EDITORIAL: Defending 20th Century Fox

Recently, I have seen an uncommon amount of hate and disdain towards comic book movies made by 20th Century Fox. Read on to hear why I feel all the hate is MOSTLY unwarranted, and explanation why I feel they still deserve a chance.

Follow GuardianDevil:
By GuardianDevil - 12/19/2013


Hello friends! Ever since the first X-Men movie hit the theaters in the year 2000. 20th Century Fox has been a major player in the comic book film industry, and have produced a total of ten films. But, nowadays there is an uncommon amount of hate particularly on this site towards the company and their films. Today, I will examine all the complaints regarding the Fox films and question their validity. Please keep in mind that this is not an attack on any one or any other company. I would beg of all my readers to keep an open mind when reading and not to be blinded with company bias. Thanks a lot for reading!



Complaint #1: The X-Men movies are too Wolverine-centric.

One majorly repeated reason why the X-Men movies aren't good is the fact that people think of them as too Wolverine-centric. However, I feel this argument is not only untrue it's also hypocritical. To be fair, while Wolverine does get a bit more screen time than the rest of the team. It is true to his character from the comics. To be honest, Wolverine has been the most popular, most iconic and most central X-Man for decades. So it's only natural that Singer would make him the same in the movies. Besides, other comic book film franchises do the exact same thing with their trademark money makers. Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe for instance, so far a whole half of all the MCU films are all centered around Iron Man. Because in recent years he has become the most popular and the most cash-bringing character in their franchise. Or how about Warner Bros? They don't put half the effort into their non-Batman/Superman characters. Because those characters don't make as much money. So it's OK for Marvel and WB to focus on their cash bringers, but it's bad for Fox to do so?? Like that makes sense. Secondly, Wolverine is not as over-exposed as we think. Not all of the X-Men movies are overly centered around Logan. The only one that is truly guilty of this was X-Men: The Last Stand. No idiot would bash X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The Wolverine for being too Wolverine centric because they are WOLVERINE SOLO MOVIES. X-Men and X-Men 2 do put him on a slightly higher pedestal than the rest. But he's not the sole attraction. Obviously he has a key role in both films, because he has a key role in the X-Men team. But Xavier's role is just as big, so is Magneto's. Jean Grey has a key role in both films, as does Storm. Nightcrawler has a big role in X-Men 2. The only one who gets short-changed is Cyclops. Even then he did a lot of badass things. We tend to forget that it was Cyclops who saves Wolverine in the forest and defeats Sabretooth, it was also he that saved Wolverine a second time and actually was the one who killed Sabretooth. It was also he that blasted Magneto towards the climax, had he not done so Wolverine wouldn't have been able to save Rogue and stop the machine. Cyclops actually did have a major role in X-Men 1. Which is one of the reasons I prefer X-Men 1 over X-Men 2. Cyclops does get short changed in X-Men 2, however he does get to be a boss for a short time. When he shows off his skills against Stryker's Men and Lady Deathstrike. But he disappears after that, that is the one thing I will give to the X-Men haters. That Cyclops while badass when on screen, was underutilized. But what I'm trying to say is that while Wolverine does have a central role in X-Men 1 & 2, the other characters played a major part as well and Wolverine isn't even the center of attention. X-Men: The Last Stand is the only one that focuses mainly on Wolverine and cuts everyone else. It doesn't help though that there was like 30 characters competing for screen time. But to sum this up, Wolverine is the most iconic and most popular X-Man of all time. So it's only natural that he would get a slightly larger role. His role isn't THAT much bigger than the rest.



Complaint #2: They crapped on the source material.

