https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COvnHv42T-A
Trailers tease a lot of things in their last few seconds. I'm pretty sure this is a first.
Wow, some pretty atrocious acting in that trailer. I'm looking at you Sansa Stark.
Quote from: Arcana on December 12, 2015, 01:34:56 AM
I'm pretty sure this is a first.
The first bald head?
Hmm, Apocalypse remind me of someone.
But who could it be
? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wt6XlVob_E)
I mean, seriously?
The new trailer looks quite a bit better. If I'd had the foresight to watch it on mute I'd probably be optimistic now.
Quote from: Nos482 on December 12, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
Hmm, Apocalypse remind me of someone.
But who could it be? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wt6XlVob_E)
I mean, seriously?
For some reason, he reminds me of the android from Red Dwarf. I think it might be his expression.
This is an improvement on the previous trailer - but it still can't hide the shameful interpretation of Apocalypse :P
Quote from: Golden Girl on March 18, 2016, 07:58:37 PM
This is an improvement on the previous trailer - but it still can't hide the shameful interpretation of Apocalypse :P
Shameful in what way?
They really couldn't manage to mess up Apocalypse any worse than they have in the comics several times over. I'm more concerned about the story and dialogue.
I wouldn't call it particularly shameful, but I feel it's lacking the necessary contrasting facial markings.
You know who would've made a great Apocalypse?
Christopher Judge.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/549f6d7.jpg) 8)
Quote from: Vee on March 18, 2016, 08:31:33 PM
I'm more concerned about the story and dialogue.
If the costumes are any indication, we can expect something along the lines of Batman & Robin...
Quote from: Arcana on March 18, 2016, 08:22:59 PM
Shameful in what way?
They somehow managed to mess up what is one of the simpler comic book costume designs - and it looks even worse when they actually seem to have made an effort with the other costumes.
I know that the plot will likely have Prof X incapacitated at some point which is why Mystique steps up to lead, being Xavior's pseudo-sister and all but this trailer also seems to try to capitalize on JLaw's popularity with Mystique wearing her "normal" human face, blonde hair and real clothing rather than blue face/hair nakedness.
Quote from: Golden Girl on March 19, 2016, 02:50:03 AM
They somehow managed to mess up what is one of the simpler comic book costume designs
Uh, you're concerned about the movie not getting the appearance correct for a shape-shifting character that has changed looks regularly in the comic books?
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.theatlantic.com%2Fassets%2Fmedia%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2014%2F05%2Fapocalypse%2F05c497cb2.jpg)
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.newsarama.com%2Fimages%2Fi%2F000%2F160%2F096%2Fi02%2FApocalypse-Marvel-Comics-Trading-Card.jpg)
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=comicvine.gamespot.com%2Fapi%2Fimage%2Fscale_super%2F3359629-cable%2B%252334%2B-%2Bpage%2B23.jpg)
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.filmgo.org%2Fuploads%2Ffilm%2F2015%2F12%2Fx-men-apocalypse-x-men-kiyamet-izle-turkce-dublaj-altyazili-izle-1080p-izle-207.jpg)
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=static.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_small%2F14%2F148344%2F4069785-1655446-uncanny_x_men__1963__377a.jpeg)
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.annihil.us%2Fu%2Fprod%2Fmarvel%2Fi%2Fmg%2Fc%2F90%2F561d4e3de9a6c%2Fportrait_incredible.jpg)
(https://thereforeigeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/bryan-singer-officially-directing-x-men-apocalypse.jpg?w=500&h=375)
No head pipes.
Quote from: Golden Girl on March 22, 2016, 02:28:27 PM
No head pipes.
What does this even mean? More than half of the comic images provided don't have head pipes. Why does that ruin the movie version by not having head pipes?
I always assumed the various tubes he sometimes has and sometimes doesn't have is due to the fact they are functional and exist in some configurations of his bio-weaponry and not in others. When you can shape-change yourself into your own arsenal, your appearance is likely to change over time constantly. Which is why I don't think there is any such thing as the definitive look of Apocalypse, and the artists that have drawn him over the years seem to agree. There are, of course, certain stylistic constants, but specific details are rarely the same for long. And that seems logically consistent with what the character of Apocalypse would be continuously doing: changing and evolving his appearance to adapt to his current situational requirements.
Incidentally, the fact that some of the images have the tubes and some don't is not a coincidence on my part.
If only all the stories involving him were logically consistent with him having shape shifting powers too :D
Quote from: Aggelakis on March 22, 2016, 05:06:18 PM
What does this even mean? More than half of the comic images provided don't have head pipes. Why does that ruin the movie version by not having head pipes?
None of the images have head pipes - he always has a distinctive bowling ball head in a high collar silhouette, but for some reason the costume designers for the movie decided to add head pipe and mess up the silhouette - it's like making a Batsuit without the ears.
Quote from: Golden Girl on March 22, 2016, 08:30:26 PM
None of the images have head pipes - he always has a distinctive bowling ball head in a high collar silhouette, but for some reason the costume designers for the movie decided to add head pipe and mess up the silhouette - it's like making a Batsuit without the ears.
And they forgot the giant "A" that he wore around his waist to remind people who he was.
