X-men Age of Apocalypse

[Lakov_Sanite]

Are you saying it flew over my head? Impossible, I am too quick, I would catch it.

[Samwise]

I ruse.

[Tannhauser]

Looks decent.  Sort of on the fence, but Brian Singer does mostly good work so there's that.

[Ironwood]

Also, teenage boys.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Also, teenage boys.

Are we talking about the movie audience or Singer?

[sickrubik]

 

[Lantyssa]

Someone photoshop a black and white Drax sitting in front of the microphone for Lakov.

[Evildrider]

How soon you forget that Singer gave us Superman Returns!

[Ironwood]

Also, teenage boys.

Are we talking about the movie audience or Singer?

thatsthejoke.jpg

[Evildrider]

Lol.. this is getting shit on in reviews.  Like worse than X-Men Last Stand reviews.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Lol.. this is getting shit on in reviews.  Like worse than X-Men Last Stand reviews.

Good.  Those who do not learn from last stand are doomed to repeat it. something, something mutants, magneto, nazi parallels, etc.

[Velorath]

The trailers don't give any indication that there is any plot other than the X-men fighting Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

[Lakov_Sanite]

The trailers don't give any indication that there is any plot other than the X-men fighting Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

And Jennifer Lawrence cashing a fat paycheck in another action movie franchise she is long bored of.

[Evildrider]

JLaw wants to come back for more X-Men films.  She changed her mind about dropping out.  I think she likes the security of having a franchise filling her bank account.  I don't blame her really. 

[Merusk]

Well that and they agreed she didn't have to wear the blue makeup 90% of the time. Mystique runs around looking pink in just about every scene we've seen so far. You know, totally counter to the whole journey of Mystique going from being ashamed to being proud of who and what she is.

The trailers don't give any indication that there is any plot other than the X-men fighting Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

Does including Apocalypse even HAVE a plot beyond that? I mean, that's his shtick, right? He's evil and just wrecks places throughout history. The Snidley Whiplash of mutantkind. I've always found him more one dimensional than Thanos but I never knew more about him than the 90's X-men cartoon.

[Khaldun]

Apocalypse is not only an absolutely dull turd of a villain in the comics, he was introduced in one of the most muddled periods of X-Men continuity, and that's saying something. The only time he's been even remotely interesting has been when he's been dead and they're looking into some of the consequences of his refitting of other mutants.

[HaemishM]

Apocalypse's dullness and stupidity is only eclipsed by Mr. Sinister and Stryfe in terms of sheer stupidity. Stryfe is the worst - a literal clone of an already cloned baby that was sent into the future to save its life than sent back to the past to save the future.

God, the more I even say it, the more I cringe. X-Men really jumped the shark about the time X-Factor started, came back a bit when Grant Morrison was writing it, then promptly shit itself again until Matt Fraction came along. Halfway through his run, it shit itself again and began to eat its own arm.

[Khaldun]

The only way to do good X-Men is really to strip the concept down to the core and keep it clean. First Class did a decent job of that. Why they let Bryan Singer come back to start fucking it up again, I have no idea.  I get the vague impression that Fox really doesn't particularly *want* a superhero franchise. They'll take some money if they have some money to make, but they're not going to focus any effort on it.

The hate this is getting from early reactions is pretty intense. Even the people who kind of like it are saying it's sort of boring.

[Velorath]

The trailers don't give any indication that there is any plot other than the X-men fighting Apocalypse and the Horsemen.

Does including Apocalypse even HAVE a plot beyond that? I mean, that's his shtick, right? He's evil and just wrecks places throughout history. The Snidley Whiplash of mutantkind. I've always found him more one dimensional than Thanos but I never knew more about him than the 90's X-men cartoon.

Age of Apocalypse was a decent storyline, although little of that has to do with Apocalypse himself. It would be hard to do as a movie though because they can barely establish a baseline continuity in the X-men movies which makes it near impossible to do a contrasting alternate reality. Also it's a little close in some ways to Days of Future Past, but with mutants as the oppressors.

Even with Apocalypse being a dud of a villain though they could still make an interesting movie, but the trailers don't even hint at one interesting sub-plot or character arc. There hasn't been one memorable moment or line of dialog in any of the trailers or TV spots for this movie.

[Sir T]

I saw the TV trailer for the first time last night. Looked like dogshit.

