Logan

[EnterpriseSovereign]

This does make me wonder whether Logan and Xavier's conditions were caused by the same bad food, since both men were suffering some deterioration in their respective powers.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm reminded of Vision's line from Age of Ultron. What was it... "A thing isn't beautiful because it lasts"?

You're unbearably naive. - Ultron

Everyone "loses" in the end, unless you happen to believe in an eternal afterlife. Winning is what you accomplish before you get defeated. And the X-Men accomplished a great deal.

Everyone "loses" on an individual level. Not everyone's purpose in life is pointless and failed.

When your goal was 'peaceful co-existence between man and mutant" and the end result is 'man medically genocides mutantkind' that's not a win, not even a fleeting one.

It's kind of sad that Magneto was right all along and one way or another humans will inevitably wipe out all mutants.

I wonder what would happen if Logan had survived, gone back in time again to a point shortly after DoFP, went to Xavier and said "Remember how I told you humans killed off mutants by building Sentinels? Ya, well, now its' via food."

I wouldn't argue that they lost in the end, presuming that all the mutants do in fact end up dead.

My point, rather, is that that ultimate defeat does not negate all their prior accomplishments, even if those accomplishments were temporary.

[Ace Pace]

Came back from seeing it, with zero background or spoilers.
I'll actually say I was stunned and don't recall a better Marvel movie. Interesting and emotional but in a way that doesn't beat you over the head with the message like the original X-Men movies.

While the violence seemed over the top and could be toned down, I found Laura's acting to be quite appropriate and felt like I could see that something snapped inside her. Despite having few lines, I found her quite interesting. While the end is ambiguous and I have a hard time believing stuff is hopeful, I can't help but feel this sets up the X-men movies for a reboot.

And I kinda hope that Stewart and Jackman are happy to leave the franchise on a high note.

[Darth Yoshi]

I wouldn't argue that they lost in the end, presuming that all the mutants do in fact end up dead.

My point, rather, is that that ultimate defeat does not negate all their prior accomplishments, even if those accomplishments were temporary.

I would argue that it does, because Xavier got to watch it happen. It's one thing if when he died mutants and regular humans were at peace, and then afterwards people dropped the ball or something. It wouldn't have been his failure, because his life would have left an unambiguously positive legacy. But as it is he has no legacy to pass on, because nothing he did survived long enough to be passed on. *shrugs*

[Bedlam]

I wouldn't argue that they lost in the end, presuming that all the mutants do in fact end up dead.

My point, rather, is that that ultimate defeat does not negate all their prior accomplishments, even if those accomplishments were temporary.

I would argue that it does, because Xavier got to watch it happen. It's one thing if when he died mutants and regular humans were at peace, and then afterwards people dropped the ball or something. It wouldn't have been his failure, because his life would have left an unambiguously positive legacy. But as it is he has no legacy to pass on, because nothing he did survived long enough to be passed on. *shrugs*

I'd agree that Xavier's life is probably the most tragic thing if you look at the whole X-men arc. Mutants more or less only exist for just his life time he spends his whole life fighting for their acceptance and they're almost extinct by the time he dies many of them by his own unwitting hand.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't help but think that mutants would have probably fared better if they were in the MCU. They wouldn't stand out so much as the only super humans, and their would be other super humans who are viewed heroically by the general public. And while that's no guarantee of safety (see the Inhumans, who basically are the MCU's version of mutants), their are people in positions of relative power who will fight for them. I can't imagine Captain America, for example, turning a blind eye to genocide. In the MCU, their'd be mutants working in SHIELD and/or the Avengers, and under their protection.

[General Zod]

If they were in the MCU we could have had a proper civil war storyline.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know. Having registration specifically target mutants while leaving other super humans alone would be ludicrous (which admittedly bigotry often is), and if you have all super humans targeted... well, that's basically the situation in canon.

It would also paint the pro-registration side in a more unambiguously villainous light if they were specifically targeting a minority group which is used as an analogy for the persecution of LGBT people and racial minorities.

I do think the motivations on both sides were fairly weak and underdeveloped in Civil War. I'm just not convinced adding mutants would have helped much.

[General Zod]

I don't know. Having registration specifically target mutants while leaving other super humans alone would be ludicrous (which admittedly bigotry often is), and if you have all super humans targeted... well, that's basically the situation in canon.

It would also paint the pro-registration side in a more unambiguously villainous light if they were specifically targeting a minority group which is used as an analogy for the persecution of LGBT people and racial minorities.

I do think the motivations on both sides were fairly weak and underdeveloped in Civil War. I'm just not convinced adding mutants would have helped much.

