Not a big fan of the Xmen movie Magneto played by Ian McKellen they didin't even begin to show magnetos powers. I will say Bridge scene was heading in the right direction. But what do you think is next for this magneto after lossing his powers?
The X-men Movie Magneto
Magneto is getting his own movie. Buuuut it's gonna be young Magneto or something. And didn't Mags sorta get his powers back at the end of the movie. I've tried blocking things from that movie out of my mind but didn't he kinda move a chess piece? The loss of powers thing will just be temporary.
I agree that as great as Magneto is, they should focus on someone else if another X-Men movie gets made. I'd love for the Shi'Ar to come. X-Men in space. That'd be something. Colossus vs Gladiator? Space special fx with mutant fx. I'd go see that.
Hate to say it, but it would never happen. There is no way they could sell Apocalypse alone, let alone the alternate timeline stuff, to a mainstream audience. They even kept Magnus and Charles their real ages because they knew they couldn't sell Magneto's regression and Charles being transplanted into a clone to a mainstream audience.
The Magneto movie is going to be an origin movie: His escape from Auschwitz, hunting Nazis, meeting Charles Xavier.
Post Edited:2007-04-26 22:49:57
I hate to say this too, but the bridge scene was probably the worst moment in the movie for me because it was completely out of character. Magneto is a master tactician, why would be leave an open access road at his back? It was pointless, like most of the rest of the film which sacrificed character development for special effects.
As for Magneto power level in the films, before he was reduced to infancy and re-aged to his prime, his power levels were running really low and he was relying in machines to boost them a great deal. His power levels were in keeping with his age in the films.
The old axiom in writing is your protagonist (hero) is only as good and plausible as your angatonist (villain). If you can't get your audience to believe in your villain, emotionally invest in him and the threat he presents, then they will not invest in your story. A mainstream audience is simply not going to buy a 9,000 year old cybernetic mutant. People who have not read the comic books will sit in the movie theaters and say "Now they've just gotten silly." and ticket sales will tank.
Ohh, I wasnt aware you could see inside people's heads. They said the exact same thing about Star Wars, the original. "Nobody's gonna want to see a movie with a giant furry thing and this will be the end of Sir Alex Guiness's career. Why wouldnt non-comic book readers buy into Apocolypse, he's a villain all the audience has to know is, he's powerful and he's a mutant. Its the 4th movie, most people going to see it, arent going to be clueless as to whats going on.
Post Edited:2007-04-27 01:39:50
There's a big difference between the complete departure of the SciFi/Fanatsy world of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings and the more "realistically/scientifically based" X-Men. As I said, they kept Magnus and Charles their true ages because Singer was smart enough to know he couldn't sell age regression and clones to a mainstream audience at the same time he was trying to sell mutants.
And you need to establish your bad guy beyond, "he's a bad guy". Even Star Wars did that. Establishing Apocalypse would eat up serious screentime, and then you want to sell alternate timelines on top of it, that somehow fix themselves?? You'd need at least two films, maybe three. (Hell, they couldn't even turn out a decent film trying to balance the Dark Phoenix and Cure storylines) I just don't see it happening. I especially don't see any studio going for it. There are far more adaptable villains and storylines in the X-Verse that could be developed before 'Pocky and AoA.
Post Edited:2007-04-27 02:26:57
You are seriously over thinking this. Look at Sin City, it was a huge success, now those who read the comics knew the back story to all the characters, but they didn't take the time and explain all there history. I've never read a single issue and I loved it. And I'm sure I'm not alone. Like who the hell was Josh Harnetts character? Who did he work for? I bet people that read the comic know, and I also bet there's alot of people like me who don't know and don't care.
Once again I refer to Star Wars, general Grevious was coughing and holding his chest, I went to see it in Detroit and over half the audience didn't know why, of course if you watched the cartoon network and saw the 2 minute shorts then you knew why. My point is you don't have to flesh out a character to the tie. People who have no idea who Apocalypse is will be satisfied with what ever explanation they gave for the movie, it would be people like you who think the movie has to follow the comic to the letter that would have the problem.