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i0.wp.com%2Ffacomics.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fapocalypsefirstappmain.jpg)
Of course, if you want to accurately translate his comic book appearance into cinema, instead of tubes coming out of his head you would have to actually connect his ears and his lips:
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=static.comicvine.com%2Fuploads%2Fscale_medium%2F3%2F37573%2F1457855-389px_x_factor_vol_1_19.jpg)
and make them do, whatever it is that's happening here:
(https://images.weserv.nl/?url=4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-T3HCurncsbU%2FUjxyTOo0RYI%2FAAAAAAAARnw%2FnhwW_YhlZdk%2Fs1600%2Fplot.png)
I'm sure trying to replicate that outside of comic book art wouldn't look silly at all:
(https://wasahiro.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/comics-xmen-apocalypse-marvel-comics-2058x1998-wallpaper_www-wallmay-net_14.jpg)
Really all of these seem like odd choices for a shape-shifter. Well except for the reverse mohawk. That's always a good look.
All I really need is the ridiculous gorget/mantle and the aforementioned contrasting mouth-to-ear line (which looked pretty good on that pic of what I'm assuming is an action figure or statuette). The giant A on the belt would be a bonus (stylise it to look Egyptian, and then say it's actually the symbol for En Sabah Nur).
My main issue with the movie look is the purple skin and no mouth line. One wonders if they're actively trying to create confusion with Thanos.
Quote from: Arcana on March 18, 2016, 08:22:59 PM
Shameful in what way?
I'm sure it'll look better on screen, but he does look kinda cheap so far.
For my money, the actors face is fitting (and I think he'll do a fine job), but they need to replace the body with cgi so as to make him massive, not Hulk size mind you - but somewhere between that and normal human would have been nice.
Actually, even the head needs some cgi to correct the mouth.
Quote from: LateNight on March 23, 2016, 07:02:41 AMFor my money, the actors face is fitting (and I think he'll do a fine job), but they need to replace the body with cgi so as to make him massive, not Hulk size mind you - but somewhere between that and normal human would have been nice.
On the one hand, getting someone like The Rock, say, to play Apocalypse might have been interesting from a basic build and voice perspective. I can definitely appreciate the disconnect between their choices and how Apocalypse is normally drawn in the comics. On the other hand, I'm thinking back to all the people who said Hugh Jackman was too tall to play a convincing Wolverine, and I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt on that score (I know some small minority of people are still upset about that, but frankly its obvious they matter exactly not at all).
I also remember Cameron's choice of Robert Patrick to play the T2. The obvious choice was to pick someone even larger than Arnold to play the T-1000, because that would then provide an obvious visual cue that this was a more powerful and menacing terminator. But by going the exact opposite direction, they actually managed to play the visual disconnect in a way that subtly conveyed the notion that the T-1000 was significantly more advanced than Arnold's T-800, because it had to be for that tiny frame to be throwing Arnold's much larger frame around.
Given that they do seem to be touching on Apocalypse's shape changing abilities in the movie (the previews apparently shows him at least changing size significantly) it is possible that his "normal" size being "not huge" might make it all the more dramatic when you see that his size is really anything he wants it to be.
He's already got the lips/ears thing going on in the movie.
Quote from: Arcana on March 23, 2016, 07:35:27 AM
On the one hand, getting someone like The Rock, say, to play Apocalypse might have been interesting from a basic build and voice perspective. I can definitely appreciate the disconnect between their choices and how Apocalypse is normally drawn in the comics. On the other hand, I'm thinking back to all the people who said Hugh Jackman was too tall to play a convincing Wolverine, and I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt on that score (I know some small minority of people are still upset about that, but frankly its obvious they matter exactly not at all).
I also remember Cameron's choice of Robert Patrick to play the T2. The obvious choice was to pick someone even larger than Arnold to play the T-1000, because that would then provide an obvious visual cue that this was a more powerful and menacing terminator. But by going the exact opposite direction, they actually managed to play the visual disconnect in a way that subtly conveyed the notion that the T-1000 was significantly more advanced than Arnold's T-800, because it had to be for that tiny frame to be throwing Arnold's much larger frame around.
Given that they do seem to be touching on Apocalypse's shape changing abilities in the movie (the previews apparently shows him at least changing size significantly) it is possible that his "normal" size being "not huge" might make it all the more dramatic when you see that his size is really anything he wants it to be.
No, I agree it won't be bad at all - it fits the connection with ancient Egypt which worked well I thought.
I can see what you mean with the Terminator, not being restricted by the skeleton and its limitations - much like Wolverine with his ability to exceed those same limitations - makes him a handful, and Robert Patrick also did a great job of making him just ooze evil...
Actually it reminds me of how I initially felt about Hugh Jackman playing Wolverine - not that his size was going to be the issue, but did he really "get" the part, and even more than that did he actually
want to play the part - I think he's more than proven that yes he can and yes he did.
Hopefully (from what I can tell the answer is "yes"), the same is true here.
For more unusual looking characters like Apocalypse, a mix of actor and CGI is usually the best way to go.
ok this is well done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlPw8NUZuuU
Quote from: FatherXmas on April 27, 2016, 12:26:51 AM
It kinda has to be, or else Xavier has gone completely bonkers.