X-MEN: First Class / Days of Future Past / Apocalypse / Dark Phoenix

Ghost X

Moderator
You didn't counter my argument, and it seems you have misinterpreted it. In this scenario, I'd not go to a gallery if they were treating its artists like shit, not just because the artist's work is crap as a result. If people running the industry catch wind that people aren't watching their films because of the treatment of their contract workers, then change might happen. Industry heads don't listen to their workers unless they're politically organised. Profits are all they care about. Imdustry heads are everything thst is wrong with Hollywood. Boycotts substamtial enough to have an effect I know are highly unlikely because consumers don't give a shit about the labour that goes into their products anyway (not just restricted to the movie industry). Information on the chain of supply is hard to often find in the first place.

Like I said, it is good you are able to experience movies in the way you say so that you can glance over bad bits. Like a book or a game, I experience the medium as a whole. It is a different format to an art gallery. If my immersion is ruined in parts, the entirety of the film suffers for it. If there is something particularly great about one feature that I would miss, I could always find it later.

Like your video says, these exploited artists will always be artists. They have the will to pursue their work literally to the ends of the Earth apparently. When one door closes they'll pursue other doors. Help them pursue doors thay don't treat them like crap :p.
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
- And you didn't answer my questions. The changes to how VFX studios work things have to be pushed by the people within the industry. Awareness from things like the documentary help them get change, not boycotting a film. I don't think anyone involved would want you to NOT see all the hard work they poured into Life of Pi, or that boycotting a film like X-Men Apocalypse is going to change that, so that doesn't work as a reason unless there's a MASSIVE film-specific movement by the public.

You can claim to, "experience the medium as a whole" and that a movie having any effects that's less-than-perfect damages it, but then it's falling right back into the part that Gabe's video very openly addresses from 5:26 - 6:40, that makes it incredibly difficult to buy that argument at all — and is the reason I'd asked if you'd actually watched the videos in my last post.

If you do, in fact, solely enjoy experiencing a film as a whole — why are you attempting to preemptively take judgement of a piecemeal version of it in a trailer to decide the entire experience by something like the quality of a few small moments of CGI? That's basically just judging a book by it's cover, as a way to set the tone for your expectation when going into it as a "reading experience."




X :neo:
 

Ghost X

Moderator
And you didn't answer my questions. The changes to how VFX studios work things have to be pushed by the people within the industry. Awareness from things like the documentary help them get change, not boycotting a film. I don't think anyone involved would want you to NOT see all the hard work they poured into Life of Pi, or that boycotting a film like X-Men Apocalypse is going to change that, so that doesn't work as a reason unless there's a MASSIVE film-specific movement by the public.

I felt I'd addressed the points you were trying to make with your questions already. Eg: Yes, there is a good painting ("Quicksilver footage") among the bad ones in the gallery that treats its artists like crap. I also said I recognised a one man boycott wouldn't work :P. I try to do what I think is right, and I also recognise I do so inconsistently :awesome:.

As for the argument of what is effective, what power will an awareness campaign give artists, when people continue to pay money to see these movies? There's no incentive for industry heads to change. They go where the money is. That is the major force here.

The following is a proven and seemingly common way for progressive change to happen when it comes to the arts (and other areas, for that matter): Artists break away when they finally realise particular establishments that work against their interests aren't going to change. They create their own communities and indie projects (or decent businesses, if they're rich enough), which gain in power and popularity. The old industry heads either die out and are replaced by younger more-conscious folk, and/or they notice how popular these offshoot communities are and try and emulate them to make a buck.

So, what artists actually need to do is become completely independent, and make their own stuff that competes with their former employers. That way they'll be in charge of their own conditions... and become evil themselves one day, and so the cycle continues :awesome:. Hoping for change within the establishment, is like voting for Obama and Clinton, when you need to be a Sanders about it :P.

You can claim to, "experience the medium as a whole" and that a movie having any effects that's less-than-perfect damages it, but then it's falling right back into the part that Gabe's video very openly addresses from 5:26 - 6:40, that makes it incredibly difficult to buy that argument at all — and is the reason I'd asked if you'd actually watched the videos in my last post.

The argument that the movie itself is bad and not just the effects does have a lot of weight to it, I do not disagree :monster:. Generally a good production tends to be internally consistent though (including with aesthetics), so one can stay immersed. A good director would nip a saturation of gaudy visuals in the bud too. Alarm bells ring when there is evidence as to otherwise.

If you do, in fact, solely enjoy experiencing a film as a whole — why are you attempting to preemptively take judgement of a piecemeal version of it in a trailer to decide the entire experience by something like the quality of a few small moments of CGI? That's basically just judging a book by it's cover, as a way to set the tone for your expectation when going into it as a "reading experience."

