Hopefully for the movie he'll have four belts instead of three
I always thought that was the most asinine character design for that game. He doesn't wear three massive belts on top of each other in the comics! He could never bend forward!
X-Men: Apocalypse announced for May 2016
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Hopefully for the movie he'll have four belts instead of three
I always thought that was the most asinine character design for that game. He doesn't wear three massive belts on top of each other in the comics! He could never bend forward!
He's a metamorph Light, Apocalypse has universal pivots along and inside his entire body.
Aye, that too, and another potential advantage for CG.
Ah, but they never tried to make Jackman look short.
And while you're correct about making actors look bigger, there are limits, especially when it comes to brawling. It's a lucky thing for PJ and Co. that Tolkien never wrote a Frodo/Gandalf fistfight. 
^Ahh, but the Tolkien films, like most big-budget action films today, create CG doubles of the live actors for the big action scenes. So needing a CG character for an action scene does not preclude casting a live actor in the same role for other scenes.
Indeed, this was true long before CGI; in many films, live actors have been doubled with animatronic replicas for FX scenes, and actors who've been faked to appear large or small have been doubled by appropriately-sized people in shots where interaction is required. Even Peter Jackson does this; every hobbit and dwarf character in the movies has a Little Person double for the main actor, with the face being digitally replaced.
Indeed, this was true long before CGI; in many films, live actors have been doubled with animatronic replicas for FX scenes, and actors who've been faked to appear large or small have been doubled by appropriately-sized people in shots where interaction is required. Even Peter Jackson does this; every hobbit and dwarf character in the movies has a Little Person double for the main actor, with the face being digitally replaced.
It is now clear to me that this friendly intellectual debate shall not be resolved by words alone. I therefore propose a game of billiards in the City of San Francisco sometime this week, in which the loser shall publicly acknowledge the winner's position to be the superior one; as the challenged party, you may choose the venue and take the first shot.
Sorry, my travel budget's maxed out by my impending trip to spend Christmas with the family. And I'm lousy at billiards.
Anyway, there's nothing to be resolved; I'm just saying there's more than one option available. CGI is a useful technique, but there's still a place for other techniques, and I'm just saying we (and hopefully the filmmakers) should be aware of all the possibilities.
Anyway, there's nothing to be resolved; I'm just saying there's more than one option available. CGI is a useful technique, but there's still a place for other techniques, and I'm just saying we (and hopefully the filmmakers) should be aware of all the possibilities.
I'm skeptical of the idea that Marvel is cutting back on X-Men comics because they want the movies to fail. They cut back on the X-Men because the X-Men were fucking everywhere. They were overshadowing everything else. Seriously, the complaint is that they're scaling down what was three separate publications all at once.
I agree that they've redirected resources towards promoting other comics (such as Guardians, which they want interest in now that there's a movie), but the X-Men can stand on their own, which I think is part of it.
I agree that they've redirected resources towards promoting other comics (such as Guardians, which they want interest in now that there's a movie), but the X-Men can stand on their own, which I think is part of it.
Yeah, the X-Men comics have reached a point of oversaturation more than once. It's not a conspiracy that they'd trim some back, it's just business.
Wait a minute... There are people out there who think that Marvel is cutting back on the X-Men comics in the belief that it will hurt the movies?? Wow, they have a seriously skewed sense of proportion. Comics today are a niche market with readerships in the thousands or tens of thousands; the best-selling comics may break a hundred thousand, and that's just what's shipped to stores, not necessarily what actually sells. And that's at 3 to 4 dollars per issue. Movies have viewership figures in the millions or tens of millions, with ticket prices maybe 2-3 times the price of a comic book. Marvel could cancel the comics outright and it would have virtually no impact on the movies' performance or visibility.
I think that's plausible. But that's not necessarily a desire for a movie to fail but a recognition that they gain little by promoting it. That's why there's a difference between not making merchandise (not creating something new to promote it) and sabotaging their own comics (trying to make it fail).
Yeah, I don't see there being a connection between there X-Men comics being cut back and Marvel wanting the movies to fail. After all Marvel can only publish so many comics, and it makes sense that they might want to spread some of that attention around. The comics and the movies don't really have much of an impact on each other. I was surprised to find out a while back that the sales of the comics really don't rise at all after the movies come out, and since that's the case I don't see anything that happens to the comics having any kind of impact on the movies.
I guess this means Bryan Singer will be back for the next X-men movie.
Wasn't that always the assumption?
Even during all of this, all official word was that he was still doing the movie.
All interviews seemed to be taking the innocent until PROVEN guilty approach as well.
James McAvoy Will Probably Be Bald In The New 'X-Men' Movie
I hope they actually follow through it this time.
I hope they actually follow through it this time.