Bryan Singer controversy- Could it hurt the new x-men movie?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 9 years ago

   In recent news, Bryan Singer has been accused of sexually abusing an actor many years ago.  This actor is now 31, but he claims that Bryan Singer sexually abused him back when he was 17 years old.  Bryan Singer's lawyers are obviously fighting this, but Fox is taking extra precautions.  For those of you who don't know who Bryan Singer is, he's essentially the director of the upcoming "X-Men" movie coming out later this year. 
   
   As of right now, Fox has removed Singer's name from any and all promotions for the upcoming "X-Men:  Days of Future Past."  And, they've asked him to stay away from doing any interviews, and going to any comic con conventions to promote the film, as they don't want this controversy taking away any kind of publicity from the movie itself.  My questions to you folks is this.
   
   Now that you know this, how do you feel about Bryan Singer?  Do you think he did it?  Do you think he's innocent?  Also will this affect your choice to see the new "X-Men" movie coming out next month?  And if we do chose to see it, then does that mean we're indirectly condoning his actions if he is in fact found guilty?   Please discuss. 
   
   Edit:  Also if you'd like to see the link to find out more about this topic, then please click here
   
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmGFAI-Gdak

   replyreport
   1. 61

      AnastasiaMcGowanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think he did it but I could be wrong, maybe the person who came out and said this just wants money or to be famous, its becoming more prevalent for others to slander someone's name in sake of their 15 minutes. I would personally still see the movie if it came out that Singer did sexually assault this person because there are a lot of other actors who I enjoy that I want to support.

      replyreport
2. 86

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   He was gonna take a Kitty-centric story and make it a blasphemous Wolverine-centric story. Screw 'im.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ouch, that's harsh.  Although in Bryan's defense, he did say that the reason behind that was because they wanted the new film to incorporate both the old cast and the new one from "X-Men:  First Class."  Therefore, the only way they could do that was to use a character who was alive during the 60's and modern times, and Kitty wasn't even born in the 60's.  At least, she wasn't in this movie universe that fox created.  Plus, Fox and Singer both wanted wolverine to be the star because they said he's the most marketable character, and Hugh Jackman is becoming one of the hottest actors in Hollywood since he did "Les Miserables."

      replyreport
3. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 9 years ago

   Hmm i wonder how this is going to affect his involvement with "x-men apocalypse", as it'll be interesting if fox still even wants him to direct any x-men movies after this case is over.

   replyreport
4. 61

   ironangel89posted 9 years ago

   As terrible as it is to say. I wouldn't mind. The X-Men films have been a sloppy mess since The Last Stand. Sure, First Class and The Wolverine were enjoyable, but what they didn't feel like were X-Men movies. I want organization with these films, I want Marvel Studios to get the rights back.
   
   As far as Bryan Singer goes, if he did it, I hope he gets what's coming to him. If he didn't, then I hope this doesn't last long.
   
   Either way, I want X-Men back at home.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wolverine was meant to be a stand alone solo film about wolverine.  It wasn't supposed to feel like an x-men film.  As far as x-men first class, I have to disagree.  If anything, I thought that was arguably the best x-men film ever made because it wasn't all about wolverine, and it was actually felt like a team movie; which is exactly what the x-men are.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         ironangel89posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I understand that Wolverine was meant to be standalone, but then again, there were visions of Jean Grey with nods to the events of the third X-Men, plus a mid-credits scene involving Professor X and Magneto as a set up for the next X-Men movie. It was a standalone movie, but was still within the same universe.
         As far as X-Men: First Class goes, yes, it was a great movie I agree. But I still say that it didn't feel like an X-Men movie. It felt like a great period piece with an edge of sci-fi to it.
         Both of those movies are supposed to exist in the same universe as Singer's X-Men films. First Class wasn't originally I don't think, but, I think they've changed that to. Continuity is all over the place too with all of the movies. I would like some organization to the films, I'd also like to see Wolverine fight alongside of Captain America lol

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Well first of all, you have to remember that when Fox first made the x-men movies, they never intended for it to go beyond 3 films, as Laura Schuler Donner (one of the producers) even said they were only going to do spin off movies after x-3. 
            
            However, after they saw the whole shared cinematic universe that marvel was doing, they're now starting to back peddle on that.  Plus, Bryan Singer even said that "X-Men Days of Future Past" is going to reboot the modern day x-men to an extent that some of the events that happened in the other movies will be altered.  Meaning that the first three films could be in an alternate timeline, and the new x-men days of future past could reboot the x-men to take place within a new timeline where cyclops and all these other characters are no longer dead.

