He had none.
At least not untill he was awakend in 80s.
Eh, even after that it was foggy.
X-Men: Apocalypse - May 27, 2016
- Thread starter DinoDB1975
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
At least not untill he was awakend in 80s.
Eh, even after that it was foggy.
bboy
Super Freak
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 10
seemed to me his goal was to be worshipped or the ruler and things were smooth sailing until they all teamed up against him. I don't see anything foggy about his goals in the 80s part of the movie. He's probably the most straight forward villainous villain we've seen in a while. (I suppose the recent lex luthor also falls into this category)
They mention that he ruled for long stretches of time, and that his periods of rule typically ended with major catastrophes. I assumed that this wasn't that he was accident prone, but that he intentionally destroyed large sections of society after awhile. Either because of erosion of his idealized values/"weakening" of the populace, a need to show force in the face of revolt, or some combination of those things.
The reason why he would destroy much of the earth on his immediate return would suggest the former. If he simply was doing it as a means of demonstrating credible force to impose his will on the existing people/systems of the earth, then he would had a more targeted assault. Possibly on world capitals. Much easier to rule without literally tearing everything down, unless you have a deep philosophical or religious problem with them. Or, unless you feel that they are so corrupted/feeble that they won't function the way you need them to.
The reason why he would destroy much of the earth on his immediate return would suggest the former. If he simply was doing it as a means of demonstrating credible force to impose his will on the existing people/systems of the earth, then he would had a more targeted assault. Possibly on world capitals. Much easier to rule without literally tearing everything down, unless you have a deep philosophical or religious problem with them. Or, unless you feel that they are so corrupted/feeble that they won't function the way you need them to.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 16,282
- Reaction score
- 437
Maybe he's just a jerk.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,719
- Reaction score
- 19
So in other words, Feige can adapt any major Marvel arc and have it not resemble said arc one bit and you'd still champion his decision-making, right?
Because who cares if these movies resemble the comics?
Oh wait, some of us do. And as lovers of the books first and foremost we have no reason to blindly follow Feige wherever he goes. Fake Mandarin, Putty Patrol Dark Elves, Jokemaster Ultron, Honey I Shrunk The Kids Ant-Man & Captain America: Civil Skirmish happened under Feige - so the lack of trust in him is completely warranted.
To be fair could they really do an actual war in just one film? I never expected it to be anything more than what it ended up being.
Honestly SNIKT you don't even really come across as someone who knows what he's talking about. You lamented the fact that Civil War didn't end with Captain America's death when...he didn't die at the end of Civil War in the comics. And that's just one of many examples. Sounds like your routine is just to criticize whatever you don't like under the guise of "it didn't match the source material" regardless of whether or not it did, and regardless of you giving a pass to non-MCU films that also deviate.
I mean it's one thing to be a broken record or beat a dead horse, but your repetitive spiel isn't even accurate. And as has already been pointed out to you these MCU films are borrowing the names of certain miniseries (The Winter Soldier, Civil War) but they are actually adapting many different scenarios that came from the comics. Cap swimming up to a ship to battle Batroc came from John Byrne's early 80's run for instance, Cap fighting his way across a helicarrier filled with "evil SHIELD agents" was from issue 227 in 1978, him stealing gear from the Smithsonian was from Waid in 1996, etc.
Similarly the Russos didn't set out to adapt "Civil War" and nothing else (thank God as it was a pretty crappy comic) but brought in elements from when Cap went rogue as "The Captain" when he refused to follow orders of the Commission of Superhero Activities from 1987-1989. In that story he relinquished his original shield to the government, was given a new one by Tony, then after they fought over ideological differences (almost 30 years ago!) he gave the shield Tony made back to him and used one made by Black Panther instead. That is what a lot of what the current film universe seems to be taking cues from and heading toward but it's like you can't get past the title and a news report you saw 10 years ago about Cap's death in a rebooted series. Again it just doesn't seem like you're really familiar with any of these storylines that the Russos are constantly pulling from.
Last edited:
Man, you either insult people who don't agree with you, or you don't accept the scans and keep going your way. I really have nothing to say to you, since all you will do is put your fingers to your ears and keep singing tralalalaFiegeSuckslalala. I broke down Civil War to the tiniest detail in that spoiler tag. I provided scans and even articles. Everything you need to know about the book, everything that lead up to it and its fallout, it's there.
As for the rest, it's simply your opinion. Yes, the Mandarin was a joke. But since you're such a fan of the source material, I guess you wanted to see British x Asian Doctor Doom with Magic Dragon Rings use karate chops on Iron Man. As for Ultron, he's had so many Models, that I don't see the problem. He once dressed up as a cowboy, and is currently in a symbiotic relationship with Hank Pym...His dad... Sure, I would've rathered something more menacing, but I ain't gonna complain all day. As for Ant-Man, it was a Scott Lang movie, not a Hank Pym one. Scott Lang is the down-on-his-luck brilliant doofus who loves his daughter. I didn't see anything wrong with it. But that's entirely subjective.
Again, you can call us MCU Lovers, Feige Whores and the like, but please, never, ever, undermine my comic book knowledge and love for them. That is something that simply doesn't hold any ground, considering my posts.
Civil War is a good film despite bein' far from the comic book. (thank God for that)
With Crapocalypse FOX just threw a bunch of comicbooky stuff in one poorly written story and gave it to the director who doesn't now how to direct comicbooky stuff.
With Crapocalypse FOX just threw a bunch of comicbooky stuff in one poorly written story and gave it to the director who doesn't now how to direct comicbooky stuff.
Careful, the guy he's talking to in that GIF was about to make a comment along those same lines.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Great job darthkostis. 
Last edited:
Trying to explain comics to SNIKT1950 is like watching the trolls try to tell Elsa's parents how to raise her:
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 333
I see everyones point... MCU has had some amazing films but has also had some run of the mill crap fests.
I think Fox and DC are in the same boat.
The one thing that I think is the biggest issue with MCU is their lack of great villains, which is of course my opinion. I'm hoping that changes with Thanos, or the villains in either (or hopefully all) Guardians 2, Thor 3, Spidey or Black Panther top the villains from the past.
But all of the studios have their issues at the end of the day and none of them are the go-to for CBM films IMO. They have all made great films and I enjoy all of the artistic differences.
I think Fox and DC are in the same boat.
The one thing that I think is the biggest issue with MCU is their lack of great villains, which is of course my opinion. I'm hoping that changes with Thanos, or the villains in either (or hopefully all) Guardians 2, Thor 3, Spidey or Black Panther top the villains from the past.
But all of the studios have their issues at the end of the day and none of them are the go-to for CBM films IMO. They have all made great films and I enjoy all of the artistic differences.
Similar threads