Another major source of fuel for the haters. Is the fact that Fox has made multiple changes to the characters from the comics. While I can understand why someone would be upset by this. Because we care deeply for these characters. I find the notion of hating Fox for making changes retarded. What people have to realize is that EVERY SINGLE COMIC BOOK MOVIE is an alternate universe version of the comic. So it's ok to make changes and make it work better in the film. One major example is the version of Wade Wilson/Deadpool we saw in the 2009 film X-Men Origins: Wolverine. This iteration of the character caused so much outrage among comic fans. People were even getting violent about it. Personally I didn't care, because I think Deadpool is one of the lamest and worst of Marvel's heroes. Because he's not even a real character he's just a gimmick. Of course there are some characters that use humor as a part of their character like Flash, Spider-Man or Iron Man. Deadpool exists for one sole reason: to be a joke. He IS NOT a character he is a joke nothing more. That said, I can understand the outrage because there are many fans of Deadpool out there. But honestly, I feel that the comic book version of Deadpool wouldn't have worked in this film specifically. Because Origins was a darker movie, a fun light hearted Deadpool like the comics would have had a detrimental effect on the film and it would have been even worse of a movie. Conflicting tones would have never worked well in a film like X-Men Origins. But all of that is completely beside the point. Because only Fox gets bashed for changing characters from the comics. Think about it, every other major studio producing CBMs has made MEGA, MEGA changes to the characters. Look at Marvel Studios for instance, most of their villains from the movies are vastly different from the comics. Obadiah Stane's epic, troubled backstory and childhood is never shown or even mentioned in Iron Man. Justin Hammer is a punk Stark wannabe in the movies, not so in the comics. Whiplash isn't even a comic character, he's a mixture of comic villains Blacklash and Crimson Dynamo. Or how about the way Hulk's origin was changed, or how about the design of Abomination. Or what about the way that Iron Man from the MCU is a 100% different character than the comics Iron Man. Iron Man from the comics, though he isn't perfect he is a selfless hero most of the time. In the movies his personality is massively altered to appeal to a much larger audience. He is a type of narcissistic ego case unlike the comics character. The movie version is still a great character, but there is no denying he isn't massively altered from the comics. The Mandarin...need I say more? Look at Sony Pictures, in the original Spider-Man trilogy Peter could actually generate webs from his hands unlike the comics where he just builds a web shooter. I personally actually prefer it that way, because generating organic webs is truly special. ANYONE can slap on a pair of web shooters, but you've gotta be truly weird and special if your body generates them yourself. That's still beside the point because this is different from the comics as well. Even Warner Brothers with their Dark Knight films and Man of Steel have made dozens of alterations to their characters. So basically, deviation from the comics doesn't lessen film quality, it might turn a handful of fans off but overall closeness to the comics is not what determines the quality of the movie. Also, all comic book film studios make alterations to their characters. There is not a single comic book movie out there that follows the comics 100% down to the nose. So if we are going to hate Fox for it, we must hate Marvel, WB's, Sony and everyone else for doing it. Otherwise we are being hypocritical. Why do we view it as alright for Marvel and other studios to alter characters but bad for Fox to do so?



Complaint #3: The Fantastic Four movies are super cheesy.

A minor complaint about 20th Century Fox's movies is that their Fantastic Four movies are made to be overly cheesy and therefore not good. While I will most certainly agree that the Fantastic Four films have many moments of unnecessary cheese. As well as admit that neither of them are anything special. I do have a rebuttal to that argument. Personally I've always viewed different heroes as having different tones. Characters like Batman, the X-Men, The Punisher, Hulk, Iron Man (pre-MCU) etc. are written to be somewhat dark in nature. But not overly dark necessarily, dark is the wrong word. They are written to have a much more serious tone to them. Other characters are sort of in the middle such as Thor, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, etc. Which aren't overly serious but at the same time are rarely light hearted. Then there is the group of characters that are gloriously cheesy. The five embodiments of this are Superman, Spider-Man, The Flash, Captain America and finally The Fantastic Four. Of course I don't mind a more serious take on these characters like Man of Steel or The Amazing Spider-Man. But I do know that for a fact, these characters at the core are relatively light hearted and cheesy. Before I continue, I would like to make a statement: Just because a character or a movie is lighthearted and fun does not mean it can't have depth to it. If you want proof, watch Spider-Man 2 or the first Iron Man. With that said, I still do feel that Superman, Spider-Man, Captain America, The Flash and The Fantastic Four are the embodiments of the cheesier, more fun comic book characters. Which is why I don't feel that the Fantastic Four movies are bad because they are cheesy. They are SUPPOSED to be that way guys, they are meant to appeal mainly to children and those who are children at heart. (which is me a lot of the time) What I will say though is: Why is it considered bad for Fox to make the Fantastic Four movies cheesy, while multiple cheesy movies like Iron Man 2 & 3, Thor 1 & 2, Avengers, etc. come out of Marvel Studios and people love them. I'm not saying the F4 films are as good as the MCU overall. Because they are both just 7/10 movies in my opinion. What I'm saying is, that Fox will get trashed for making cheesy films. While Marvel is given a free pass to do whatever the hell they'd like.