As an observation, Marvel seems to make better Heroes, while DC makes better villains. Marvels biggest problem has been they they have tons of heroes so their Villians have to be stupendously powerful. This makes them pretty one dimensional as the focus are always on the heroes, and all the villains are really are the threat that unites the Heroes. DC however seems to have competitively stacks of villains so the Heroes have to be Mary Sue powerful to counter them, and the temptation DC always has to go Grimdark does not help. Hell they are making teams of their villains at this point. And as an example, Batmans adversaries are pretty obviously aspects of Batman himself, so the stories are actually really about the villains as Bruce Wayne has to always be in his batsuit to fight them, so he cant just decide to say "fuck this" and toss a few billion at the cops and the Wayne foundation.

[Evildrider]

I saw an article with some of the Marvel guys talking about their "weak" villains.  They pretty much said that they primarily focus on the heroes and their struggles and the villains are there to provide some conflict and such for the story.  They do agree they can do a little better with the villains but remain steadfast that these movies will always be about the heroes.

[Fordel]

All of Marvel's most interesting villains end up as heroes in the end.

[Velorath]

As an observation, Marvel seems to make better Heroes, while DC makes better villains.

Outside of the Joker and Lex Luthor (even though in multiple attempts they've yet to do Luthor particularly well in the movies), what good villains does DC have?

[Sir T]

Scarecrow, Raz al'Ghul, Freeze in his modern incarnation of a scientist trying to save his wife. Lobo was pretty popular for a while. Hell the Batman Animated series had a whole Gallery of them, and Batman the Brave and the Bold had lots of guest star villians people had never heard of.

[Merusk]

Darkseid, as ridiculously concepted and obsessed as he is, puts Thanos, Apokalypse, AND Galatakus to shame. In terms of feeling a sense of threat and power as well as actual personality.

Hell, any of the Legion of Doom characters were more interesting than most of Marvel's offerings.

[Khaldun]

Batman's Rogues mostly don't work very well when they're pitted against more powerful metahumans. (Joker and Scarecrow both have some possibilities).

Flash's Rogues are fun, colorful, etc. but also mostly don't have very interesting personalities--e.g., they can't hold up a whole film as antagonists for the entire Justice League.

Green Lantern's only memorable enemy is an "Anti-Green Lantern", which doesn't work as the central bad guy of a team movie.

Wonder Woman's enemy Doctor Psycho is sort of interesting--mind-controlling, cowardly, and misogynistic, kind of like a nerd-in-mom's-basement type. Otherwise her enemies couldn't really hold a film as the chief baddie. Maybe Ares, I guess, but he's generally kind of boring in personality terms.

Aquaman has a visually fun enemy (Black Manta) and he's got an evil brother, plus Atlantis could potentially sort of drive a team-level story.

Martian Manhunter, nope.

----

Justice League-level villains otherwise:

Crime Syndicate is fun, but you can't launch a film with them.
Darkseid needs careful handling if you want to establish the "god-like" terror. He almost needs to be Lovecraftian, I think--very very far beyond humanity, even super-humanity.
Injustice League/Society is fun but generally "good team v. bad team" would be hard to handle in a 2-hour movie.
Vandal Savage is a bad character and has never been handled well in comics or in other media.
Brainiac might make a good team-level bad guy.
Eclipso is sort of stupid but I see some potential.
Krona is stupid.
Amazo might be fun.
Prometheus could be good if handled correctly. The Morrison JLA issue that introduced him could make a pretty fair JL film.
Parasite--any power-stealer can make a good threat.
Despero--I have a soft spot for the original side-fin version. Could team him with Kanjar Ro, Queen Bee, etc and make a pretty fair "Earth v. Space" JL story.
The General (Eiling)--kind of depends on the prior introduction of the Shaggy Man as a threat to work really well
T.O. Morrow--with some revamping, this could be a surprisingly fun character
Ultra-Humanite--body-switching mad scientist, kind of too much like Luthor in most versions
Brother Blood--probably not.

[Fordel]

Amazo as presented in the comics is a hilarious campy piece of shit.

'Ivo's Android' as presented in the DCAU was god damned terrifying and amazing. Everything is about execution in the end and the DCAU had it in spades. The DCU does not.

[Khaldun]

Well, he looks absolutely fucking ridiculous, for sure. The idea of an android that 'reads' powers is a classic good thing, though. Super-Adaptoid in the MU. But it's not really a 2-hour film premise. It's more like a fun problem to solve in the big mid-movie set-piece. (Like the airport battle in Civil War.).

[Riggswolfe]

As an observation, Marvel seems to make better Heroes, while DC makes better villains.

I had this same thought but then realized that really, only Batman has good villains. Most of the other DC villains are even worse than Marvel's in my opinion.

