off super duper easy" bullshittery.

why culdnt it have da apocalypse from da 90s feel. just crazy ass ugly bad guy but with scary powers. like he culd go big whenever he wants. his arms turn in2 some sort of invincible shield or a giant sledgehammer. just a bigass crazy guy.

not some pussy that gets hit around by a skinny motherfkin quicksilver like a human ragdoll. wtf that scene was the stupidest bullshit ive ever seen.
Cherub Cow
Member
Tue Jul 26 16:05:23
"why culdnt it have da apocalypse from da 90s feel."

I'm actually wondering if that's exactly what they've done. Like I don't think this was the end of Apocalypse [or am I just hoping?]; to quote a wonderful albeit increasingly cynical person, "I *so* hope that this was groundwork for his return in the time of the modern X-Men, and given the setup for Mister Sinister, it seems possible" ;D ... That to say it seems like they've set up the story for Apocalypse to start manipulating time and maybe even start kidnapping all the psychics to manipulate the "Axis of Time". The way he looked at Jean/Phoenix sort of says that; to me he wasn't necessarily afraid of her so much as he was sizing up her abilities for a future plan.

I never watched X-Men Evolution though, so if the story was modeled after that then I just don't know.. Already I was hoping that the "Days of Future Past" movie's time travel manipulation would remain a theme going into this movie, but they seem to have delayed using it again or just removed it altogether as a device. Their obvious (and good!) writing choice would have been to have Apocalypse awakened not by casual archaeology but by his becoming aware of a new generation of mutants coming into power during this timeline. There's still room for that.. but no telling if they'll have a combined cast movie where young X-Men (Sophie Turner +) and modern X-Men (Famke Janssen +) both battle Apocalypse in some kind of time paradox. On the production side that might just be too expensive — the young cast is cheaper and easier to market, even if Turner might be expensive now that she's up for the Iron Throne.

blerg
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 00:41:02
like did u see how he created magnetos helmet with sand. he grabbed some sand and formed it in2 a helmet!

last time i rolled sand 2gether i made a sandball!

he culd incinerate peoplez with just 1 thought. why didnt he just incinerate some xmen. he got ragdolled by a skinny motherfker called quicksilver.

wtf is da directors obsession with quicksilver. is he a mutant with superfast movement or is he a god. the way he saved all those peoplez durin that explosion. wtf. is he a god or is he a man.
like he culd throw peoplez weighin 100 to 200 pounds in2 da air, carry them with superfast speedz, he culd walk on flyin debris and even on water! only thing da director hasnt made him do (yet) is turnin water in2 whine!

just crazy how they overblow that piece of shit. why cant say cyclops throw peoplez 40 feet in2 the air but that skinny motherfker can?

weapon x jumps and slashes but u dunt see him throw them 40 feet in2 the air, u just see him throw them maybe several feet away, but he a big strong guy anyway. quicksilver is just blown way out of proportion. he runs around in da explosion and what lasts like 2 seconds, last 5 min 4 him. wtf. he carries everyone like he is superfast and superstrong now?



hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 10:16:11
"wtf is da directors obsession with quicksilver. is he a mutant with superfast movement or is he a god. the way he saved all those peoplez durin that explosion."

Simple physics. Force is mass x acceleration. Acceleration is based on time. If you reduce the amount of time an interaction has, the amount of force created is increased. Quicksilver's is able to launch people into the air like that because the time it takes him to act upon them is practically instant. This makes the force exerted on the body of the person much larger. So it isn't that quicksilver is super strong, it's that the time of his acts are so small that it magnifies his normal strength.

As for carrying people, surely you can lift someone into the air and carry them, even if they're heavy. That is all he is doing.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 10:59:50
he is superfast, not superstrong!
apocalypse is alien metal. the moment that skinny weakass quicksilver punched apocalypse, his fkin hand and his arm wuldve broken in2 20 pieces!

do u even comics, kid.

apocalypse is supposed be hulk/ juggernaut/ thanos level.

Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 12:51:22
"he is superfast, not superstrong!"

Good to see that you didn't understand a word I said.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jul 27 14:09:14
lulz
McKobb
Member
Wed Jul 27 14:36:30
Anyone read the dp7 comics from marvel? Basically they tried to make more realistic physics. When snatching a cops gun he ripped the cops finger off.
McKobb
Member
Wed Jul 27 14:40:55
*the Blur
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 14:56:30
does ur noobass even need respondin 2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ZIgXmgBEA

he even beat the hulk alrdy once.
who da fck is quicksilver compared 2 da hulk or superman or darkseid.

quicksilver shuldve died here just like in avengers 2. matchin quicksilver against apocalypse is a frikkin joke. his first punch against apocalypse wuld be like hittin a mountain of metal. all his fkin bones shuldve shatter while apocalypse shuld maybe take a few steps back only.

fck quicksilver. just kill him with a bullet like in avnegers. fck quicksilver fanboys.



Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 14:58:29
You realize that Apocalypse doesn't have metal skin, right?
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:03:03
this movie sucks. apocalypse was badly portrayed and destroyed by movie destroyer singer.

quicksilver is op in his movies when in fact he is a lowbie mutant.

apocalypse was massacred by this dude who has no idea what his characters are and there abilities.

u dunt fck up a villain like apocalypse. that be like fckin up darth vader which rlly did happen i know. but da unthinkable has happened in this movie.

apocalypse has been fcked up. how is this possible. movie destroyer singer and his team is how it happened.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:04:53
"You realize that Apocalypse doesn't have metal skin, right?"

>> u comics at all?

yea he does. alien metal. he can control his own molecules and shit transformin it at his own will. he can he stronger than da hardest metals, or he can change 2 be lighter than da lightest fibers so he can float and fly. he can change his size 2 gigantic enormous, morph his arms in2 weapons like a terminator at will.

The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:12:32
a proper portrayal means the man is nearly invincible. not this piece of shit version that is almost comical and hardly menacin. fck this weaklin apocalypse. fck quicksilver. fck the phoenix. everything is the fckin phoniex saves the day bullshit. is she even 18. fck xavier.

"Apocalypse is an ancient mutant born with a variety of superhuman abilities who further augmented himself after merging with Celestial technology. He is an immortal being,[75] with total control over the molecules of his body, enabling him to alter his form as it suits him,[76] such as allowing his body to become extremely malleable and flexible or change his size, enhance his physical abilities, transform his limbs into weapons, wings, or jets, regenerate from fatal injuries, adapt his body to apparently any disease or hostile environment, as well as give himself virtually any superhuman power.[77] He is also able to project and absorb energy, Apocalypse is also capable of technopathy, able to directly interface with the various technologies he has at his disposal. Thanks to the aid of his mutant abilities, special "regeneration" chambers,[78] and changing bodies, Apocalypse has further enhanced his abilities.[79]

So what… this guy's kind of like Mr. Fantastic on steroids? Yeah, his powers have always been sort of nebulous, but as long as he's cutting through X-Men teams like Kirstie Alley through Sizzler, I don't think the fans care.
Frank Tieri, Interview about X-Men: Apocalypse vs Dracula[80]

Aside from his superhuman powers, Apocalypse is extraordinarily intelligent,[81] a scientific genius with knowledge in various areas of science and technology including physics, engineering, genetics and biology, all of which are more advanced than conventional science.[82] Apocalypse has knowledge of Celestial technology that he uses for his own applications, such as altering mutants or humans. Apocalypse is also a skilled demagogue and a master strategist.[83]

Apocalypse's blood can heal other mutants, but is fatal for humans. Apocalypse's blood can also restore his de-powered mutant descendants as is seen when a large dose of Apocalypse's blood regenerates the lost body part of Chamber and gave him a look similar to Apocalypse.[84]"
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:15:21
"youhartley1 month ago
Granted we are talking about superpowers here, but speedsters have never made any sense. Unless you are durable enough to take the punishment, your legs would snap as soon as you took 2 steps, and punching anything at that speed would shatter your arm. Unless he is super durable, he'd be dead. Unless he's super strong, he cant carry people at that speed or punch people across the room. If youre that durable, you'd be bullet proof, and if you are that strong, youd be bench pressing buildings. They always try to cover this up in the comics with some weird explanation about the ability to ignore friction, but it never addresses IMPACT. Superman makes more sense because his body can handle it.