Complaint #4: They have produced a whole slew of bad movies.

The final complaint I will address regarding Fox CBMs is the way that many would argue that they have produced multiple bad movies. The movies that receive hate and are usually called "bad" are X-Men 3, X-Men Origins, Daredevil, Elektra and Fantastic Four 1 & 2. I will address each and every one of these films and decide whether or not they are truly as bad as people say. I've already touched just a bit on The Fantastic Four films, so I'll start there. I am a moderate fan of The Fantastic Four and the related characters Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer and Galactus. I'm not like a massive fan of the characters I just like them and find them interesting. With that said, the Fantastic Four movies are not the iconic classic characters I know from my comics. I don't mind changes to the source material, that's not the problem nor is the problem cheesiness. The problem is, that the stories and some of characters weren't THAT well written. They weren't poorly written by any means, just some of them like Doom, Reed, Galactus and Sue I didn't think were interesting characters at all in the movies. I thought Chris Evans as Human Torch was freakin awesome though, and Mike Chiklis as The Thing brings that same lovable spirit I know from the comics. Silver Surfer wasn't interesting he was just badass. His action scenes were amazing. Overall with the Fantastic Four movies, they aren't great but they aren't crap either. They land somewhere in the middle where I'd describe them as "sorta good". Next, there is the two hated X-Men movies X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men: The Last Stand. To start with, Origins is nowhere near as bad as you all say. It wasn't particularly good, but most make it sound like it was completely atrocious. When it's really not. It's not a great movie but it does have It's good points. I liked the overall tone of the movie, there were a few great action scenes. The acting was excellent on all accounts, the villain in Liev Schrieber's Sabretooth was amazing. I really loved the brother dynamic of the whole thing, that part made it interesting. To tell the truth, there isn't really anything particularly wrong with the movie other than Deadpool. I understand if you are a Deadpool fan, but personally I think Deadpool sucks so I didn't care. I think Origins is a 7/10 films, I liked the action sequences and the dark action/revenge tone of the film. I also thought that the brother dynamic was very interesting and the acting was excellent. It's nothing groundbreaking but it is enjoyable if you give it a chance. Then there is X-Men: The Last Stand, which IS a bad movie. There are way too many freakin characters all competing for screen time and scenes are the whole thing turns out to be a big hot mess. That said, it is a guilt pleasure for me because I loved Beast and Juggernaut. I thought Dark Phoenix was cool, and I loved the bigger role for Storm and seeing Iceman go all ice. But even with that it is still a weak sauce movie. Moving on to the Daredevil franchise, Daredevil isn't anywhere near as bad as everyone makes it out to be. In fact it's quite good, it's just that I think people were expecting another fantastic Marvel film. Think about it, before Daredevil came around we had Blade 1 & 2, X-Men and Spider-Man which were all more or less great movies. Then came Daredevil which was a splash of cold water to the face, it made everyone say "Oh....I see, not every Marvel comics movie will be great" of course we were given a real treat to X2 in that same year but then we got Lee's Hulk which proves the same point as Daredevil. That said, the theatrical cut of Daredevil is a pretty good movie however the director's cut of the film is a goddamned masterpiece. It's so much better, it feels more complete it has more action and blood. Elektra takes a back seat to the man without fear himself. It looks into Daredevil's character and religion a whole lot more. Overall the director's cut of Daredevil is a great movie. By the way a few days ago when I wrote the ten best Marvel films article, I had forgotten about the director's cut of Daredevil at the time. It probably would've been seventh or eighth knocking TASM out of the list. Anyways, here at the end we have Elektra. Which I cannot defend, because it IS atrocious and boring and completely heartless and lifeless. But even with these so-called bad and mediocre films we cannot forget that Fox has produced five films which are more or less great.



