X-MEN: APOCALYPSE

[crimsonquill]

Figured I'd make an official thread for X-MEN: APOCALYPSE casting and news with filming starting in a few months time.

The biggest news for today is the breaking news that Nightcrawler joins the younger cast..
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/410859-kodi-smit-mcphee-is-nightcrawler-in-x-men-apocalypse

Great news after Singer announced Alexandra Shipp will play Storm, Sophie Turner will play Jean Grey, and Tye Sheridan will play Cyclops in the May 27, 2016 release!

- CQ

[spydermann93]

Spoiler

I can't say that I know very much about Kodi, but I have seen him in "The Road" and "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", and he seemed ok in those movies.

I'm willing to give him a fair chance before I make any early judgments.

[Talavar]

I'm glad to see Nightcrawler again.  While much of the early X-men films have aged, that opening sequence of him storming the White House is still one of the great superhero action sequences.  Hope they make good use of the character!

[lugaru]

Honestly Nightcrawler is one of my favorites, and there is a precedent to him being portrayed as 'awesome' on screen so I doubt they will make him a background or throwaway character, maybe he will be as prominent as Beast (another favorite) was in the last movie.

[BentonGrey]

None of these names mean anything to me, but I'm fine with that. 

I'm also really excited that Nightcrawler is returning!  I wonder if we'll see an All-New X-Men era team?

[Podmark]

Honestly Nightcrawler is one of my favorites, and there is a precedent to him being portrayed as 'awesome' on screen so I doubt they will make him a background or throwaway character, maybe he will be as prominent as Beast (another favorite) was in the last movie.

With all the characters announced I'm not sure he'll be quite that prominent but we'll see.
Pretty cool that Kurt is coming back but honestly I'm most excited about Cyclops returning. He's my favorite X-Men and I've never been satisfied with his movie roles so I'm looking forward to another go at him.

[JeyNyce]

The trailer is out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COvnHv42T-A

I have mixed feelings about it.  One one hand it looks good, but on the other it reminds me of X-men 3

[HarryTrotter]

Did they change Apocalipse's look or is it just me?
If so I support.

[BWPS]

Yeah he looks way better here, and the trailer looks really good to me. I don't think they'll do anything as bad as X3 again.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Well as a Fundamentalist Christian I can now have nothing to do with this film after having seen this trailer as it basically commits blasmphemy twice in the half a trailer I watched before I could go no further.  Too bad they had to go there, because I was looking forward to it before.

[BentonGrey]

Cat, I can't tell if you're joking there, but I did find Apocalypse saying he'd been called Yahweh to be quite distasteful.  It's one thing to say he was worshiped, another to say he was, at best, conflated with, at worst the origin of, the Judaeo-Christian deity.  I mean, Apocalypse has delusions of grandeur; that's part of this character.  So, it's fine for him to say, 'I'm the true god' or something, because he's crazy, but this is something rather different.

I wouldn't be surprised if that line evoked a backlash from several faiths.

Other than that, I'm quite impressed.  This looks good, and nothing I had seen or heard lately had really given me that impression, though I was still holding out hope.  Apocalypse does look much better, and it looks suitably epic.  I don't care for Mystique having a major role as a good-guy, out of costume too, so to speak, but I'm willing to be convinced.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Cat, I can't tell if you're joking there, but I did find Apocalypse saying he'd been called Yahweh to be quite distasteful.  It's one thing to say he was worshiped, another to say he was, at best, conflated with, at worst the origin of, the Judaeo-Christian deity.  I mean, Apocalypse has delusions of grandeur; that's part of this character.  So, it's fine for him to say, 'I'm the true god' or something, because he's crazy, but this is something rather different.

That's the first one I was referring to although the second one really probably isn't actually blasthemy.  And yeah, your view is pretty much spot on.  If he wanted to think he was God fine, but claiming to be the actual source of the Judeo-Christian God is another.  And yes, I was quite serious.

The second as I said wasn't really blasthemy as much, but was the statement that the Bible got the four horsemen from him.  There are other ways of making the connection without saying it that way.  Besides they've essentially said he is both the actual God and the actual devil by doing so.

So yeah, to me this is like as bad or maybe worse as showing a picture of Mohammed would be to a Muslim.  It's pretty much the worst insult to my faith that anyone could ever do.

I do, however, understand that to these people who don't believe, its no different than Thor being portrayed as merely an alien in the Marvel films.  Except there aren't exactly too many Thor worshipers to be bothered by it, but I understand it from that perspective.

[baley]

For what it's worth, I also have a similar reaction for the same reasons. 

Keep in mind: It's sort of been a Marvel thing to push the boundaries in every fashionable way, and I think a lot of this has to do with trying to be the un-DC. Marvel is a lot like Gambit, the X-Man, in that way --- style and flash but not a lot of substance. This is not to say that DC superhero comics are much higher quality, or that they are trendsetters, but Marvel editorialship errs on the side of creating the trends just to create the trends, the genius of individual writers and storylines notwithstanding.

So while Marvel tends to showily dismiss a Judeo-Christian framework, the DCU in basically all its forms heavily suggests the truth of some Judeo-Christian God, albeit comic-booked up a bit. (Zauriel, anyone?)