Judging a book by its cover would actually be like saying to judge a movie by its poster, which would indeed be stupid due to a lack of content. The amount of content provided in a trailer compared to a poster is what makes your analogy false. A trailer provides way more context, and sometimes several minutes of footage is released before the film itself is released, so you've already seen a fair portion of what marketers consider attractive parts of the film. The book equivalent of a trailer might be something like the sample pages online distributors sometimes provide potential customers, which are very helpful, if you ask me. True, some bad movies have had good marketing and vice versa. It's not always a successful tactic. I try to be as informed as I can before choosing to see a film though, and not just rely on trailers. However, a poor trailer for a good movie is generally not because there are bad visuals, but rather how boring they make it appear, etc.
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
Well as an independent studio, they'd still need to deal with financing and distribution (if they're making the entire films on their own), which is a whole nother level of nightmare beyond the VFX Industry corner of film. Elsewise, most of those companies are essentially independent, which is why they're contracted to do work the way they are, in which case, the conditions are an artifact of the industry, and Hollywood is an industry that I'd argue is… impossible to do away with like that. You'd have to see something like the writer's strike happen to actually make a dent in Hollywood.

I get ya, but I also think that because of the way that most films market themselves (which is another thing I could go off about for days), the trailers often give us too much time to nitpick at effects and other things, especially because we sort of front-load our expectations for those things we liked/didn't in then when later seeing the film.

Hell, I LOVE trailers, but I generally stick to not looking at anything within at least a couple weeks of the film coming out, because if I do, I subconsciously think about scenes I've seen and try to piece the story together as I'm seeing it — and being analytical like that changes what it's like first seeing/experiencing a film. My point here is that trailers typically deliver advertisement with a generalized context and without immersion, which means things like VFX stick out stronger as something you remember than any part of the story being told in the film — ESPECIALLY because that's what your brain sits around chewing on in the months that you wait for the film to release.

All in all, I see so many movies, that I shrug off marketing & trailers a lot as anything other than a reminder that a film exists that I'll eventually see, but my brother's someone who tends to shun seeing a film and boo's VFX, which activates my, "what about all these things" part of my brain. So, despite this all being sort of tangential tl;dr, thanks for chatting about it anyway! :D




X :neo:
 

Geostigma

Pro Adventurer
AKA
gabe
Generally a good production tends to be internally consistent though (including with aesthetics), so one can stay immersed. A good director would nip a saturation of gaudy visuals in the bud too. Alarm bells ring when there is evidence as to otherwise.

I agree that in a perfect world this would be the end result,the VFX industry would love that too. How ever as it is the general consensus among the VFX industry and community is that the Directing staff etc. is actually extremely hands off.

Even in good movies. The only movies I can think of where they are very involved are purely CGI films and even then I've read that they still aren't all that involved.

Also i agree with X that marketing trailers when it comes to VFX really should be taken with a grain of salt. Like 90% of the time when that trailer comes out the movie is still being worked on for polish.

Remember Guardians of the Galaxy? It's like first 2 trailers Star Lord looked SO different.
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
Such ugly ass outfits just have them wear the classic stuff for once.

Looks like there's a difference between their battle armor and their awesome original costumes!

5R29yxF5.jpg



SRSLY. Dat Cyclops Doe.


Some more images here: http://collider.com/x-men-apocalypse-new-images-archangel/



X :neo:
 

Kuja9001

Ooooh Salty!
AKA
roxas9001, Krat0s9001, DarkSlayerZero
Movie is getting some really bad reviews.

Like....worse than The Last Stand kind of bad. :closedmonster:


Honestly the X-Men films don't hype me(as in make me want to avoid spoilers) unlike Captain America or The Avengers.

Apocalypse's post credit scene in Days had me hyped until this film started dropping trailers and such.
 

Tetsujin

he/they
AKA
Tets
I don't think I've watched any trailers. So far the reception seems to be mixed but I'll form my own opinion. Definitely seeing this when it comes out.

I don't think it can get worse than BvS for me this year when it comes to superhero movies =P
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
It'll be a while before I watch this movie but I'll be REALLy surprised if it's somehow worse then Last Stand. It's already produced a couple of trailers that are each in their own right better films then Last Stand.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
Movie is getting some really bad reviews.

Like....worse than The Last Stand kind of bad. :closedmonster:


Not sure how much stock to put in this when the Critic Consensus is
Critic Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes said:
Overloaded with action in a vain effort to compensate for a lack of genuine excitement, X-Men: Apocalypse is a middling disappointment for the franchise.
but then the first review I read said there was hardly any action. =P

I fully intend to see this and enjoy it. It would have to be impossibly bad to be worse than "The Last Stand."
 