            replyreport
5. 0

   calculus-geometryposted 9 years ago

   I find most movies based on comic books  unwatchable because they are either sloppy messes, or mind-numbingly predictable.   So, I guess allegations against Bryan Singer have no effect on whether I'll watch the movie.  If Fox is worried about image, they can just replace him for the next dozen X-men movies. It's not like it takes a special genius to cobble together explosions and fight scenes with people in costume.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      ironangel89posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I think it is to the point now where comic book films shouldn't be in their own category. Films based on comic books span so many different genres. The Dark Knight trilogy does not fall under the same kind of movie that Transformers or Avengers falls under. Road to Perdition and Green Lantern are two completely different types of movies, both came from comic books. For someone say that most movies based on comic books are a sloppy mess seems stingy to me and leads me to question why that person even took the time to respond to a comment talking about comic book movies. If you don't like those movies, why should we consider your opinion at all or take for any value? Speaking of taking things for value, lets talk generalized comic book movies based after superheroes. They are supposed to entertain and provide excitement, they are not made to have the same slow pace that other movies may often have. Why would I want to see a Superman movie where he spends most of his time grounded as Clark Kent and sulking around the Daily Planet? Yeah, I want to see Superman hit someone or something...hard. I want to see Superman throw someone through a building or take a fight to outer space. So, if you go in expecting some super intelligent, in depth story instead of a story created for fun, then yeah, you'll be disappointed. But you seem like the kind of guy/girl (judging by your comment and name) that takes pride in his/her own intelligence and intelligent things. You don't need to brag, cause honestly, with that kind of sarcastic attitude and dismissive behavior, we don't really care what you have to say unless you are providing value that is relevant to the conversation, which you have not. So go enjoy a conversation with people who enjoy your company and your opinions.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         While I do agree with you that not all comic book movies have anything to do with superheroes, as "american splendor" and "ghost world" are arguably two of the best comic book films of all time, yet they have nothing to do with superheroes, but I think you're being a bit harsh on calculus.  i think he/she wasn't trying to generalize all comic book films as being about superheroes per say, they probably didn't know that there were other comic book films that don't feature superheroes.
         
         If anything, I think what calculus was trying to say was that the superhero genre is starting to run out of ideas, and to be honest, I kind of agree with calculus to some extent on that.  As i mentioned briefly in my captain america 2 review, the reality is that the superhero genre is starting to become overly predictable; which is a large reason why I'm in favor of Sony giving the Sinister Six their own film because i'm hoping that opens up the genre a bit more for original ideas.  Because right now, all superhero movies are starting to become rather predictable to the extent that it's getting harder to keep them feeling fresh.  Not to mention that since Marvel studios has started this whole shared universe crap, I think the market is going to become over saturated with superheroes to the point that they'll start to die out eventually.
         
         Think about it.  Marvel Studios is already doing two movies a year.  Fox is already working on their shared cinematic universe using the fantastic four and x-men.  Although I think the new fantastic four movie will bomb, but the x-men have such a rich enough history that I do believe that it's possible for fox to churn out an x-men movie once every two years.  Hell, they could probably put out one x-men related film a year if they wanted to, as they have enough characters to do that.
         
         Sony is already planning on doing a new spider-man film once every two years, and do one spider-man related film a year after amazing spider-man 3. 
         
         Not to mention that it looks like the superhero genre is starting to make it's way to tv now too.  Marvel already has Agents of shield.  And, they're coming out with four new shows on netflix involving daredevil, jessica drew, iron fist and luke cage.  Plus, Gotham City is coming out on Fox.  Plus, we got the Arrow show on CW, and the new spin off show based on the flash. 
         
         And, this isn't even taking into account that Superman vs Batman could be a huge hit in 2016 to launch the DCCU, to set off a chain reaction of us seeing all these DC related films in addition to all the marvel ones put out by Fox, Sony and marvel studios.
         
         The point is if you over saturate a market with something, then eventually that thing will freaking die.  Look at westerns as a perfect example of this.  There was once an era where westerns used to dominate hollywood on both the big and small screens for a period of time, yet you'll notice hollywood isn't making them anymore.  Want to know why?  they over saturated the market with them to the point that not only is there hardly anymore ideas that can be explored with westerns, but people just got tired of them over time.  It's going to happen with superhero movies at some point, and i'm predicting it'll probably start to decline after avengers 3 comes out if that.
         
         Why do i say avengers 3?  because that's when thanos is going to fight them, and you know after that point that any villain they bring in will be uber lame by comparison.  Think about it.  Once you make a superhero movie where the entire universe is threatened by someone like thanos, then where else do you go from there?  are you going to have them fight that one villain that manipulates time?  (sorry i forget his name)  But wait a minute, the next two x-men films are also dealing with the concepts of time travel, so again...I predict that the superhero genre will decline after avengers 3.  I have no proof to back that up, but mark my words.  It's going to happen whether we like it or not.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            ironangel89posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I probably was harsh, I just get irritated when I feel like people talk about superhero movies not being intelligent and you know what, a lot of times they're not. But the Dark Knight trilogy was amazing, I don't think it's the characters or the source material that will bring down superhero movies, I think it's the directors, the writers, and producers. I do think oversaturating advertisements hurts movies, Captain America: The Winter Soldier was excellent and by far the best Marvel movie, but I think about how much more awesome it would be if I had not scene 10million ads, teasers, trailers, bts, and featurettes. I think ALL movies are doing that though. But I still say that not all superhero movies are the same, Batman is a different genre than Superman which I think is a good thing in bringing the two together in 2016 because you are taking two polar opposites and pitting them together in the same movie. But yeah, they'll probably die away, I believe that, doesn't make the ones now less great or terrible (depending on the film). I think it's unfair to say that they're not intelligently put together is all I was really saying (and some of them aren't like X-Men). IDK, it's late, I'm moody lol, sometimes I have a problem filtering my thoughts.

            replyreport
6. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   So here we are talking about the movies not the accusations--so I suspect they will be fine.

   replyreport