With AoA you wouldn't try and tell everyone about different timelines i agree with you most people wouldn't understand. However with Xavier already dead in the movies all they would have to do is introduce Apocalypse into the mix. They would go exactly with the AoA story just some of the Basics. But you are probably right they won't do it.
Mighty Magneto says:
"With AoA you wouldn't try and tell everyone about different timelines i agree with you most people wouldn't understand. However with Xavier already dead in the movies all they would have to do is introduce Apocalypse into the mix. They would go exactly with the AoA story just some of the Basics. But you are probably right they won't do it."
Xavier did'nt die at the end the whimped out and has him transport into an other body ! but they could just kill him off and continue from there.
Yeah,. I heard about Turner on the project months ago, have no faith in him since all he has done are cheap knock off films, none of which are in the comic book genre,
I've also read some of the rumors about the script and if they are true he's is so far off base it's not even funny.
And I have no confidence in Goyer as a director. He's is also responsible for Blade: Trinity and Crow: City of Angels. Batman Begins is the only thing of his long C/B-list career that he has done right and even that I wasn't overly thrilled with (o.k. the Dark City script was good) and I don't think he is right guy for this project. He doesn't seem to deal with real world stuff very well and Magneto is one of the Marvel characters the most grounded a real world events which is what makes him so dramatically powerful.
What I would love to see is someone who actually knows and respects the genre with screenwriting experience, like J. Michael Strazinsky or Joss Whedon, script and direct. This? This is just Hollywood throwing action writers and directors at a film because "It's just a comic book film".
Post Edited:2007-04-27 15:18:36
Yeah, with X3 not doing as well as the previous two films, studio execs are going to be very cautious going into X4, if they go into it.
It would be possible to sell Apocalypse as a mutant with total control over his molecular structure and has this crazy ideal of "That which survives...", perhaps with a cult of followers called his "Horsemen". But I think they would have to dump the age and the cybernetic aspects of the character and the alternate timeline.
Post Edited:2007-04-27 14:51:16
Dude, we're not talking about an audience that knows these character's back stories. We're talking about the suspension of disbelief and what it can take. Sin City was filled with humans, or people who were only slightly more than human. People could roll with that and took it as the Noir homage that it was.
Nor have I ever mentioned following comic book to the letter. We are talking about basic storytelling principles you would learn the first day in any creative or screenwriting class.
With a mainstream audience that hasn't read the comics, it would take a lot of convincing to make Apocalypse work and the alternate timeline stuff? There's no way you could sell both in a single film.
Post Edited:2007-04-27 14:43:19
I've had this idea for a while now, since the first Xmen. Apocalypse is already there, just watch the scenes with Senator Kelly and listen to Magneto's comments.
There is nothing saying the movies have to follow the comic books exactly and really, so far they haven't and people have still paid to be entertained by it. Where I see the movies go big is when ever the director, cast, and crew treat the subject matter with some respect, rather than a campy and corny feel.
The premise for "Young Magneto" movie makes me cringe.
they sold clones in stw wars even named the movie attack of clones, no stinger was a comlete does A$$$ who f$$Cked one of the greatest comic book crossover to movies(can you say phoenix..stinger sucks)
this is the movies you just do, lots of movies have beeen made like that. where no plots of whatver where in, you come not knowing and leave either like whoa, or wtf.
if you follow your way of looking at it, than the movie will be a flop, but if you go for broke it may be a flop
please tell me you not a exective, or movie maker....
Sync, different universe with completely different technology. The X-men universe is not nearly as technologically advanced as the Star Wars universe, it's supposed to take place "a short time in the future" right? You don't see any landspeeders running around do you?
So no, Singer was very smart in not trying to sell the mainstream audience on mutants and clones at the same time.
P.S. X3 was directed by Ratner, not Singer.
Dark Alpha, because the mainstream non-comic book reading audience wouldn't buy it. It would break their suspension of disbelief.