Joe

I KEEP MY IDEALS
AKA
Joe, Arcana
That's true, though a quick look at the critic consensus for The Last Stand doesn't really go into how terrible that movie is:

X-Men: The Last Stand provides plenty of mutant action for fans of the franchise, even if it does so at the expense of its predecessors' deeper character moments.
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally going to go see this movie when it's out. Just a shame that it doesn't seem to be measuring up too well. I was hoping we were done with crappy X-Men titles :doh:
 

Joe

I KEEP MY IDEALS
AKA
Joe, Arcana
I liked it as a youngster. There's no way for me to enjoy it now though. :monster:

Also as a side-note: If they screw up Psylocke for the second time I'm gonna be pissed.
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
Let's get this outta the way.

Apocalypse, the character, looks fine in the final cut. Dunno how much digital editing was required to make it happen but in my eyes he pulled the look off nor all that Ivan Ooze at all. As for Mystique, she still spends quite a lot of time in blue, not really a problem unless you make it one.

The younger cast and Quicksilver certainly bring a fun to the movie that you get with DC movies (MCU movies have it, but it's better at place here then with grown adults that are looked to by the government for and such). Love the new Storm accent, by the way.

ONTO THE BAD NEWS.

This movie is torn apart by two Bryan Singers. There's the guy that's like "Jubilee, Psylocke and Angel didn't get their due in the original trilogy, so despite contiuity differences, they'll be featured here. And I know the previous movies can't possibly support Apocalypse being the source of Storm and Xavier's hairissues, but I want this to be an important event for them, in absence of Cable, Apocalypse'll be the Shadow Kingesque nemesis to Xavier instead and it makes for great visuals.

And there's the Singer that's utterly married to previous movies and cannot let go. The scriptwriters should've rubbed one out too X-2's DVD cover before getting to work, hot damn.
-Stryker, STILL a major villain. Takes the school by force again. We go back the dam.
-Cannot explore Jean's character for two seconds without referencing the Phoenix, so disappointing.
-A LOT of this movie is about getting too Magneto rather then Apocalypse.
-STILL a scene with Scott looking jealously on as Jean bonds with Wolverine like no one ever could.

Also despite afore mention Jubes, Psylocke and Angel, we have to skip to the 80s to get Jean, Scott, Storm and Nightcrawler at approximating appropriate age. Jubilee is basically in the exact same lecture, same chair, same everything, that we see her in her only not edited out scenes in X-2 and Last Stand decades early, but Moira and Stryker along with all the mutants from First Class are unaging to keep contiuity with the other new character's original trilogy version, pointed out but with no explanation offered, just for that. Being in the 80s offered absolutely nothing beyond helping inform Angel and Jubilee's fashion sense.

Also, this movie is determined to make me hate Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. Make no mistake, they maybe better cast, but this movie barely has more use for Jubilee then X-2 did. And not at all with Storm. Psylocke and Angel get near as raw a deal as in Last Stand too. Angel is killed off unceremoniously, without anyone ever caring about or seeing as an X-Men and that's that. Psylocke is still a villain at the end of the movie, her and Stryker live to take revenge on the X-Men another day.

I don't need the X-Men movies to be just like the comics, I get that the first movies and notreboot of First Class meant a different line-up for the original X-Men and that Quicksilver is now on hand to be on the All-New All-Different equivalent. But why does Mystique get to grow as a character and be the Hero, while circumstances conspire to keep Magneto the villain, with his new wife and new daughter getting killed the same day that Apocalypse returns to the world, these two events having no cause/effect relationship between them. And then fake us out by making it look like Psylocke turns on Apocalypse to avenge the discarded Angel but actually it being Mystique while Psylocke huddles in the corner.

Also, for all the endless references to the first trilogy, but when Nightcrawler asks about the the remaining members of the First Class, Mystique uses a vague "they".

There was no "they" on the plane back then. His name was Sean ****ing Cassidy, bitch. This character was too unimportant but we had a whole greatest hits of William Stryker section of the movie?

Also, the final fight was annoying just by it's drawn out padding on it's own back of the concept that the gurls, Storm and Jean get to help fight the big villain, just like the boys. They can't just go do it, it needs an enormous leadup.

Even the credits annoyed me, with Jennifer Lawrence's make-up artist. Jennifer Lawrence's assistant. Jennifer Lawrence's costume artist. We get it, you got Hunger Games girl. You did everything you could to make Cap 3 all about you Downey yet still you are not the biggest Diva in superhero movies, what the hell?

So. I honestly dunno if it's a good movie. I know as a X-Men fans it offended me near as much as Last Stand did. I like BvS better, but I'm get what people who are Superman fans must have been going through.