Even if you say they pull their punches so they dont break their hand, what about their running fast? you cant tell me they dont break their hands while fighting, then they shoot down the pavement at a billion miles an hour and their legs are fine. Speedsters are always made to be humorous in order to distract you from all that lol.

Plus here, he's super crazy fast, his leg is just stuck, it doesnt mean he cant move and dodge fast. He's like oh no my foots stuck, i guess i punch like a regular person now and Apocalypse kicks at his free leg, he could have moved his leg out of the way lol


Superfast reflexes combined with teleporting would at least make more sense with less loopholes as far as durability and strength, and youd still move rediculously fast.
"

>> is called owned.
quicksilver is a weakass noob. him vs apocalypse is nottin but a stupid joke.
Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:23:00
"u comics at all?"

It's almost like this is a movie and not the comics. The movie series necessarily do not follow everything from the comics.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:26:01
"It's almost like this is a movie and not the comics. The movie series necessarily do not follow everything from the comics. "

>> aka tc u owned me like a biatch but now i go in denial mode.

The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:37:26
i see u also entered in2 flee mode.

run then forest run my nigga. run like da wind!

McKobb
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:38:04
It is pretty much have a given any 'supers' universe that you are immune to the mechanics of your powers. Speedsters don't break their hands on a punch, flyers don't succumb to g-force turns, and teleporters don't deal with fluid dynamics. Why do tards always bring this up?
Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:39:12
aka comic books are full of absolute bullshit because people writing them always have to one up the last print to create a spectacle. So you have villains that are basically unkillable, yet somehow are defeated, and superheroes who are just as unkillable, yet are also often defeated. It's all entirely bullshit. Saying your brand of bullshit wasn't what was put forward is the act of a tiny manchild bitching because he didn't get his way.

Whereas in the universe being discussed, Apocalypse was, in fact, defeatable and not quite as overpowered as in the comics. Or perhaps you're going to also whine about how Hulk wasn't one of the horsemen chosen by Apocalypse? How the only horseman chosen in the movie that was even remotely canon was Angel?
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:46:06
go worship a lowbie mutant. u wanna know why. coz ur both weakass betafags. even in ur taste of watchin movies u definitely show beta weakness.

i said it before, its in ur genes. weak genes, imprinted weakness and it shows in ur every day behaviour.

go worship that lowbies shoes. in reality, he wuld even get punked around by storm or any other flyin mutant.

Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:51:36
Sounds like you've run out of shitty arguments. Fair enough, deflect away from the fact that you're incredibly retarded. We get it. You've run away, given up.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 15:53:58
u have been owned like a biatch an hour ago, little boy.

i told yall this little boy wuld go in2 denial mode, didnt i. look at him spin and twist his way around. i told yall didnt i. haha watch him go forest soon.

Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 16:04:25
You're the one denying the basic physics of an incredibly fast punch. You're the one denying the version of Apocalypse presented in the movie.