[HarryTrotter]

Actually,John Ostanders Spectre(great comic,read it) deal with a lot of theological issues.And it manages to explain how different pantheons can exist together.And yes,God does play a part in it.Ofc,John Ostander was a theology student,so his more sensitive then other writers.
Only Marvel example I can think of is from an issue right before One More Day where Peter Parker meets God(maybe,its a bit vague) who tell him to have faith and everything will work out.But,obviously,Peter didnt listen to him.
Apocalypse has a bit of a god complex.And,yeah,they might have taken it too far with that line.Fun trivia: He isnt actually the first mutant.Selene is older then him for some 10000 years.

[Silver Shocker]

Not only that, but in Mark's Waid's excellent run on Fantastic Four, Reed and the rest visit Heaven and meet God (who is depicted as Jack Kirby), while Jason Aaron's Amazing X-Men featured the X-Men going to Heaven where Nightcrawler resided.

[HarryTrotter]

There is also DCs famous Hand that appears when ever a universe is remade.Ofc,other titles like Preacher and Hellblazer have different takes,but lets not get into that.
Apocalypse himself is more evolution themed,and how much religious angle is used depends on the story.
Also,wasnt Thor God for a while?Or really close to that?

[oldmanwinters]

Cat, I can't tell if you're joking there, but I did find Apocalypse saying he'd been called Yahweh to be quite distasteful.  It's one thing to say he was worshiped, another to say he was, at best, conflated with, at worst the origin of, the Judaeo-Christian deity.  I mean, Apocalypse has delusions of grandeur; that's part of this character.  So, it's fine for him to say, 'I'm the true god' or something, because he's crazy, but this is something rather different.

I wouldn't be surprised if that line evoked a backlash from several faiths.

Other than that, I'm quite impressed.  This looks good, and nothing I had seen or heard lately had really given me that impression, though I was still holding out hope.  Apocalypse does look much better, and it looks suitably epic.  I don't care for Mystique having a major role as a good-guy, out of costume too, so to speak, but I'm willing to be convinced.

I second these sentiments!

But it seems like nothing Bryan Singer does these days really surprises me.   

[spydermann93]

I dunno, guys.  To me, the line about people calling him "Yahweh" doesn't really bother me.  Sure it's heavy-handed, but it's a "holy crap; we're all gonna die!" movie about a fictional mutant with a god complex.  Even if it were true, it would only be to that universe and not ours, right?  And even then, it could totally just be Apocalypse being arrogant and "Oh, look upon he who is almighty and all-powerful; the blue toned prophet of a better world; me!"  He's the bad guy, being played up to be disliked and/or feared.

Like Benton was mentioning, he likes to pretend.  Here's a scan of him from the comics:

Spoiler

He loves saying that he was the inspiration of/actually was a particular god in several cultures, Judeo-Christian beliefs non-withstanding. It's not out of character for him to claim such things.

I mean, I just can't take what he says to heart.  Clearly, he's not our Yahweh or God.  Heck, he wasn't even Set in the Marvel universe!  Set is this guy:

Spoiler

He's evil, manipulative, and him saying things like that doesn't seem too out of character (Though, to be honest, he does seem like he's trying to "save" humanity rather than simply killing off the weak (something he tends to try and do a lot), so I'm not too sure about that, lol).  He's a pretender (albeit, a pretty darn strong one).  A mutant with his abilities running around?  Why wouldn't people believe he's a god of some kind?  He can pretend to be a god, but he isn't.

[detourne_me]

 
People in this thread be like: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QoJbj2Ea_Lc

[Silver Shocker]

^^Spyder, well said. I wanted to say basically the same thing, but wasn't sure how to phrase it so as not to offend anyone.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I guess you guys don't understand how it is from a religious perspective.  Notice that I won't even say that particular name?  That's because saying or even writing the name without exactly the proper context is consider such an evil act that the Jewish scribes who copied the scriptures by hand actually changed the vowels of the name so that they weren't actually writing it and thus would not be guilty of anything should they accidentally be writing it with the wrong motivations and thoughts.

You simply don't say that particular name unless you are referring to the Judeo-Christian God and even then it is best to avoid it.  It doesn't matter whether it makes sense for the character or not.  It's pretty much the most evil act possible.  As I said before it's like making a picture of Mohammed would be to a devout Muslim.  In some parts of the world they would excecute people over that.  It's that insulting.

(Mind you I am not saying any Christian would ever agree with that response, just making the point at just how heinous this is considered.  If you aren't a very conservative Christian or Jew you won't understand.)

[BWPS]

I'm just so worried that our Lord's feelings would be hurt, you know how he gets sometimes.

[Silver Shocker]

^ Tactful as always, BWPS 

No, I'm not a conservative Christian. But I have a close friend who is and I knew that this is the type of ad that would annoy him (he did in fact bring it up recently), so I have some idea of how to be careful about commenting on it.