In conclusion, I feel all of the hate towards 20th Century Fox and the X-Men movies specifically is unfounded and somewhat hypocritical. Yes, they have had their bad movies (X3, Elektra) and they have had their mediocre movies too (Origins, Fantastic Four 1 & 2). But if you think about it, haven't all comic book film studios had these? Sony (Spider-Man 3), Marvel (Iron Man 2, Captain America), Warner Brothers. (Green Lantern, Batman Forever, etc.) But all four of those have had their great movies too. I feel the best Fox films are at least on par with the best MCU movies and the best Sony movies and the good WB movies too. I'm not being a fanboy (or girl if you'd like) of Fox, because I feel that right now DC/Warner Brothers is the best CBM studio overall. Because I've seen three good/great CBMs from Sony (Spider-Man 1 & 2, Amazing Spider-Man), six good/great movies from Marvel (Iron Man 1 & 3, Avengers, The Incredible Hulk, Thor 1 & 2), five good/great movies from Fox (X-Men 1 & 2, First Class, Wolverine and Daredevil director's cut) and then nine great movies from Warner Bros. (Dark Knight Trilogy, Red 1 & 2, Watchmen, Man of Steel, Superman 2 and Batman '89). That is however, beside the point. To all the haters of 20th Century Fox, I respect your guys' opinions. I understand that all film is subjective, I understand where you come from. But I feel the reasons people hate are unfounded and a bit hypocritical. I am not trying to offend anyone, start an argument or change anyone's opinion. Merely stating where I stand, and why I feel all the hate is unfounded and hypocritical.

I think five of ten Fox CBMs are truly great. Daredevil (director's cut), X1, X2, First Class and Wolverine all had great character development, performances, score and villains too. X1, X2 and First Class all had excellent story lines. The rest have good story just not as good. I think overall the quality of the Fox films is roughly equal to that of Marvel Studios. But personally I prefer Fox because I'm a bigger fan of the characters in those movies.

Thanks for reading! Sound off in the usual place and please, be civil. ;)
Source: JJ63
DISCLAIMER: This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under "safe harbor" provisions and will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. For expeditious removal, contact us HERE.
2
LIKE!
35 Comments
GliderMan - 12/19/2013, 7:43 PM
I actually don't agree with most of your points, but I like the FOX-Men nonetheless.

COMBINE WITH MCU YOU IDIOTS
GliderMan - 12/19/2013, 8:50 PM
What? I love X-Men Origins:Wolverine and The Last Stand.
Nick56 - 12/19/2013, 8:56 PM
Glad to see Im not the only who doesn't understand the hate towards Fox. As far as I'm concerned X, X2, First Class, and Wolverine are all fantastic character driven films and make-up for the weaker/mediocre other films they've released.
GuardianDevil - 12/19/2013, 9:00 PM
@GliderMan
Most of the general audience likes/loves both of those. It's most of the comic fans, as well as the critics who hate them.

I'm not going to lie, I really liked Origins. The tone, the action, the acting and the villain (Sabretooth?) was all pretty great. There is really nothing wrong with it, it receives hate for two reasons. 1) Most people on this site hate anything X-Men related, 2) Deadpool wasn't 100% same as the comics. Personally I HATE Deadpool as a character, so I really didn't care.