Go cry more about how wrong you are.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 16:07:19
spin it some more but in da end ur gonna pull a forest gump my nigga. we all know. first coz ur a beta fag, second coz u got owned like a cat gettin squashed by a giant boulder.

this movie sucks. u suck. go worship that loser quicksilvers shoes. those aint jordans though.
Hood
Member
Wed Jul 27 16:13:36
Is this the same person who couldn't handle being told he was a slow worker, complained about it, and got fired? This person is calling anyone else in the entire world a beta? You're about as manly as the vagina monologues.
The Children
Member
Wed Jul 27 16:26:02
owned owned owned beta fag. now run along now little boy. ur hero quicksilver has alrdy ran off. follow ur boy, boy.
Palem
Person.
Wed Jul 27 17:51:32
Alphas don't get into Internet arguments
The Children
Member
Thu Jul 28 01:45:31
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgmOWOD3WzU

pretty sneaky of the movie destroyer. yea nobody liked the last stand.

but xmen apocalypse sucks donkey ass. and so does superman returns.

lmao

so i been watchin these xmen apocalypse rants on youtube. and oh boy do they rant!

this movie sucked so bad, so many things wrong. u wuldnt believe it untill u hear it.

so what happened 2 mystique. remember how in da movie mystique was always human and u only see her make up in like 3-4 times?

well turns out, jennifer lawrence is now such a big hollywood star ,she actually objected doin da make up shit. thats why she is always in human form in da movie. lol! ofc it now makes a joke of da previous xmen movies, yknow being mutant and proud and all that bullshit...she is fkin human.

ofc now that jennifer lawrence did that on da movie, henk mccoy did the same thing. gender equality and all that bullshit. so thats why beast is in human form. supposedly usin a pill 2 "control when he changes". ofc this also kills beast as a character coz u know thats like his thing. being blessed with super strentgh and agility and intelligence and shit but lookin like a total freak. now he looks human 95% of da time in da movie. complete fck up!

its little things like these that destroyed this movie.

so they made weapon x look like da comics completely but apocalypse is not. how stupid is that. like talk about random?

and like mystique turned leader of xmen, how stupid is that. she a villain in da comics but i guess jennifer lawrence objected 2 playin a villain 2.

just crazy stuff. most mutants other than xmen cast had like 2-3 lines of text. quicksilver is so OP when in fact they shulda just done this 2 him. not faster than a bullet after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORCKfVZ6ekw

this movie sucks.
The Children
Member
Thu Jul 28 01:46:14
talk about diva and ego trip lmao

The Children
Member
Fri Jul 29 03:14:14
now this is what we callapocalypse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuVxCwNdWhg

Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jul 05 09:25:41
After re-watching "Days of Future Past" (2014), I just re-watched "Apocalypse" for the first time since it was released in 2016.

I have the same general feelings about it, e.g.,
• was glad that Olivia Munn was minimized, and even in her few scenes, her blank and too self-aware expression was still annoying.
• was still annoyed that they tried to make Mystique into some kind of leader (clearly just a way to compensate Jennifer Lawrence for her growing star power at the time, post-Hunger Games). Jennifer Lawrence really is not a good actress. I think she was okay in Hunger Games, but she really was totally mis-cast as Mystique, and her ending speech was absolutely awful.
• Oscar Isaac definitely did a good job as Apocalypse.
• I still think that Sophia Turner did well as Jean/Phoenix, and I think her scene with Hugh Jackman was one of the single best in the movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDH4g-J370
• still annoyed that they didn't bother revealing that Nightcrawler was Mystique's son.
• still impressed that Michael Fassbender pulled off a familial attachment so quickly in the beginning, but they also definitely over-pushed Magneto's perpetual reversion to a villain role — this very appropriately became the last time they would attempt that.

Things that I keyed into this time:
• I think they should have used LOTR effects to make Apocalypse physically taller rather than simply putting Isaac in a suit. This would have included removing the lifts in his boots, which were bad costuming.
• They should have established Cyclops as a long-time leader instead of making him a new addition. Storm too should have been pre-incorporated.
• The Horseman should have been much more crucial as archetype-representatives of war, famine, pestilence, and death. As is, they were just empowered mutants with no special roles.
• Havok's death was worthless, though it was pretty comparable to the "Beerfest" joke of "Landfill" being replaced by his twin brother.. "Landfill" ;D


Postmodern Issues
I mentioned that "the movie was almost a dose of the postmodern in the mainstream."
How sad that turned out to be, in the worst way.

