I'm kinda glad Singer didn't come back to X-Men

[Hartzilla2007]

WB are forging ahead with a Green Lantern movie, which is hardly going to be in the vein of The Dark Knight. I think they have realised that there is room for the gritty superhero movie (TDK being the obvious and best example) but also for the light-hearted one, set in the none-too-real world.

You know with the Green Lantern movie I have to wonder if their going to try follow Star Trek's lead and make a kickass space adventure due to getting their asses kicked by Trek in the boxoffice, like DC saying see look we have a movie about an interstellar peacekeeping organization and a bad guy who blows up planets, we're cool like Trek.

Look at how the movies and story were structured. Singer had a very clear two-sided conflict going on with the Mutants: Magneto's Militants and Xavier's more Peaceful advocations of co-existence. The Hellfire Club are a third faction in this, and their introduction would have messed with what Singer had been going for. Thus if he HAD included them he'd either have sucked everything interesting out of them and maybe make them just random HUMAN businessmen, or he'd just make them Magneto's lackeys. Anything else wouldn't work with his "Only Xavier and Magneto factions" thing.

Common sense, from what he'd done previously.

Given those possibilities, the Hellfire Club would be better off NOT being in his 3rd movie which would make Dark Phoenix sucky as well.

Heck, he'd have made Apocalypse into Magneto's lackey if they'd brought HIM into the movies...

Or they could have the Hellfire club remove Magneto and Xavier from the board so to speak like Sinister did in season 2 of the fox animated show if they want to focus on different characters.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

we're cool like Trek.

Man, who'da thought those words would ever be said.

 

[Anwar]

Or they could have the Hellfire club remove Magneto and Xavier from the board so to speak like Sinister did in season 2 of the fox animated show if they want to focus on different characters.

If they did that, then the critics and audiences would complain that they removed the ideological conflict Xavier and Magneto represented and ruined Singer's entire analogy thing. Having there be more to the Mutant side than just Xavier vs Magneto just DOESN'T WORK for Singer's universe.

 

[coolghoul]

But Anwar - some stories are just not meant to be. I don't think the Hellfire Club would work in the X3 movie - what's their purpose in a Dark Phoenix story? What *new* character conflict do they bring to Jean as Dark Phoenix? In the comics, they broaden the x-men universe and add a bunch of villains and "expand" the events. There was a lot to be done in X3 - they had to make Jean into Phoenix, then Dark Phoenix and then take her down.

They chose to just jump right into Dark Phoenix and put The Cure as the frame for displaying how Jean is becoming power-crazy (and also giving the ensemble cast something to do, other than going "Whoa, Jean" ).

However, if you are saying that a separate movie with the Hellfire Club trying to take over the world could be made, I'd agree. I'd also agree that it could be possible to do a Dark Phoenix movie using the Hellfire Club activities as the "framing story". But to have "The Cure" and also the Hellfire club and also have Dark Phoenix would have made the story long (suits don't like), complicated (suits don't like it again - "x-men is for kids on summer break. Let's not make them think") and put too many things in play for the director to keep everything controlled. (My opinion, of course)

 

[Anwar]

I agree, Singer's X-Men Universe is too basic for anything beyond Magneto and Xavier's factions within the mutant community. He'd just screw up the Hellfire Club. I suppose Mr Sinister can be used as an example of a human who sees mutants as the future and wants to accelerate the process. Maybe they could have used HIM as the villain of the third movie, a human scientist obsessed with perfecting mutants and replacing both the humans and "imperfect" mutants and tie Dark Phoenix into his plans (as she would be seen as a template for his "perfect" mutants). Basically the opposite of Stryker's group: A human who wants the mutants to take over and wants DP to be the first.

Of course, this wouldn't be accepted by the audience because it's too "out there" and not "grounded in reality".

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Once again, I'm amazed by the absolute confidence with which you can predict the minds of 'the audience.' How do you know what the viewing public will or won't accept? Have you never heard of the famous dictum of legendary screenwriter William Goldman that 'In Hollywood, nobody knows anything?'