As for Last Stand, IMHO it's a weak movie. Because it introduces way too many characters at once, and doesn't really give equal weight to any of them. The story is odd, and it's just a big mess of a movie IMO. I do like it to a certain degree, because I thought Beast, Juggernaut, Dark Phoenix and full ice form Iceman were awesome.
PsychoManiacJacky - 12/19/2013, 9:54 PM
In dedication to this lovely editorial I creatively made this collage of pictures.

GuardianDevil - 12/19/2013, 10:06 PM
@Jacky
I realize that Fox has had their share of weak CBMs. But what I'm saying is that they've made quite a few great ones as well. I don't need a collage of bad/mediocre film posters to know that they've made some weak CBMs.
GuardianDevil - 12/19/2013, 10:06 PM
That IS cool looking though.
PsychoManiacJacky - 12/19/2013, 10:11 PM
"You heard the story about Old Yeller? Old Yeller was the best, most loyal dog that ever was. I mean, everybody loved that mutt. But one day he showed up rabid." That's 20th Century Fox to me right now.
Wolf38 - 12/19/2013, 11:13 PM
I agree, in general, that Fox gets too much hate.

@Nick56 I was going to say the exact same thing about X1, X2, First Class and The Wolverine. Daredevil did not do much for me, but I'm not a fan so whatever, and I haven't even seen Elektra.

Being a big Fantastic Four fan, though, Fox has disappointed me on that front so far. It is not that humor is out of place at all when dealing with the FF, it's that they need to have a serious, respectable backbone built into the story...which I felt was lacking. Also, Reed and Sue were way off from the characters I know from the comics.

Basically, though, I'm happy with the direction that the X-Men franchise is taking, and very cautiously hopeful that the Fantastic Four might, just might turn out well if this reboot ever happens.
SageMode - 12/19/2013, 11:39 PM
"Look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe for instance, so far a whole half of all the MCU films are all centered around Iron Man."

Huge difference. In every X-Men film (minus 1st Class and his own), half of the movie was focused on Wolverine's character in the subplot of each movie. In The Avengers, there was no point in time where there was a subplot that made Iron Man the focal point. And might I add that Wolverine was also the one that was the "hero" in the climax of X-Men 1 and Last Stand, and shared a history with the main villain in X-2 (Stryker).
BenjiWest - 12/20/2013, 12:00 AM
To much hate on Lee's Hulk.
I own all of Fox's Marvel films, except Electra. I will pick the film up eventually, so I can complete my Marvel bluray collection and I have never seen it before.

I love The Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, X-Men, X-Men 2, X-Men: The last Stand, Daredevil Director's Cut. I like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and I think Fantastic Four 1&2 are ok, nothing special but I like them.
@SageMode, I consider Xavier and Magneto to have as much of the focus on them as Wolverine in the fims. To me those 3 characters are the main characters of the X-Men films, but I do wish Cyclops was part of that. Cyclops and Wolverine should of had relationship similar to Xavier and Magneto in the films.

Also, Tony Stark is the main focus in mcu. In one shape or form, Tony has showed up in all the mcu films ftrom Ironman to Ironman 3, and I don't remember if Thor 2 made a reference to him. Other then the IM trilogy and Avengers, Tony showed up in The Incredible Hulk, he gets mentioned in Thor, and his father plays a big part in Captain America TFA and Tony shows up everytime his dad's eye twinkles in the light. Ironman is the reason that the Avengers won the day in the film.
Odin - 12/20/2013, 6:57 AM
Odin - 12/20/2013, 7:06 AM
X3 had two good things:
-Kelsey Grammer as Beast
-Iceman in ice-form
Other than that it was shit.

The problem that with X-Men movies, for some people seem to be that they can't look them as group superhero movies, like Avengers. They will automatically start thinking "who is the hero?" "who is the main character?" and that's why they think Wolverine is too much focused on. In X1 final battle, kinda like you said, all the team memebers are needed for the misson to succeed.
WorstUserNameEver - 12/20/2013, 9:07 AM
There always has to be someone in a multi-participating dynamic that gets all the shit... and sorry to say but based on the current CBM landscape its Fox.