The particular aspect that I was keying into there was that postmodern drama tends to break up the Aristotelian 3-Act play structure. Instead of building to a climax at the end of Act II and then falling into a conclusion in the final third of the story, postmodern drama will re-locate the climax for shock value or even just to intentionally disappoint people. In the case of Apocalypse, the climax occurs in the last 10 minutes of this nearly two and a half hour long movie.

At the time (2016), I took this as a positive because placing the climax at the very end meant that Apocalypse was totally invincible until he was not. But, knowing what we know now — in particular that the X-Men franchise was abandoned after Dark Phoenix (2019) — we see the cost of this decision: Apocalypse's hinted return was totally shuttered, there was *no* Mr. Sinister, Cable was moved over to Deadpool 2 as a kind of novelty, and so the Apocalypse story lost its chance at closure or development.

That is honestly the direct cost of postmodernism in the mainstream. Because postmodernism rejects traditional structure, it *demands* the never-ending serial format to survive the mainstream. This is part of why the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) became so exhausting so quickly: just a garbage lack of closure and never-ending sequel bait.

I've said it before, but I lost interest in the MCU with *Avengers* — not Infinity War (2018), not Endgame (2019), but *Avengers* (2012). This was mainly because the writers were too cowardly to kill Tony Stark and were clearly avoiding closure to pursue the endless serial format. This is decision-less writing. It took them seven years and *16* movies to make the decision in Endgame (2019) which they should have made in Avengers (2012).

Similarly, "Apocalypse" attempted the same format. They "killed" Apocalypse while *not* killing him (i.e., they hinted at his return), but because they were expecting the endless serial format, this backfired when their story lost funding and was not renewed.

So, Apocalypse hinted at a closure that never occurred, and Avengers delayed closure until closure became worthless. That's the risk of writing for an audience that may not return but which *must* return for the story to function. It is, also, part of another postmodern feature, which is the endless simulation. Stories written in this way — which demand a returning audience for the next update — trap their audiences in worthless minutiae. It is a tree with too many branches which has forgotten that power comes from its roots. But, because postmodernism rejects foundations, it necessarily forgets the nature of roots.

And as for "sad ... in the worst way". We saw how pervasive this format became with the progress of Star Wars VII – IX and so many other murdered franchises. This type of storytelling only works if audiences are given a means to establish where those roots actually exist (i.e., the audience examines postmodern deception *within* the movie), but it fails when cinema itself becomes a practice of *intentionally* deceiving the audience and removing the means of establishing causality.

For instance, "Blade Runner" (1982) was a postmodern movie, but it enclosed the story as a debate between the postmodern and the real. Despite what poor interpretations claimed of the movie, Deckard was not "outed" as a replicant at the end. He was shown to be human but *too* human — not an OverMan such as Batty. The postmodern question was not that there *were* no foundations but that people would be brought to extreme points within simulation wherein they may fail to recognize the foundations of reality. The movie did this internally to be *instructive* of postmodern traps, showing the importance of perception, truth, and humanity.

The MCU, new Star Wars, new Indiana Jones, and cinema that treats postmodernism *as* deception, on the other hand, are not trying to make this lesson but are instead intentionally placing people within useless matrices. There is no *lesson* on virtue in the MCU, for instance — just stories stripped of meaningful humanity. These are stories with no soul.


Anyways, I still like the movie overall and think this characterization of Apocalypse was cool, but I just wish they'd finished the story. I was surprised when "Dark Phoenix" was announced as the last one, particularly because the X-Men franchise had done better work than the Avengers' MCU stories.

And there were obvious fixes to get the entire Apocalypse story in one movie, such as using X-Men TAS as a template and connecting it to the Days of Future Past time-meddling. As is, they burned this movie thinking that they could introduce time issues in an entirely separate movie. It's wild to think how much movies end up being written by producers and actors. With all the logistics that go into making a movie, they end up sabotaging the permanence of their stories with short-term thinking such as, "Jennifer Lawrence wants to be more important."
pillz
Member
Wed Jul 05 18:46:08
It was a bad movie. Very disappointing since DoFP was good.