My problem with the way they handled Civil War in the MCU is that it came off as a domestic squabble rather than something that really had global impact. It was also a bigger event than you could really contain within a single movie, or even two. Honestly I'm not sure that they could have properly conveyed how big of an impact it had on film without making it a trilogy at least.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a bit off-topic for this thread, but I think it would have helped a great deal to have more of a sense of lasting consequences.

One of my big gripes with the film is that it takes a very serious and potentially dark subject (friends and allies torn apart by a civil war) and... it carries very little weight, ultimately. Not many people in Hollywood, in my experience, can interweave comedy and drama in a manner where they compliment each other, rather than undermine each other (I can't help but wonder if Civil War would have fared better if Whedon had directed it, since this is his forte), and I think the attempt to be both serious and light-hearted somewhat flopped. And their was very little in the way of serious consequences that persisted beyond the film itself.

Cap's people end up in prison? Broken out at the end of the film. Rhodey is crippled? He's already recovering at the end of the film. The team is divided? They're already patching things up by the end, and we know they'll reunite in the next big team film. No major character, no Avenger, on either side actually dies. IT. FEELS. CHEAP.

Logan sounds like its at the opposite extreme, though.

[Solauren]

On topic:

Minor Spoilers Spoiler

I cried when X-23 called Logan 'Daddy'.

[Crazedwraith]

Logan sounds like its at the opposite extreme, though.

Wow. So you've not even seen Logan and you're using it to springboard into shitting on Civil War yet again? You're entitled to your opinion but it seems incredibly petty.

People dont have to die or even stay in prison for there to be consequences. Cap's team is now hunted fugitives. Even if people had died like you want they still have to team up again in Avengers 3 and it would be even less plausible.

Logan is well done but horrifically grimdark (especially if you regard as in continuity with rhe good end of dopf) and that is just not the approach the MCU takes. Thats not better or worse it is just difference.

[The Romulan Republic]

Logan sounds like its at the opposite extreme, though.

Wow. So you've not even seen Logan and you're using it to springboard into shitting on Civil War yet again? You're entitled to your opinion but it seems incredibly petty.

Go back and read the thread carefully: I was not the one who brought up Civil War. I was responding to what someone else said.

But I also guessed as soon as I did that you'd start your petulant whining about me not liking a movie you liked.

People dont have to die or even stay in prison for there to be consequences. Cap's team is now hunted fugitives. Even if people had died like you want they still have to team up again in Avengers 3 and it would be even less plausible.

Its not that no one died specifically. Its that their were virtually no real consequences of any kind that cannot be quickly patched over.

I just think if you're going to do a film where the heroes have to make difficult choices, face divided loyalties, turn on each other over matters either personal or principled, and fight one another, that their ought to be more in terms of lasting consequences for that.

Logan is well done but horrifically grimdark (especially if you regard as in continuity with rhe good end of dopf) and that is just not the approach the MCU takes. Thats not better or worse it is just difference.

Fair enough, although I would note that part of my problem with the larger MCU is that the films all follow the same style/format to a large degree, and after upwards of a dozen films, its gotten a tad monotonous. I mean, if you really really love that formula, great, but personally, I'd like to see them shake things up a bit from film to film. I think part of the reason that Guardians of the Galaxy was such a hit is that it felt just a little bit outside the box (even if it was mostly just by virtue of being in space and having more swearing).

[Shroom Man 777]

Ye-ah... when the "uniqueness" is just cause Star Loyd is doing some Seth Rogen-y comedy skits, some more work could be used.

I liked Seaville Warf but yeah these films need more.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I agree it needed more work. But at least the film felt like a small breath of fresh air.

I mean, I get why Marvel might want to stick with a winning formula, and its important not to stray too far, so the films still feel like they're part of the same universe. But at the same time, I do think the MCU has become quite formulaic overall, and a little more adventurousness when it comes to the style/tone of the films wouldn't necessarily be amiss.

Its also rather glaringly obvious that every single film thus far has had a straight white male human as the lead, though I'll credit them for doing much better with this on the TV shows.

In that sense, I think it would help if they had found a way to integrate the X-Men, perhaps. Even within the X-men franchise, their's more variation in style (though that's mostly down to Deadpool, probably).

[Broomstick]

Its also rather glaringly obvious that every single film thus far has had a straight white male human as the lead, though I'll credit them for doing much better with this on the TV shows.

The fact the source material is largely straight white male humans might have something to do with that. Well, technically Thor isn't human, but in reality we're sort of stuck having him played by humans.

The TV shows included Luke Cage who was an exception for having been a back guy from the very beginning.

[Crazedwraith]

Logan sounds like its at the opposite extreme, though.

