X-Men: Apocalypse

We'll have a much better idea about how it all works out after Days of Future Past....Bryan Singer directing on it's own means little...He's a good director, and has worked well with X-Men all the way through....Him being directly attached is a good thing...

Wolverine? Well, it sounds like they're pushing the younger team instead of the guys they become...I rather liked First Class...The idea and the actors worked exceptionally, and while it's not so "paid" as the rest, I loved it just as much as the others...I see nothing wrong with that idea..
I also don't think there's such a thing as "Wolverine overkill"....But then, I'm biased...I think the character always was a badass, and I've loved the ideas all the way through...(They're part of what brought me to Japan to learn martial arts actually...Heavily part of the reason..)

I'm more than hopeful for Apocalypse as well, but we'll have a much better idea after Days of Future Past, so I'll reserve judgement until I've seen that....

Regards..
 
joshvanrad said:
Bryan Singer is making it? Well, I'm ready for another gigantic disappointment...
Click to expand...

I'm guessing either you didn't like the first two X-Men movies or you still hold a grudge against him for Superman Returns (or that giant slayer movie, but did anybody think that was going to be good in the first place?). If it's the latter, all I can think of to say to that is, wow, just wow.

As for Apocalypse, I was hoping for one more original cast (only) movie before retiring those actors from the franchise, but I'm guessing that DOFP will be their last, but i do hope this will be good.
 
drcraig13 said:
My only reservation is that I don't want to see a totally CGI movie. I agree with the guy in a suit if they could do it correctly. IMHO that is why Loki has become so popular is because he is done so well and not some CGI no personality sloth.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true, I believe that Loki could have worked just as well had they used a CG character voiced by Tom Hiddleston and written the same way that he portrayed the characters in the two Thor movies and The Avengers. However, it's obvious that they didn't use a CG Loki because there's nothing about the character that required him being CG except for maybe a few stunt scenes. On the other hand, a character like Apocalypse would almost have to be done using CG or at least some CG trickery if they wanted him to look like anything more than a big guy in a suit with platform boots on. It's all a matter of getting the right studio to the CG work, a studio that not only is good at modeling but also good at rendering and compositing because the best 3D model will look fake if it isn't rendered/and comped well. That's why a lot of CG looks fake, because of either the rendering or the compositing or a combination of both, not all that different from practical effects, you can build the most beautiful model but do a bad job of lighting it and compositing it and it too will look just as bad as bad CG.
 
I'm not trolling. I just really don't like the movie franchise when compared with the comic or the old cartoon. Apocalypse is one of my all time favorite villains so they better not butcher him like they've done with a bunch of the other characters.
 
Riceball said:
On the other hand, a character like Apocalypse would almost have to be done using CG or at least some CG trickery if they wanted him to look like anything more than a big guy in a suit with platform boots on.
Click to expand...

gene3.jpg
 
Riceball, While I totally agree with what your saying that the correct studio and better talent can make a big difference I still prefer live action when it is viable. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. How about I end my opinion on this. I think the casting of Loki was the real home run. If they hadn't nailed it so much would we like/care about the villain as much as we do? If you can capture the kind of magic he brings to the role of Loki then again IMO GC will never be better than that. Of course nailing they perfect actor is easier said then done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
drcraig13 said:
@Riceball, While I totally agree with what your saying that the correct studio and better talent can make a big difference I still prefer live action when it is viable. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. How about I end my opinion on this. I think the casting of Loki was the real home run. If they hadn't nailed it so much would we like/care about the villain as much as we do? If you can capture the kind of magic he brings to the role of Loki then again IMO GC will never be better than that. Of course nailing they perfect actor is easier said then done.
Click to expand...

To clarify my position, I don't feel that either medium (live action or CG) is necessarily superior to the other and I really don't have a preference, I'm more about the right tool for the job; CG where practical is impractical and practical where CG doesn't work/look as good. Take Gollum from the LotR movies, do you think that they could have done him any better had they got some impossibly skinny actor running around half naked on the set? To me Gollum is the perfect example of CG done well and where it's done better than could possibly be done practically.