The X-men Movieverse is established as something that is only slightly off, maybe a step or two, away from reality. "A short time in the future". There aren't any aliens or M'Kraan crystals or time travel established. The technology is only slightly ahead of our own, not light years ahead as it in in the Star Wars universe. Heck, the X-Men Movieverse doesn't even have magic established. It's a very basic and "realistic" universe compared to the comic books.
Now if an non-comic book reading audience, after sitting through the first three films, walks in and all of a sudden there this entirely new tech (and unless you want to waste the time establishing Legion and/or Rachel, it would have to be tech) that is lightyears ahead of anything in their experience in the first three films, that suddenly takes the story so far out into left field with a villain they have never heard of before pulling all the strings...they may not be able to follow. Their suspension of disbelief may be broken, they stop being emotionally invested in the story (ie. caring about what happens), and the film tanks.
That's why AoA won't work, that's why no studio exec would touch it. It's simply not accessible to the mainstream audience. There are far more readily adaptable villains and storylines in the comic book that could be converted to film before you go that route. You have Operation Zero Tolerance, the Hellfire Club, Genosha, Mutant Massacre, Omega Red, the Upstarts (who were vastly underused IMO), and so on.
For the same reason, the great classic Days of Future Past (Which IMO, was infinitely cooler than AoA) would also have to be laid aside. How the heck do you sell that within the context of the first three films that were so grounded in reality couldn't even include the cosmic Phoenix force and instead turned Jean into an Multiple Personality Disorder (though that was closer to the original Dark Phoenix Saga)? Heck, I'm a huge Magneto fan and I loved House of M, but I know there is no way in hell I could sell that to a mainstream audience. "Reality altering mutant"? Half the audience would walk out laughing their heads off.
After giving it some thought, you could bring in 'Pocky and Sinster, but would end up so heavily altered it might piss fans of those characters off.
I trust me, I feel you guys on this one because I would love to see Warlock on screen, but as the Movieverse is established, there's no place for him.
Post Edited:2007-04-27 23:22:03
I don't know why you think people would go to see an X-Men movie and go that's to far out there. I can see purple shapshifters and a guy with metal claws, I'll even buy a giant room that has life like holograms, but there's no way something like Apocalypse could happen. Come on, that doesn't make any sense. They could some up Apocalypse in a thirteen minute montage complete with the voice over, just like the Mummy Returns when there talking about the Scorpion King.
We can argue all night, but theres no way to tell either way. I cant read peoples minds, and I really have no idea why Hollywood execs do what they do, I mean Galactus as a giant cloud? Spiderman's closer to the near future than the X-Men are, and there going from to really belivable villians, to a tar suit from space and I dont hear any non-comic book people going Awwww thats fake, that could never happen. Its the movies, anything can happen.
Well, having lived in L.A. for 20 years and worked as one of the “little people” around “Industry” for a while, I can tell you to a certain extent how majority of studio execs think.
Like skittish elephants.
Slow to change, terrified of investing the millions it takes to make a film now in something that doesn’t have a guaranteed return. And after the way X3 tanked after it’s opening weekend (67% drop, the second biggest post-Memorial Day opening drop in film history), they are going to be very skittish regarding anything involving the X-Men franchise. That's why their opting for the Wolverine film instead. Logan is arguably Marvel's most popular character (it's either him or Spidey) and a guaranteed moneymaker.
Example: Lord of the Rings is the second biggest selling book of the 20th century who popularity spans generations and cultures all over the world. Built in audience.
Peter Jackson had to spend years shopping it around Hollywood before he would find a studio that would allow him to make it as anything more than a single 2 hour movie.
I attended a SAG event featuring a sit down with Hugh Laurie (who is the single most incredibly sweet, charming man I have ever met, completely different than his TV personae) and someone asked him if the current plethora of remakes Hollywood was churning out meant that Hollywood was out of ideas. He responded by saying that it was out of nerve. Big studios are scared of investing in anything new, different, or risky. That’s why the Indie film industry has really taken off in the last 20 years and why there are a ton of smaller movie production houses popping up. It’s the only way some of these stories get told because unless the studios can forsee themselves making a heaping profit at least in the hundreds of millions, they aren’t interested.