Lastly I don't get why the next one is set in the 90s, we age the whole cast, including the teens a decade for what? Their characterisation heavily relies on their youth and it's the best part of the movie, not counting Quicksilver
 

Ami

Playing All The Stuff!
AKA
Amizon, Commander Shepard, Ellie, Rinoa Heartilly, Xena, Clara Oswald, Gamora, Lana Kane, Tifa Lockhart, Jodie Holmes, Chloe Price.
Seeing this tomorrow. Will post some thoughts on Sunday morning. :awesome:
 

Kuja9001

Ooooh Salty!
AKA
roxas9001, Krat0s9001, DarkSlayerZero
Let's get this outta the way.

Apocalypse, the character, looks fine in the final cut. Dunno how much digital editing was required to make it happen but in my eyes he pulled the look off nor all that Ivan Ooze at all. As for Mystique, she still spends quite a lot of time in blue, not really a problem unless you make it one.

The younger cast and Quicksilver certainly bring a fun to the movie that you get with DC movies (MCU movies have it, but it's better at place here then with grown adults that are looked to by the government for and such). Love the new Storm accent, by the way.

ONTO THE BAD NEWS.

This movie is torn apart by two Bryan Singers. There's the guy that's like "Jubilee, Psylocke and Angel didn't get their due in the original trilogy, so despite contiuity differences, they'll be featured here. And I know the previous movies can't possibly support Apocalypse being the source of Storm and Xavier's hairissues, but I want this to be an important event for them, in absence of Cable, Apocalypse'll be the Shadow Kingesque nemesis to Xavier instead and it makes for great visuals.

And there's the Singer that's utterly married to previous movies and cannot let go. The scriptwriters should've rubbed one out too X-2's DVD cover before getting to work, hot damn.
-Stryker, STILL a major villain. Takes the school by force again. We go back the dam.
-Cannot explore Jean's character for two seconds without referencing the Phoenix, so disappointing.
-A LOT of this movie is about getting too Magneto rather then Apocalypse.
-STILL a scene with Scott looking jealously on as Jean bonds with Wolverine like no one ever could.

Also despite afore mention Jubes, Psylocke and Angel, we have to skip to the 80s to get Jean, Scott, Storm and Nightcrawler at approximating appropriate age. Jubilee is basically in the exact same lecture, same chair, same everything, that we see her in her only not edited out scenes in X-2 and Last Stand decades early, but Moira and Stryker along with all the mutants from First Class are unaging to keep contiuity with the other new character's original trilogy version, pointed out but with no explanation offered, just for that. Being in the 80s offered absolutely nothing beyond helping inform Angel and Jubilee's fashion sense.

Also, this movie is determined to make me hate Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. Make no mistake, they maybe better cast, but this movie barely has more use for Jubilee then X-2 did. And not at all with Storm. Psylocke and Angel get near as raw a deal as in Last Stand too. Angel is killed off unceremoniously, without anyone ever caring about or seeing as an X-Men and that's that. Psylocke is still a villain at the end of the movie, her and Stryker live to take revenge on the X-Men another day.

I don't need the X-Men movies to be just like the comics, I get that the first movies and notreboot of First Class meant a different line-up for the original X-Men and that Quicksilver is now on hand to be on the All-New All-Different equivalent. But why does Mystique get to grow as a character and be the Hero, while circumstances conspire to keep Magneto the villain, with his new wife and new daughter getting killed the same day that Apocalypse returns to the world, these two events having no cause/effect relationship between them. And then fake us out by making it look like Psylocke turns on Apocalypse to avenge the discarded Angel but actually it being Mystique while Psylocke huddles in the corner.

Also, for all the endless references to the first trilogy, but when Nightcrawler asks about the the remaining members of the First Class, Mystique uses a vague "they".

There was no "they" on the plane back then. His name was Sean ****ing Cassidy, bitch. This character was too unimportant but we had a whole greatest hits of William Stryker section of the movie?

Also, the final fight was annoying just by it's drawn out padding on it's own back of the concept that the gurls, Storm and Jean get to help fight the big villain, just like the boys. They can't just go do it, it needs an enormous leadup.

Even the credits annoyed me, with Jennifer Lawrence's make-up artist. Jennifer Lawrence's assistant. Jennifer Lawrence's costume artist. We get it, you got Hunger Games girl. You did everything you could to make Cap 3 all about you Downey yet still you are not the biggest Diva in superhero movies, what the hell?

So. I honestly dunno if it's a good movie. I know as a X-Men fans it offended me near as much as Last Stand did. I like BvS better, but I'm get what people who are Superman fans must have been going through.

Lastly I don't get why the next one is set in the 90s, we age the whole cast, including the teens a decade for what? Their characterisation heavily relies on their youth and it's the best part of the movie, not counting Quicksilver

I'm tired of stryker. I can't stand how Mystique is good when almost every version of the character is clearly shown as evil
 
Top Bottom