I'd like to ask a few questions: not to be dismissive or snarky at all, but because I'm genuinely curious: 

1. Would you consider Stephen Colbert's "Y***** or No Way?" segments offensive? (for the record, Colbert is a practicing Catholic)

2. If Apocalypse just said "God" or "the Christian God" would that still be a problem?

3. If it's in the comics and they put it in the movie because it's an adaptation, is that really the filmmakers' fault? 

On the topic of Thor, isn't it just the human scientists who treat Asgardians as aliens?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

1. Would you consider Stephen Colbert's "Y***** or No Way?" segments offensive? (for the record, Colbert is a practicing Catholic)

No idea what that is or the context thereof, so I have no idea.

2. If Apocalypse just said "God" or "the Christian God" would that still be a problem?

God is just a generic term for deity.  Since Christian and other monotheists work from the assumption that there's only one we just use the term and assume everyone else knows what we mean by it.  There's nothing particularly sacred in the term itself and it's nowhere considered to be a holy name, so no, not really.  I'd take it as him being an evil villain a bit too full of himself.  It also depends on whether the film pre-supposes that his claims are in fact true or not.  The trailer does indicate that is the case, or at the very least that the Bible was based partially on him (thus making it a mere historical account)  This by itself would be a bit of an issue, but much less so.

3. If it's in the comics and they put it in the movie because it's an adaptation, is that really the filmmakers' fault?

No other adaptions of Apocalypse that I've ever seen has done this, so yes.  If he indeed has done that in the comics, then it is totally the filmakers who decide what they do and do not include.

On the topic of Thor, isn't it just the human scientists who treat Asgardians as aliens?

In the films, it seems to vary on your point of view.  Does being a powerful immortal being make you a god?  If so then yes.  If no, then no.  I'd say it's up to the view to figure that out for themselves.

I should point out that my intent is not to whine about this.  It is simply to state that this film has crossed a line that makes it so that I am unable to watch this film.  Since the majority of films these days actually fall into this category for various other reasons(although never before for that one) this is hardly unusual for me.  I won't go near the Deadpool film for completely different reasons, for example.

[Silver Shocker]

1. Would you consider Stephen Colbert's "Y***** or No Way?" segments offensive? (for the record, Colbert is a practicing Catholic)

No idea what that is or the context thereof, so I have no idea.

It was a recurring segment on the comedy satire show "The Colbert Report" in which Colbert would go over several recent news items/products/services, ect, and give his take on whether they were a sign from God, or were blasphemous. I ask because because it used the name in a less than reverent (one might even say "irreverent") context. 

[HarryTrotter]

Its just a movie.Maybe they didnt know how it will sound,maybe they wanted it to be "contraversial" but the important thing is people are talking about it.Its just marketing,really.

[Reepicheep]

While this is clearly on topic and a huge matter for discussion, I'd just quickly like to remind posters to proceed with caution:

10. This is not an appropriate venue for discussion of religion or politics. Posters will refrain from making comments on those topics and care should be taken that humorous comments don't seem like sniping to those with different viewpoints.

But to add my 10 cents, I totally agree that the faith references in the trailer were really tactless, though I feel the same "god complex" point could still have been (and may still be) delivered with some more thought. I also agree with Spade's last comment.

My gut feeling is that they didn't have anyone in marketing intelligent or well versed in theology enough to know what that choice of name might mean to some people. Of all the names they could choose, I suppose it's a bit of an obscure one.

[BentonGrey]

That's a good reminder, Reep. 

That's more or less my feeling, that they could have achieved the exact same thing in a way that wouldn't have given people of faith any real pause.  Yeah, it's certainly true that these are things that the comics character might do, but there's a subtle yet important shade of difference between the ways that could have been done.

Cat, I can certainly see where you're coming from.  I think that it certainly seems in poor taste, but my reaction isn't quite as strong.  Nonetheless, I'm curious to see what will materialize out of this, if anything.

[stumpy]

Per Reep's comment, I am glad to see the discussion here is more focused on the movie than on the particulars of why what's in it might be offensive. And, just as important, it would be similarly inappropriate to mock people's views in this regard, whether or not we share them.

BTW, I may have missed some subtlety in it, but it looked to me as though the "I have been called many things..." part of the clip depicted the supervillain claiming that he was worshiped as a particular deity^*, not that movie assumes he actually was that deity, whether or not people at the time thought he might have been. Not that that changes whether or not using the name was appropriate or how feather-ruffling it was, but I am curious if people are reading the clip as indicating that the movie is editorially taking the view that Apocalypse actually was someone or that he was saying some people believed he was that someone? Once again, I am not commenting on or soliciting comments on whether either case is okay by whatever standard; I am just curious which case people think is being shown in the clip.

^* Several, actually.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Cat, I can certainly see where you're coming from.  I think that it certainly seems in poor taste, but my reaction isn't quite as strong.  Nonetheless, I'm curious to see what will materialize out of this, if anything.

Nothing would be my guess.

And with that I am done.  It was never my intention to start a discussion about religion, just to mention why I can't watch that.  I have said so and I really don't see how anything more could really be said anyway, so I'm fine with just dropping the subject if everyone else is.  I am sorry to have derailed this thread to this extent.