The entire comicbooks-adapted-to-film thing is terrible, but they do seem to go out of their way to make it worse.
Cherub Cow
Member
Wed Jul 05 21:34:05
"It was a bad movie."

Overall, probably, yeah. :/
Again, I still like it, but knowing that its plot points were abandoned it just becomes another «à la carte» of scenes... like... Apocalypse's scenes were cool, and Jean's scene with Wolverine was nice... and the Phoenix power reveal was cool, and the effects in Quicksilver's scene were entertaining... but does that add up to a cohesive movie? Not really. I can just watch those few key scenes like an ADD person browses YouTube.

A cohesive movie would have better leveraged Apocalypse's deceiving of his horsemen, the capture of mutants such as Gambit, and a major premise would be that the meddling of the timeline in "Days of Future Past" was the direct reason for Apocalypse's return (i.e., he *knowing* that the power now exists to manipulate time to bring about a permanent Apocalypse).

And a big part of my willingness in 2016 to appreciate a late climax was hinged almost entirely on Beast's line, "He's getting away," and Apocalypse's line, "All is revealed." It's a total boss line if you speculate that Apocalypse intentionally drew out his biggest enemies so that he could start the next layer of his plan.. forcing them to reveal their full powers to him and allowing them to claim a false victory (i.e., he escaped his own death).. but without the continuity of an Apocalypse sequel, that becomes FanFiction. Sophia Turner's growing star power meant that Phoenix took over the sequel script and Apocalypse was abandoned.


"The entire comicbooks-adapted-to-film thing is terrible, but they do seem to go out of their way to make it worse."

Definitely. MCU is garbage, and even the early 2000s X-Men trilogy undermined itself. Nolan's Batman also fell apart with "Rises" (which is basically a collection of memes). The "Man of Steel" franchise made some solid attempts, but it also made the error of trying to leave too many plot threads open. There are only a handful of good attempts, such as
• the Tim Burton Batman movies,
• the first two Underworld movies,
• the first two Blade movies,

Others should be taken as one-offs, such as Dredd (2012) or Darkman (1990).

The issue is that what it would take to make a worthwhile franchise is a story that has already been given its end-point. It's the Jackson LOTR formula or the "Breaking Bad" formula: the story is meant to end.


Rant time!

The problem is that studios all want a subscription model so that they can comply with "sustainability" reports in their corporate offices. They get better ratings if they can produce offices with less turnover, but that means that the moveable feast of new productions gets de-prioritized to support unproductive office furniture (parasite employees). This is why everything gets rolled into one story framework like the MCU; one major disaster of a story absorbs all writers into one corporate-compliance report.

Have an idea for a unique story with a new character? They'll probably just revise it into the next chapter in Ant-Man's timeline or some such bullshit. They'll probably even straight plagiarize your story but change enough details that they can just pay one of their existing writers for the screenplay. This means that the only good (blockbuster) movies come from studios and actors that have established themselves apart from the corporate frameworks, like a Keanu Reeves or a Tom Cruise.

But even they still funnel the stories into their own projects, such as Mission Impossible or John Wick. Everyone else is left making short films on YouTube, but budgeting those can be awful. I started a bare-bones budget for a 30-minute film, and it would be $10,000 just to get body doubles into custom Etsy costumes — that's before extras and the time that goes into effects. Something like an unauthorized Batman short film ends up costing $77,000, with all of the hidden costs going to post-production labor that's not seen in the upfront cost ( http://www...atman-dying-is-easy-fan-film#/ )... and people will still call it a B-Movie and point out that you had to hire ComicCon celebrities and e-prostitutes.

