http://collider.com/x-men-movies-comics-chris-claremont/
-
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 04:03 PM)
You just give me back my questions.
Disney should give money to a rival that is antagonistic to them?
Character assassination is not "making the characters more than a bunch of pristine do-gooders with the same flat characterization".
Finally bothering to show that maybe mutants aren't all a bunch of victims is developing the Mutant storyline. It's years overdue.
So the problem is now on X-Men writers since 2000. Good.
Even Claremont. None of them were capable of properly developing the Mutant storyline. -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 05:52 PM)
No one has declared all mutants as saints
The movies do.
Saying that X-Men are presented as nothing but "a bunch of victims" is a straw man you have been championing for years and the ideal "Mutant storyline" you want has been found in many X-Men comics.
The only time it was ever done to any degree was in Ultimate X-Men.
And no, just because you don't like how the X-Men are acting now doesn't make it "assassination". -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 05, 2016 04:28 AM)
First you claim it is just the movies that make us believe all mutants are saints, and now you are dismissing nearly all of the X-Men runs. Got it.
Most of them keep going for the "Nasty Humans" element and none really seem to realize that the X-Men are partially responsible themselves.
A prefect continuation of Zack Snyder's defense for his version of Superman:
He didn't alter the existing Superman in the comics, he made a new (if flawed) take right from the start. -
bud-47 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 03:14 PM)
Comic books are small potatoes compared to film. You have no one to blame but Fox for the X-Men's dwindling popularity over the years. After 16 years of trying, they've still failed to fully realize these characters on screen by making lackluster films that have caused fans and people to lose interest. If Fox was doing their job and put more focus on making X-Men films that people actually want to see, with the right creative team behind them (not Singer or Kinberg), the X-Men would be at the top of the mountain where they belong, despite what is happening in the comics.
-
vegeta-6390 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 04:56 PM)
The X-Men has had longevity unlike other Marvel characters who is not named Spiderman. They have lost all their DC-Batman privileges with Marvel and are still surviving in the hell Disney created for them by remaining a reliable seller for Marvel compared to every other comicbook.
Comic books are small potatoes compared to film. You have no one to blame but Fox for the X-Men's dwindling popularity over the years. After 16 years of trying, they've still failed to fully realize these characters on screen by making lackluster films that have caused fans and people to lose interest. If Fox was doing their job and put more focus on making X-Men films that people actually want to see, with the right creative team behind them (not Singer or Kinberg), the X-Men would be at the top of the mountain where they belong, despite what is happening in the comics.
Thor 1, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Hulk and The First Avenger are all lackluster movies. If DOFP is lackluster, what should we call the Avengers? If X2 is lackluster, what should we call Civil War?
Marvel's own fear of people loosing interest in their films is why had Civil War, which went on to perform less than Age of Ultron, while X-Men's Deadpool turned out to be the most profitable comic film of 2016.
Marvel is more worried about the decline in popularity of the Avengers movies. Unlike MCU, X-Men's popularity is not linked to the movies. Fox can start X-Men all over again, what can Marvel do? They can't cancel X-Men comics since the comics still sells and they can't kill off Iron Man in the movies, their biggest Box Office draw. Marvel is more stuck than you realize. -
Max_cinefilo89 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 05:21 PM)
Marvel's own fear of people loosing interest in their films is why had Civil War, which went on to perform less than Age of Ultron
That's a whole bunch of BS. And no one expected Civil War to make more than Age of Ultron, since it's a Captain America movie and was marketed as such -
samhmd-7489 — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 05:57 PM)
The X-Men has had longevity unlike other Marvel characters who is not named Spiderman.
Says you.
Thor 1, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Hulk and The First Avenger are all lackluster movies.
If you're ashamed of comics, maybe.
Marvel's own fear of people loosing interest in their films is why had Civil War,
A spectacular film.
Marvel is more worried about the decline in popularity of the Avengers movies. Unlike MCU, X-Men's popularity is not linked to the movies. Fox can start X-Men all over again, what can Marvel do?
Keep on with successes and working on all the characters that were neglected for years because of the X-Men. -
mh-newressistance — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 04:09 AM)
Thor 1, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron, Hulk and The First Avenger are all lackluster movies.
If you're ashamed of comics, maybe.
So that is why those movies had pretty much less than nothing to do with the actual comics?