As far as Apocalypse goes, there's another way that I thought of that he could be done and that would be using a combination of CG and live action. You create a practical costume and makeup for a large actor but no platform boots or any other gimmick to try to make him obscenely tall. Then instead of shooting him at the same time as the other actors you would his scenes on a green screen set and composite him but scaled up to make him much larger. This way he's still proportional but looks much bigger than any real human could hope to be. Alternately, you could always go the Weta route and use a combination of forced perspective, small actors, and CG enhancements to have an Apocalypse on set at the same time as the other cast but on film will appear to be several feet taller.

With the above mentioned methods you can have a larger than life character that's not necessarily 100% CG. I see it as sort of a best of both world approaches, it uses what's best about each method, utilizing each method's strengths while avoiding any of the pitfalls you'd get by using either exclusively. Of course this is all dependent on getting the right effects house to do the work and, in my opinion, the best out there right now is Weta and that's who I'd want to be the lead studio to do the effects work on a project like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That Stephen Lang dude would be a cool Cable. Tatum can do flips and crap, so his agility will help his character, I'm just hoping he nails the attitude. Can't really see him as an antihero type just yet.
 
The Mad Professor said:
Honestly, I'm glad his contract is almost up.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's wonderful as Wolverine. Jackman really did a fantastic job. However, the studios have been shoving Wolverine down our collective throats for the past 13 years, and there's a little thing called oversaturation.
Click to expand...
I concur. I didn't care for Wolverine prior to the movies, so I give Hugh Jackman big props for his potrayal of Wolverine. I actually liked him by the end of X3. But the way the X-men franchise appears to be revolving around him, it's pushing me back in the other direction. It's annoying and like you said, approaching over-saturation. I'd like to see very little or none of him in the next movie or two.
 
I understand that I'm probably in the minority, but Wolverine was always one of my least favorite characters. I've never understood the mass appeal for Wolverine.
 
I really hope they don't end up using the Age of Apocalypse future and sending (yet another) mutant back to save the future, I can't deal with back to back time travel movies. Not even sure why they'd have members of the original cast involved, just move forward with McAvoy and Fassbender, and stop sticking Wolverine in every movie!

PS: Don't screw up Apocalypse.
 
None of these movies were completely centered around Wolverine, it's just a majority of fanboys have their heads too far up their yahoos to notice. X1 was centered around Rogue, X2 was centered around...Ok, Wolverine....X3 was centered around..Ratner...and DOFP and FC were centered around Xavier and Mags . Hell, he didn't get much screen time in those movies. Y'all are just seeing it that way because he's Huge Jackman and he stands out. He just got the stand alones because Wolverine is the most popular X-Men...Otherwise, you'd see one of Cyclops...Remember that this franchise was made before comicbook movies were even taken seriously so just think of it as a prototype until the reboot.
 
Not completely centered on Wolverine but the character gets A LOT of screentime, in the original trilogy and in DOFP. Some of us feel unnecessarily so, maybe because we'd like the focus to shift to other characters just as deserving of attention, that's just our opinion. I love Jackman and all, but for me the character's worn out his welcome, bone claws or adamantium, doesn't matter either way.

Plus, your username and avatar are both Wolverine-related, c'mon bub...
 
Btw, considering Fox's penchant for sticking to a formula and not pushing the creative envelope unless desperate, combined with DOFP's opening weekend success, we can pretty much expect these to pop up in X-Men Apocalypse :lol

1) Wolverine, butt nekkid
2) Themes of humans vs mutants and evolution
3) Time traveling
4) Appearances from the original trilogy cast
5) Xavier, Magneto, and Mystique all having deep conversations
6) Magneto lifting something really big and heavy
 
anyone think theres a chance we'll see gambit as the Death horseman with Apocalypse? We know Gambit will be in the movie and in the comics Gambit did become the Death horseman. would make for an interesting way to bring him (back) to the movies.
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Moviefreak
X-Men 97 trailer
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2,024
Kylash
Kylash
Gimpdiggity
Fast X
Replies
11
Views
753
Ron
Ron
Ron
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire
2
Replies
20
Views
2,090
CessnaDriver
CessnaDriver
asalaw
X: Ti West Has Come a Long Way Since The Inkeepers
Replies
0
Views
358
asalaw
asalaw
Sluis Van Shipyards
U.S. tv show that did a men vs. women competition (not Mythbusters)
Replies
10
Views
1,100
Sluis Van Shipyards
Sluis Van Shipyards
Back
Top