Wow. So you've not even seen Logan and you're using it to springboard into shitting on Civil War yet again? You're entitled to your opinion but it seems incredibly petty.

Go back and read the thread carefully: I was not the one who brought up Civil War. I was responding to what someone else said.

But I also guessed as soon as I did that you'd start your petulant whining about me not liking a movie you liked.

Apologies. I realised after posting that you didn't bring it up. I meant to post a retraction but didn't get round to it.

People dont have to die or even stay in prison for there to be consequences. Cap's team is now hunted fugitives. Even if people had died like you want they still have to team up again in Avengers 3 and it would be even less plausible.

Its not that no one died specifically. Its that their were virtually no real consequences of any kind that cannot be quickly patched over.

I just think if you're going to do a film where the heroes have to make difficult choices, face divided loyalties, turn on each other over matters either personal or principled, and fight one another, that their ought to be more in terms of lasting consequences for that.

Yes and no. I disagree that they weren't consequences. It's clear though Rhodey is recovering. It's not quick or easy. Just like real Physical Therapy. Steve's team breaking out of the vault doesn't mean they're not hunting fugitives unable to live their live they're all basically Banner in his wandering days now.

The needs of the film franchise really preclude really dragging out the reconciliation. But we'll just have to see how Infinity Wars actually handles Steve's rogue team and the reconciliation with the government Avengers.

To be fair saying if they weren't willing to follow through they shouldn't have done the Civil War is fair enough. But it's not criticism of the film itself, because its the following films that need to show the consequences. Not CW itself.

To be fair, I think Logan has the opposite problem. It's all grim darkness and 'consequences' and compromised morality but it's all really just 'because' it doesn't follow well from the upbeat hopeful ending of DoFP.

Logan is well done but horrifically grimdark (especially if you regard as in continuity with rhe good end of dopf) and that is just not the approach the MCU takes. Thats not better or worse it is just difference.

Fair enough, although I would note that part of my problem with the larger MCU is that the films all follow the same style/format to a large degree, and after upwards of a dozen films, its gotten a tad monotonous. I mean, if you really really love that formula, great, but personally, I'd like to see them shake things up a bit from film to film. I think part of the reason that Guardians of the Galaxy was such a hit is that it felt just a little bit outside the box (even if it was mostly just by virtue of being in space and having more swearing).

No I agree. Doctor Strange really suffered for this from me. Ant-Man felt different with Scott Lang as a hero. But Strange was just a really well polished, well performed, version of a story we've already seen.

GoftG failed for me in that its not nearly progressive or radical as people we saying before it came out. White guy surrounded by CGI. Again, it's not bad but... hype backlash.

It's basically indefensible that DCEU is getting Wonder Woman out before MCU does a heroine film. Black Widow should have had a phase 3 film if nothing else. Assuming they'd planned phase 2 before Avengers showed she was successful. They should have given Captain Marvel a solo film before Infinity Wars at all.

I think she does have a record number of mcu appearences with being a back up character in IM2 and the Cap sequels.

Its also rather glaringly obvious that every single film thus far has had a straight white male human as the lead, though I'll credit them for doing much better with this on the TV shows.

In that sense, I think it would help if they had found a way to integrate the X-Men, perhaps. Even within the X-men franchise, their's more variation in style (though that's mostly down to Deadpool, probably).

X-Men has starred straight white males exclusively as well. And mostly the same straight white male: Hugh Jackman. The fact they are team films rather than Solo character films does give them the opportunity to have more strong female characters. Just like the Avengers films do.

[Simon_Jester]

My problem with the way they handled Civil War in the MCU is that it came off as a domestic squabble rather than something that really had global impact. It was also a bigger event than you could really contain within a single movie, or even two. Honestly I'm not sure that they could have properly conveyed how big of an impact it had on film without making it a trilogy at least.

Civil War in the comics had the impact it did because of a number of things. But two of them stand out in my mind. One is that multiple world-shaking factions were involved. The other is that, just as a numbers game, not only were the people involved powerful, but there were a LOT of superheroes involved (as in, every single one Marvel has).

Comparing that to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, (1) and (2) both apply to a much lesser degree because while superheroes HAVE saved the world a couple of times, there just aren't that many of them on the planet. The balance of power between the superhero community and the nations of the world is still firmly tilted in favor of the nations, whereas in the 'prime' Marvel Comics continuity things are less certain.

The only ongoing credible threats to the safety of the world that are in any way related to the superhero community in the movies (can't speak for Agents of SHIELD) would be the Hulk (who nobody can find), wild-card alien invasions related to Thor (who nobody can find), and Tony Stark's science projects (which he's already subjecting to oversight now, presumably, or the Sokovia Accords are a grim joke).