And it comes down to the lack of respect to (the majority of the) characters and continuity. There is also not as much (if you take Fox's CBM output as a whole) quality as the Marvel, Sony and DC movies.

DC also gets a rough time from the fans due to the lack of respect they give to any of their characters apart from the big two.

The difference between Fox and DC though is TDKT and to a lesser extent MOS are better movies for a multitude of reasons than all of the fox output (including X2 and First Class which I genuinely like but are the exception and not the rule). In my opinion, The Wolverine was overrated.

The good thing as far as us fans goes though is that while historically Fox is the runt of the CBM producing litter, they have seen the $$$ potential of late and will try everything they can to get back amongst the pack alongside DC and Sony (Marvel on the otherhand are out of everyone's reach apart from DC if they get their shit in order).
DukeAcureds - 12/20/2013, 12:39 PM
Fox and MCU will never combine due to personal politics.
That's what you call putting petty differences aside for the greater good of the mythos.
Oh, wait, no it's not.
Jollem - 12/20/2013, 1:00 PM
but...marvel studios is winning, or something
MrCameron - 12/20/2013, 2:02 PM
Good editorial man. I don't agree with everything you said (I HATED Origins, dislike the FF films, and X3 to me, is a guilty pleasure) but you defended your position very well for the most part.
GuardianDevil - 12/20/2013, 3:18 PM
@Soto
That's pretty accurate. For Marvel I'd say in 2008 they could appeal to all ages but were aimed at adults. Then 2010-2011 were all ages. Then 2012-present has been aimed at children and children at heart.
GuardianDevil - 12/20/2013, 3:25 PM
@Omega
So...no rebuttal. No intelligent debate, just angry fanboy-ism and swearing at me? Okay then...

@SageMode
It IS the same. People complain that the X-Men series is too focused around Wolverine but at the same time, we don't care that the MCU is overly focused on Iron Man. Who in my opinion is not as good of a character as Thor, Hulk, Captain America, and others that Marvel owns IMO. In Avengers it was actually incredibly stupid for Iron Man to put the nuke through the worm hole. Think about it, if anyone should have done it. It should have been Thor, he could fly it up there in HALF the time and the explosion would've had little to no effect on him. Plus, either Thor or Hulk could've potentially just thrown it in there. Hulk had the potential to leap up there and the explosion wouldn't have done anything to him. But they had Iron Man do it, because he's more popular. Which proves my point...Whay I'm trying to say is, that people on this site have a MEGA double standard when judging these movies. Because of studio bias...
GuardianDevil - 12/20/2013, 3:34 PM
@BenjiWest
I don't hate or dislike Lee's Hulk, I merely stated in my article that it proves the same point as Daredevil. They are both good movies, but they were like a splash of cold water to the face showing everyone that not every Marvel based movie would be amazing. Like Blade 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2 and Spider-Man coming before Daredevil and Hulk.
sikwon - 12/20/2013, 4:28 PM
I hate the xmovies. They are xmen in name only. Cyclops, storm, rogue, emo ice man, just terrible. I dont know how a fan of the comics can watch xmen and be remotely satisfide. As far as every cbm changing the source material, thats true and necessary but most atleast attempt to keel a characters core intact. X1st class was good in parts, same with eolverine and the very beginning of x2. The rest was trash.
NovaCorpsFan - 12/20/2013, 4:30 PM
I'll never forgive them for what they did to Galactus. The Wolverine was good, FC was good, X1 and X2 were good. FF and RotSS, were letdowns. X3 and Origins were bad movies.
Lhornbk - 12/20/2013, 6:36 PM
You make some interesting points, but evidently you haven't been reading this site much over the past few years. Marvel gets a HUGE amount of hate for "crapping" on source material. Fanboys whine about it on here all the time. As does WB. Remember all the "Superman NEVER kills" comments? Much less the comments about Mandarin, or Pym not creating Ultron. So don't act like Fox is the only one criticized for that.