Time travel is risky. Look at what happened to films “Timeline” and “The Time Machine”. They both tanked at the box office. Most execs are going to look at that as say “Hell no.” “Frequency” is about the only film involving shifting timelines that has done relatively well in the last 20 years, but that doesn’t involve actual time travel and it was relatively inexpensive to produce.
Oh, and that Hugh Jackman/Meg Ryan romantic comedy…I forget what the name was. That involved time travel, but I think the legion of fans who went to see it were romance novel readers who were panting over Hugh Jackman.
Anyway, it would be a hard sell to studio execs and I just think trying to sell a mainstream audience who does not read science fiction or comic books on Apocalypse and time travel/shifting timelines at the same time would be too much.
The only way I could see this working is if they do it in a Days of Future Past way, in which someone’s mind is sent back to their earlier self (as Kitty Prydes was) or by altering AoA to such an extent that no one who is a hard core fan of that crossover is going to be happy.
As I said before, you could introduce Apocalypse as a regular mutant (not 9,000 years old, not with alien cybernetic implants) with complete control over his molecular structure with a cult of followers called the Horsemen who believe the “That which survives..” manifesto and is trying to bring about “The Age of Apocalypse” and somehow, someone in the X-Men gets a glimpse into that world… that would include introducing someone like Blindfold or bringing Jean Grey back to life.
But again, the story would take place in the “here and now” trying to stop Apocalypse and his followers from getting that future, not in that distant future trying to undo it in reverse as the crossover did.
That’s about the only way I could see this selling to both the execs and the mainstream audience. The question then is how much alteration to the characters and the story are you willing to see to just to get some piece of it onscreen?
P.S. The Mummy Returns doesn't introduce new elements really. They introduced magic and psuedo-Eqyptian mythology in the first one. They just added a character into it. They weren't dropping in aliens or timetravel or anything that had not been introduced in The Mummy.
As for what the audience will buy or not, uhm...well, first of all, I didn't know Spiderman 3 of FF:2 had opened. Did you get to see a special showing of these films or something?
And I've explained how you can't "just do anything" in films and expect them to to be successful. There has to be a world they can believe in. Look at how slowly the world of the Matrix is actually introduced and developed over the course of the first film, which was really nothing but a run up to the real story in Reloaded and Revolutions which did not alter that world, the laws of that universe, in any significant way. They didn't add magic, for example, they still functioned under the same "laws" established in film one. The other things you have to have are characters the audience can sympathize with and relate to (which is why X3 fell on it's ass) and a story the audience can follow and believe in. Take any of those three legs out from under the stool and the film, T.V. show, play, opera, book, comic book, shadow puppets, whatever piece of fiction you are creating falls flat on it's ass.
For an example. Compare X-Files to Babylon Five. When he was writing and producing the X-Files, Chris Carter had a massive audience in the palm of his hand. The problem? He didn't know what the grand conspiracy was. He would drop hints and show things and then refute them in later episodes and A. people got sick of it and B. it became apparent that he didn't know where he was going with it, just failing around week by week for whatever was "cool". The audience dwindled and instead of going out with a bang, the X-Files went out with a sickening whimper, begging to be put out of it's misery.
"Lost" appears to be headed in the same direction.
J. Michael Strazinky, on the other hand, had all of Babylon Five's major and minor plot arcs mapped out in advance. He actually had a binder 3X5 note cards with multi-episode arcs, season arcs and the entire grand scheme laid out before he even started shooting in regular production. Now, despite the fact that it was pure SciFi and the network was trying to kill it, JMS was able to not only hang onto his audience but gain more viewers over the course of time and wrap up all of his major story arcs on a half season's notice when the WB dumped the show a season early (he was later able to find a home for the final season on another network, but all the major storylines had been wrapped up in season four). "Sleeping in the Light", the final episode, remains one of the most beloved episodes among fans. And like The Matrix series, he stuck with the established rules of the world he created. Even when magic introduced, it's technomages: people who use technology to simulate magic.