 

[Anwar]

I know that from the audience reactions and the praise they got for being more "grounded in reality" that the audience is anti-wonder, anti-fantastic, anti-imagination. Leave it to them and Superman wouldn't be an Alien, he'd just be some random guy in a bulletproof outfit and can't fly or do anything except take bullets (since that's a property of his suit and not an actual superpower).

 

[Broccoli]

Anwar, I really think your premise is garbage. I realize you fully believe this, and you may be right, but I really think you are selling audiences too short. Yes, grounded in reality has been a trend, but that doesn't mean at all that audiences won't be able to handle a movie that gears towards the fantastic.

If a movie is enjoyable, well-acted, written, and maybe even fun, audiences will go with it.

Earlier, I cited the recent Star Trek movie as an example. It is "out there"; it doesn't shy away from being a special effects laden movie with aliens and monsters and space lasers and all of that. You retorted that "Well, people were already expecting that."

Personally, I think that is a bullshit answer. If people were expecting that and people don't like far-out there stuff, then, logically, they would stay away, far away, from the movie. Additionally, those that did see it would have loathed it.

But, let us move on. You said people knew what they were getting into with Star Trek, so that is that. In that case, let me throw another example at you.

Star Wars.

The original. Later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope.

People didn't know what they were in for. It was brand new. Judging from the previews, it had space lasers and tall furry, yelling people. And maybe a robot in a black suit. Looked pretty far out there. Was pretty far out there. In fact, when the movie opens, we are just dropped into this universe with little-to-no exposition of what is going on.

How did people react to it? They loved it. They totally went with it.

Who is to say that can't happen again?

 

[Anwar]

Trek and Wars both worked because they're either set in the future, the distant past or not set on Earth at all. That disconnection from the modern day is what allows the audience to (just barely) accept the fantastic. Set something on Earth and not have it explicitly be the future, and you get nothing but criticisms about being too "otherworldly" "too unrealistic" "not down to Earth".

Make a Superhero movie about characters from today's Earth (or a close approximation) going into space to fight bad guy aliens, and it's a flop before it hits the screen. Simple as that. Green Lantern will probably be confined to Earth and likely feature him fighting human villains who aren't Supervillains to begin with, it's the only way to make a Superhero movie anymore. You have to chop out the "super".

In fact, it's safe to say that the term "superhero" is now a word to be ashamed of when making a movie and that moviegoers mostly hold that term in contempt.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Make a Superhero movie about characters from today's Earth (or a close approximation) going into space to fight bad guy aliens, and it's a flop before it hits the screen. Simple as that.

That never happened. You have absolutely no idea if people would like that kind of movie.

In fact, it's safe to say that the term "superhero" is now a word to be ashamed of when making a movie and that moviegoers mostly hold that term in contempt.

Superhero movies have never been more popular.

 

[Anwar]

"Down to Earth" Superhero movies (and they're aren't that Super to be honest) are popular, but a superhero movie that embraces the fantastic nature instead of stomping it to the ground (like the "Down to Earth" movies do) are held in contempt for not being "normal" enough.

And yes, given the reaction to more openly wonder-embracing superhero movies like the Fantastic Four films and Superman Returns (which also tried to discard the "Super" to an extent), yeah I think it's safe to say any Superhero film about the hero(es) going to space to fight someone who isn't a crime boss or a Company CEO would flop no matter how well acted or written. Audiences just aren't into Superheroes who aren't confined to Earth or fight powerless humans.

 

[Broccoli]

^ I don't think that was the reason why Fantastic Four flopped. And Superman Returns was generally well-received.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Anwar, I really think your premise is garbage. I realize you fully believe this, and you may be right, but I really think you are selling audiences too short. Yes, grounded in reality has been a trend, but that doesn't mean at all that audiences won't be able to handle a movie that gears towards the fantastic.

If a movie is enjoyable, well-acted, written, and maybe even fun, audiences will go with it.

Personally, I think that is a bullshit answer. If people were expecting that and people don't like far-out there stuff, then, logically, they would stay away, far away, from the movie. Additionally, those that did see it would have loathed it.

But, let us move on. You said people knew what they were getting into with Star Trek, so that is that. In that case, let me throw another example at you.

Star Wars.

The original. Later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope.