@Benji, sorry, but it just isn't possible to hate on Lee's Hulk too much. That movie was absolutely terrible, I mean literally unwatchable. I think it took me 4-5 times to actually sit all the way through it, and the time I did I had to force myself, hoping it would get better. It didn't. It is tied with Superman IV for worst cbm of all time, and maybe worst movie of all time.
EpitomeofAwesome - 12/20/2013, 7:14 PM
I don't think the MCU movies are cheesy, but I enjoy the Fantastic Four films and all of their cheesy glory
GuardianDevil - 12/20/2013, 7:52 PM
Hmm....I'd say Avengers, Thor 1 & 2 and Iron Man 2 & 3 have multiple moments of unnecessary cheese. That's not to say they aren't great movies because all of those except IM2 are. I mean even Spider-Man 1 & 2 are a tad overly cheesy those are still among the greatest CBMs of all time. Cheesy DOES NOT automatically bad.
GuardianDevil - 12/20/2013, 7:52 PM
*mean*
staypuffed - 12/20/2013, 8:57 PM
How anybody can think X-Men Origins: Wolverine is in anyway a good film is beyond me. I can't understand most of the hate Fox gets, but that film is utter trash. A complete waste of money, talent, source material and time. For everybody. I'm sorry, but I just couldn't get over that.
MightyZeus - 12/21/2013, 1:48 AM
I sort of agree with this editorial. You do bring up some good points. I mean i love X-men First Class and I thought The Wolverine was great. I think FOX is starting to take it's comic book films seriously in tone and i dont mind some small changes to cbms but a great deal of change from the source material can make certain comic book characters, plots or scenarios in-distinctive.

Also i hate the F4 films. Silver Surfer was the only good thing out of F4 2.
Tyrus - 12/21/2013, 3:30 AM
"Editorial: Defending 20th Century FOX

----

"WB is the best CBM studio at the moment"

................
DurtyTalynt - 12/21/2013, 6:21 AM
Pychomaniacjacky

Nuff said...if that doesnt prove anybody wrong i dont know what will. Its like telling gour girlfriend its ok for her to cheat because ill keep coming back to you anyway.
GuardianDevil - 12/21/2013, 6:58 AM
@Tyrus
Problem? I'm not saying Fox is the BEST in saying people give it too much hate.
SimpleeComplex - 12/22/2013, 5:46 PM
@JJ63 thanks for your hard work and time presenting this article. I mainly disagree with you but i can see you have respect for comics and enjoy a good cbm flick for what it is. You're simply presentig a good argument for Fox (Not that you're a Fox lover). Seems like you could've easily presented the dame thpe argument AGAINST Foc as well given the relevant info. You refrained from any "shut up fan boys, nobody wants to see comic stories in cbm's" or any ignorant talk like that. So good job.

On to the point you mentioned about movies being parallel universesw of the comics. That is an wxcellent point. Marvel even acknowledges that. I for one really dislike the poor adaptations of X-men characters to films, but the alternate movie reality idea does relieve some of the butthurt lol. Here's the thing though, let's use X-men characters for example, why is it that they come across as watered, down, twisted bizarro versions of their comic selves. The movies do not proclaim to be bizarro worlds so why should the characters be bizarros. To illustrate, if like you say they are alternate versions, then shouldn't the character's personalities, roles, etc. be in context with the movie universe they take place in? Wolverine is most popular agreed, but should 't he have been adapted to be more cookie cutter and have Jean as his lady? This would make sense because it would explain why he eventually takes the lead in the trilogy. Yet they kept him as an angry, loner type constantly after his own "origin", his quest to "remember stuff". Seems like Fox was confused whether they should keep his as the rebel or make him the boyscout. Fox doesn't grasp the fact that Wolverine became the most popular because of his antihero, antiestablishment, "screw authority" attitude. You get what I'm sayin? If these characters are alternative versions then they need to differ drastically from the comi s becauze they come across as pale, corporeal imitations.
SimpleeComplex - 12/22/2013, 5:48 PM
Also can CBM.com get an app lol ? Typing from iphone sux. Excuse my spelling!

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.