But that's where we're at. A lot of people erroneously think that there just aren't any good writers right now, but it's just that those writers are minimized to the B- and C-effort realm or are absorbed into the corporate framework where they have zero impact. You better get a good group of friends who all want to do the same thing and refuse corporate frameworks (E.g., Joel Haver's friends), or prepare to spend years building resources only to accidentally discover that studio contract law comes with "social" requirements (e.g., VLDL making mental health videos).
Cherub Cow
Member
Thu Jul 06 06:12:34
Figured I'd re-watch Dark Phoenix too. I originally reviewed it here in 2019:
http://uto...hread=77450&time=1562875040274

"Fairly entertaining" holds true, but it's not that special. I want to like Sophia Turner in this, but I don't think she's a good Jean in Dark Phoenix. A big part of that is just that writer/director Simon Kinberg had zero vision for anything that significantly differentiated Jean Grey's Phoenix *portrayal* (i.e., separate from plot details) from the one that Famke Janssen did far better more than a decade before. It's the same core split between "you guys are trying to control me!" and "I still like you guys, though."

There do exist differences, but they're small. This Phoenix was much more resentful, which made it difficult to connect with the character's pull back to a "light" side. (I mentioned this in my 2019 review in terms of there not being any chemistry with Scott; there needed to be more chemistry to pull her back.) While she goes out on better terms than Janssen's Phoenix, who had to be killed in the story, I don't think they really resolved a core aspect of Turner's version, which was that she killed her own mother. They focused instead on Xavier's "noble lie" rather than Turner's "[I killed my mom before Xavier did anything]." There wasn't even a productive dialogue in the movie that recognized this, like Xavier explaining that he didn't want a child to believe that she's a monster. The closest there was was the scene between Xavier and Beast, but it was purely about Beast blaming Xavier for Mystique's death, which itself was incredibly stupid. Hilarious, btw, that Jean could go on a power trip that impales Mystique but doesn't think to fix Mystique before flying off. That scene was painfully artificial — even the neighborhood looked fake.

Instead, they just used the story to undermine Xavier. On that front, Dark Phoenix also had some really cringeworthy lines about how it should be "X-Women" and how Xavier is a bad influence on the school at large. There did not seem to be *any* indication that Xavier had negatively influenced others, but audiences are apparently supposed to presume that because he hid the fact that a child killed her own mother and that this child's own father didn't want her.. that Xavier a "bad guy" who should be forced into retirement and whose school should be re-named in Jean's honor. I'm curious how students of the school would feel about the school being named after the murderer of Mystique, who herself is apparently supposed to be a great leader or whatever. Phoenix saved the world from aliens, but the details of that would be a little more difficult to present than, "Mystique is literally buried in the yard because of Jean."

So basically the story was cobbled together with plot details that did not even make sense specifically so that they could undermine Xavier while making a hero out of the resentful Jennifer Lawrence — probably due to subversion and identity politics, if we're honest. The ending scene of a mansion re-named and a main character at a café also seemed like a lazy reenactment of the Dark Knight Rises ending, which itself was Nolan stealing from the "Good Will Hunting" "best part of my day" speech ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv7eeMikM_w ). Writer/director Kinberg probably just Googled "good superhero movie endings" to get that "inspiration".

So, yeah. I think it's pretty clear that "Days of Future Past" (2014) is where this franchise should have stopped. That *includes* Logan (2017), by the way, which was even more subversive agitprop. It sickens me how many viewers accepted Logan's death as just a good sendoff for Hugh Jackman. The only appropriate way to end the Wolverine character is to have him floating in space as the Earth is destroyed by the sun, wondering how many trillions of years he'll have to wait before he ends up on a habitable planet.
pillz
Member
Mon Jul 24 16:54:13
"So, yeah. I think it's pretty clear that "Days of Future Past" (2014) is where this franchise should have stopped. That *includes* Logan (2017), by the way, which was even more subversive agitprop. It sickens me how many viewers accepted Logan's death as just a good sendoff for Hugh Jackman. The only appropriate way to end the Wolverine character is to have him floating in space as the Earth is destroyed by the sun, wondering how many trillions of years he'll have to wait before he ends up on a habitable planet."

+1
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share