So you can't just "do anything" and get away with it. There are rules. There's more to telling a story and hanging onto your audience than "oh, that would be cool".
Post Edited:2007-05-01 01:23:16
The more I hear about this film, the more suckage it contains.
>>>The movie is book-ended with two scenes in Poland at the 60th Anniversary of the Auschwitz Liberation. These events take place within the timeframe of the first three X-films and will reunite Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen.
The opening takes a cue from Bryan Singer’s X-Men, where a young Erik Lehnsherr crumples the Auschwitz gates. Erik is subjected to horrendous experiments by a team of scientists led by vicious Nazi Dr. Kleinmein.
We next meet Lehnsherr in Ukraine. It’s ten years later and he’s married to Magda, they have a young girl called Anya. Erik works in construction, his abilities are well developed, he’s able to plunge a nail straight through wood by just staring at it.
In the village pub Erik spots Kirken, an abusive prison guard from the concentration camp. Kirken ends up dead by Erik’s hand and the villagers burn down his house – Magda and Anya are killed in the blaze.
In Paris, Erik seeks help from famed Nazi hunter Professor Wesenthein – he wants revenge, more specifically he’s looking for Kleinmein. Wesenthein tells Erik many Nazi’s are hiding out on South America, and that Kleinmein was trying to genetically manufacture a master race for Hitler.
Erik moves on to Argentina to try and track down Nazi war criminals – he’s met by CIA agent Owen Graves and the pair form an alliance. Graves tips off Erik on the whereabouts of known Nazis but also harbours his own agenda.
The action switches to Israel where Erik searches for a man well known for helping Holocaust survivors. He finds him playing soccer: Dr Charles Xavier…<<<
So...Goyer is purposefully writing anything positive or sympathetic about the character out, any motivation he might have beyond rage, and turning him into Hannibal Lecter/Anakin Skywalker: a complete unsympathetic prick. Not only is he a murder before his family dies, but he's indirectly responsible for his family's death. Sweet.
Never mind of course that If he had found a Nazi in a Ukranian village in the 1950's, he probably would have had a lot of help killing the guy. Hell, they would have thrown him a parade afterwards. 27 million dead left a very bad impression of the Nazi's on the Russian (and Ukranian) people.
And by killing his wife rather than having her abandon him, Goyer has removed the single biggest reason for Magneto's alienation from humanity. He had experienced blind, murderous intolerance in the Holocaust. But because his [wife, the woman he had known and loved for years, who's life he had saved at least twice, the mother of his child, left him at the moment he needed her most because he was something "inhuman", he "knows" in his heart that it doesn't matter how good you are, what good you have done, or what you are about. The incident burned the idea that human's hate and fear difference no matter what into his subconscious. That incident is a extremely critical foundation point to the character and Goyer is chucking it out the window.
And Nazi hunting, in all of Magneto's 40 plus years in comics books, Nazi hunting was part of a single twelve page add-on story attached to an X-Men reprint. That was it! And it's not a foundation point of the character!
And I love the way they are just tacking what is arguably the single most important relationship in Magneto's adult life on the end...at a soccer game. Not a mental hospital in Haifa, a soccer game. Way to make both characters shallow! Well done indeed.
Screw you Goyer.
And screw Marvel Studio's and Fox for attaching this hack to a picture about one of the controversial and dramatically compelling characters in Marvel Comics. I don't need to see my favorite character on screen so bad that I will take the bastardization of his character. I'm staying home and reading my comics.
And of course, all this "Nazi hunting with cool special effects" ignores the potential dramatic impact of a movie about a terrorist in a real world where terrorism is a major concern/topic of conversation. Marvel could have had a film that put them on the map dramatically the way V for Vendetta did Vertigo/DC. But Goyer would rather make a cheesy action/special effects flick that everyone will forget within a month. Like the rest of the films Goyer directed. (Blade Trinity anyone?)
Post Edited:2007-11-26 20:57:41
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.