[Furiously]

As an observation, Marvel seems to make better Heroes, while DC makes better villains.

I had this same thought but then realized that really, only Batman has good villains. Most of the other DC villains are even worse than Marvel's in my opinion.

Mirror Master, Captain Cold, Weather Wizard? The Flash has the best alliterations ever!

[Sir T]

I had this same thought but then realized that really, only Batman has good villains. Most of the other DC villains are even worse than Marvel's in my opinion.

Eh, you could be right there...

[Ruvaldt]

Also, Marvel does have good villains that could drive a movie, but Fox, etc, holds the rights to them.  Doctor Doom is a great villain if done correctly.  Magneto as well.

[Khaldun]

Honestly, I think part of the problem is that ALL superhero cinematic universes have tried to become more "realistic" and for the most part villains in the comics do not have and have never had realistic motivations that hold some degree of psychological weight. In comparative terms, it's easier to make the comic-book sketch version of Tony Stark (playboy, genius inventor, businessman, weapons manufacturer who has second thoughts, alcoholic) into as relatively complex and textured a character as RDJ's version has become. To do the same to villains requires making them at least somewhat sympathetic and requires motivations that we can appreciate to some degree--or it requires villains who are essentially not characters but things (disasters, catastrophes, inanimate objects, etc.)

Villains who are rivalrous to heroes for some personal reason are the easiest to handle. Hence it's not that big a surprise that the one MCU success to date is Loki. Sibling rivalry is a classic motivation, and a good actor can give it all sorts of sympathy and nuance.

Doom is in that category if he's written well--the second-smartest guy on the planet but who has also had to overcome way, way more in getting that far than the smartest guy has, which makes his resentment over what seems like a helpful gesture (Richards correcting his figures for a dangerous experiment) more understandable. But that's problem #2 with good movie comic-book villains. In the last twenty years, we've discovered that some villains might be so sympathetic as to not be particularly villainous. Once you make Magneto both a Holocaust survivor AND someone with a legitimate philosophical disagreement with Professor X, then making him the villain either requires the filmmakers to genuinely disagree with the villain's ideology while also seeing it as something people could actually side with (a hard balance to strike) or it requires the villain to have a hidden personal flaw that the ideology is just a blustering cover for. First Class did a pretty good job with that--Magneto's desire for power in the end isn't just disagreement with Xavier about the right way forward, it's also an inability to get beyond his own suffering and self-pity. If you get the balance wrong, the hero starts to seem like a bully and the villain like a victim.

I think there are *very* few classic villains in either Marvel or DC that have this kind of potential. It's why we keep coming back to Doom and Magneto as examples. If you're going with even MCU-type realism, "conquering the world" just starts to seem kind of stupid as an ambition for a single person (this is Apocalypse's problem) but at the same time, inventing an amazing technology or gaining a power and just trying to be slightly more rich or powerful also seems stupid. (There's an old Flash story that's kind of fun along these lines where the Rogues get together and talk about how idiotic they are for robbing banks and committing small crimes when they have technologies that could change the world and make them billions--but some of them ruefully agree it's because they're compulsive small-timers who don't understand how to think differently.) 

The only other way to go is "mythic evil"--a kind of evil that's totally beyond the frame of human understanding and motivation. Age of Ultron flirted with that, but didn't really do it. If Darkseid is a JL villain in the future, I suppose that could work. But you can see how weak it is as a storytelling approach when you watch Thor: Dark World. Malekith is one of those mythic "force of nature" evils--he just wants to end creation because, I dunno, his people used to rule the universe or whatever. He's boring as a result, a kind of weak "I will have revenge for my people" combined with "there is a comet heading for Earth" sort of threat. There's no emotion in it, nothing to relate to or even hate, but also nothing of the grandeur of scale required to make him meaningful. I have a bad feeling that Thanos might end up the same way. 

[Fordel]

Well that IS what Thanos is, a poor mans Darkseid.



Ultimately who has which villain is again moot, it's purely about execution of concept, not the concept itself. The DCAU made me give a shit about characters like Blue Beetle, Huntress and The Question. It made me think Hawkgirl was awesome, or that Martian Manhunter wasn't just a random assortment of powers but an actual character.


Like shit, before the 'twist' the MCU made me buy into the Mandarin as a credible and terrifying villain. Before that portrayal he was nothing more then a racist caricature.

[Evildrider]

Like shit, before the 'twist' the MCU made me buy into the Mandarin as a credible and terrifying villain. Before that portrayal he was nothing more then a racist caricature.

Don't worry if they ever produce a real Mandarin he'll probably be a white female or young black guy.