By contrast, in the main comic continuity there are probably dozens of such threats (like, one or more of the rogues' gallery of every single major villain, multiple species of aliens with known habits of invading or harassing the Earth, cosmic entities who like to play games, a veritable entire family of Hulks and Hulklike beings...)

So quite frankly, if all the superheroes of Marvel Comics have a throwdown, it IS a world-spanning catastrophe... But if all the superheroes of Marvel Cinematics do, it's a family feud. It's just a difference of scale built into the nature of the media, because Marvel Cinematics focuses on like five to ten individual heroes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its also rather glaringly obvious that every single film thus far has had a straight white male human as the lead, though I'll credit them for doing much better with this on the TV shows.

The fact the source material is largely straight white male humans might have something to do with that. Well, technically Thor isn't human, but in reality we're sort of stuck having him played by humans.

The TV shows included Luke Cage who was an exception for having been a back guy from the very beginning.

Yeah, forgot about Thor. The "human" bit was probably mostly my irritation at GotG having the human as the lead, even when I think their's a strong argument that Gamora would have made a better protagonist. I mean, do they think audiences won't identify with the lead if they're an alien or something?

The source material tends that way, true. But at the same time, I can't help but feel that some of these roles could be non-traditionally cast without harming the characters any, since the MCU is its own continuity (see the originally white Nick Fury). And if not that, see Gamora as a possible lead for GotG. And I totally would have paid to see a Black Widow spy thriller.

[Broomstick]

The "human" bit was probably mostly my irritation at GotG having the human as the lead, even when I think their's a strong argument that Gamora would have made a better protagonist. I mean, do they think audiences won't identify with the lead if they're an alien or something?

I think it's more of a matter of studios thinking the audiences won't identify with a woman (which, let's face it, for some mouth-breathing fanboys women might as well be an alien species)

The source material tends that way, true. But at the same time, I can't help but feel that some of these roles could be non-traditionally cast without harming the characters any, since the MCU is its own continuity (see the originally white Nick Fury).

Frankly, I am thrilled Marvel is at least non-traditionally casting even secondary characters. Which is sort of mangled grammar, but you get what I mean.

Ant man probably could have been other than a white guy.

Loki, being adopted, could have also worked that way easily. Sure, he looks different from his brother, but it's not like his adoption was a secret or anything. Except you'd get people howling about stereotype of blacks or Asians as villains. Sometimes you just can't win.

Spiderman could work as a black guy (don't they have a black guy in one continuity?)

The blue-skinned X-men characters all could have been played by other than white people for a pretty obvious reason (Nightcrawler, Mystique, Beast)

Nonetheless, I am still thrilled that they have resisted white-washing established heroes like The Falcon and used the black version of Nick Fury. On the TV shows I'm tickled that they went with Rosario Dawson for the Night Nurse instead of the original white girl and given that she has appeared in ALL the Defender related shows I'm not sure she could be called a "minor character" as she clearly helps tie everything together even if she isn't superpowered. In our search for true egalitarianism let's not lose sight of the fact that there has been real progress even if we haven't yet reached our goal. Marvel audiences are being conditioned to NOT expect all-white casts or all-white heroes, or all female or all straight. This is a good thing. We want better, but let's not lose sight of what we already have.

[General Zod]

Given what I hear about current comic book continuity there's nothing stopping the studios from casting Thor as a woman if they wanted.

[Broomstick]

No fear except losing money.

If a comic book "re-casts" Thor as a woman and it doesn't work it's a relatively low loss to the company and the book series can easily be re-booted back to a continuity that the fan base will accept.

If a $100+ million movie fails... that's another matter entirely.

And that's why movie studios tend to be a lot more conservative than a lot of other media. The financial stakes are higher.

[Vendetta]

One of the things that differs between the comics and movies is, well, actors age. Eventually the current crop of actors will need replacing, and Marvel movies have tried fairly hard to build an identity between character and actor, so we might be seeing some changes in the characters if things go on long enough.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think Force Awakens pretty definitively disproved the notion that people won't go see an action film sequel in massive numbers if it has non-white male leads.

Of course, evidence seldom matters to prejudice.

[Crazedwraith]

Star Wars has a massive inbuilt fanbase though. They can take that risk.Other films aren't so lucky.

I do worry about that the MCU Bubble will burst just as they do Captain Marvel or Black Widow or something. Then the female stars will get the blame. It's like Catwoman and Elektra. A bad film with a male star is just a bad film. A bad film with a female star is suddenly proof you can't make stars with female leads. To studios I mean. Not in actual fact.