People didn't know what they were in for. It was brand new. Judging from the previews, it had space lasers and tall furry, yelling people. And maybe a robot in a black suit. Looked pretty far out there. Was pretty far out there. In fact, when the movie opens, we are just dropped into this universe with little-to-no exposition of what is going on.

How did people react to it? They loved it. They totally went with it.

Who is to say that can't happen again?

Then why are they rebooting F4 with the explicit intent to make it "darker", "grittier" and more grounded as has been stated?

 

[Broccoli]

Anwar, I really think your premise is garbage. I realize you fully believe this, and you may be right, but I really think you are selling audiences too short. Yes, grounded in reality has been a trend, but that doesn't mean at all that audiences won't be able to handle a movie that gears towards the fantastic.

If a movie is enjoyable, well-acted, written, and maybe even fun, audiences will go with it.

Personally, I think that is a bullshit answer. If people were expecting that and people don't like far-out there stuff, then, logically, they would stay away, far away, from the movie. Additionally, those that did see it would have loathed it.

But, let us move on. You said people knew what they were getting into with Star Trek, so that is that. In that case, let me throw another example at you.

Star Wars.

The original. Later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV -- A New Hope.

People didn't know what they were in for. It was brand new. Judging from the previews, it had space lasers and tall furry, yelling people. And maybe a robot in a black suit. Looked pretty far out there. Was pretty far out there. In fact, when the movie opens, we are just dropped into this universe with little-to-no exposition of what is going on.

How did people react to it? They loved it. They totally went with it.

Who is to say that can't happen again?

Then why are they rebooting F4 with the explicit intent to make it "darker", "grittier" and more grounded as has been stated?

I dunno. I haven't heard anything about a Fantastic Four reboot, let alone making it darker and grittier. I don't think the reasons the FF movies flopped was because it embraced it's over-the-topness. It is just because they were bad movies. If they do go "dark and gritty" for a FF reboot, then the filmmakers don't get those characters at all.

 

[Anwar]

That's because, like I said, audiences are anti-wonder. They demand that when a Superhero is brought to the screen that all the "Super" be drained out of them. It's like how Simpsons made fun of said process in "Husbands and Knives":

Bart: Alan Moore, you wrote my favorite issues of Radioactive Man!

Moore: Really, you like that I turned your favorite superhero into a heroin addicted jazz critic who's NOT radioactive?

The audience HATES over-the-top wondrous stuff, unless it's made clear that's it a whole different time and place (Star Wars) or totally removed from the present day (Star Trek). And even then it's still a hard sell.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

That's because, like I said, audiences are anti-wonder.

Yeah man, I hear you. They're totally anti-wonder unless it's Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Shrek or any other of those incredibly successful franchises entirely based on a sense of wonder.

But I bet that every single one of these hugely popular examples is an exception, right?

 

[Anwar]

Star Trek is set in the future, Star Wars is set in another galaxy a long time ago, Harry Potter pretty much ditches the normal world and focuses on the world of magic so it's not such an issue, Pirates of the Caribbean is set in the past, Shrek isn't set in the modern day, all of those obey the rules of the anti-fantastic I outlined before.

So yes, name me a movie that openly embraces the fantastic and the wondrous in the MODERN DAY and the NORMAL WORLD and we can talk.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ If it embraces the fantastic, then by definition, it can't be the 'normal world.'

 

[DonIago]

^Beat me to it.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I agree, Singer's X-Men Universe is too basic for anything beyond Magneto and Xavier's factions within the mutant community. He'd just screw up the Hellfire Club. I suppose Mr Sinister can be used as an example of a human who sees mutants as the future and wants to accelerate the process. Maybe they could have used HIM as the villain of the third movie, a human scientist obsessed with perfecting mutants and replacing both the humans and "imperfect" mutants and tie Dark Phoenix into his plans (as she would be seen as a template for his "perfect" mutants). Basically the opposite of Stryker's group: A human who wants the mutants to take over and wants DP to be the first.

Of course, this wouldn't be accepted by the audience because it's too "out there" and not "grounded in reality".

Actually I think Sinister wouldn't work because the movies focused more on Wolverine and at least from what I could tell watching the 90s animated show Sinister was more Cyclops' nemesis.

Sigh I miss that show, it was damn good television.