Any interest? I spent a lot of my pre-teen/early teen years watching the animated series. I just watched Days of Future past this weekend and it looks like they are finally getting the Xmen movies back on track. I am looking forward to the next movie.
If you are an X-Men fan, you need to watch the new movie. Very good. It is a lot of setup and fixing of previous issues. But it is worth watching.
Not just depending from angle but where it is. A vase can seem tiny in a hangar but enormous when inserted into, say, mouth. Trying to stuff it into a smaller orifice such as ear would be damaging and painful.
I really liked the movie as well! One of the few big action movies this year that I honestly watched to the end. Skyfall and Ammazing spindelman... Paused the movie to take a leak and never bothered to resume, never even wondered "gee, I really need to know how it ended".
I enjoyed DoFP. Like you said it got Xmen back on track. The movie itself left me wanting more; I wanted more of the future past Xmen. I wanted more of the First Class (Fassbender and McAvoy) Xmen. All of this is before they dropped the after credit teaser bomb. My body is ready.
Some things are really difficult to say without saying them. There are also levels of finesse involved with how obvious or difficult it is to 'get it'.
I loved xmen as a kid and still watch all the movies. This one is on my list and haven't had a chance due to kids, move, etc. Getting the dvd to watch when my TV comes back at the end of this month. I've read a lot of comics as a kid but not enough to have any clue what the overall timeline of Xmen is, just gotten snippets of stuff here and there.
Nearly all my X-Men knowledge is from watching the TV series when I was little. I didn't like the movies too much, based on this fact. I now view them as an alternate view on X-Men as a whole. So each one is basically a stand alone to me. In that respect, they are all decent. (Minus we-aint-talkin-about-him-pool from Origins.) Until they get a lot closer to the TV series, I'm just like "Meh". Though they may be closer to the comics, I don't honestly know. The first movies missing some of my favorite characters... like Gambit! Waahh!
From my understanding, the animated show was really close to comic storylines. I think this is what they are trying to fix with the movies. They are trying to get them closer to the comic storylines. Which is all I have wanted out of comic book movies for years. I do not understand why they feel the need to completely re-write story arcs. I can understand leaving minor characters out or maybe even glancing over some things. But most of these movies have just thrown the old story lines out the window.
The problem with that is that comic storylines are occasionally bullshit. X Men 3 may been a shameless mockery of a film, but I honestly thought the idea of Phoenix as an alternate personality that was always inside Jean was inspired. It makes a hell of a lot more sense then a pan-galactic macguffin taking possession of her corpse or whatever the hell happened in the comic. (I'm a little fuzzy on the details). My mom actually had an interesting point when we got out of Guardians of the Galaxy on Sunday. She said "Why was that space station inside a giant's skull?" I'm like "I don't know, it was probably in the comics." So she said "Yeah, but its weird, and it doesn't make any sense if you didn't read the comic. Why not just set it in an asteroid and call it a day?" I really didn't have an answer for that. Anyway, I liked the X Men films (Origins was at at least watchable) because I don't have to refer to a wiki to know what the hell is going on. I can just watch them.
They explained the skull in the movie.... or at least I thought they did. I think most of the X-Men movies were atrocities, but then again... I spent a lot of time with the characters when I was younger. I liked a lot of the characters on an individual basis.. but the story-lines were all jacked up.
It was the head of an "ancient celestial being". They did not, however, say what that was, when it died, how it died, why the hell anybody wanted its spinal fluid, or any other form of context. My point was more that was over-complicated. Whether or not it was an ancient being or a rock made no difference. I thought the movie overall was a pretty good action movie. But it had very little context. Who are the kree? Why should I care that whose-it doesn't like the treaty? What treaty was that? Why were it's terms so horrible? Who the hell is Thanos? If you don't want to refer to a wiki, it would be VERY easy to get lost.
I believe the term you're all looking for is 'perspective' big is only big in comparison to something smaller, whether simply appearing larger through the magic of foreshortening or actually being bigger. obviously he didn't do well in biology, the bones may be adamantium, but the tissue and cartilage connecting them aren't (if it weren't for his healing ability the bones themselves would probably grind the cartilage away in a few days) I've always really wondered how the muscles are still connected to said bones now that they've been fused with adamantium...
That's not really a problem. The adamantium would imitate the surface of real bone and have a porous surface where the muscles can attach themselves to. What makes real bones really nice is that they are this semi-hollow/porous crystalline form, so if you strain the bone and it bends on micro level then the emerging gaps and strain points will be filled with more bone material - so the bone just gets better at resisting bending. And if bone breaks and heals then it will be tougher to break from that point the next time. What I'm saying is just replacing couple of the elements that make up natural bone and then speeding up the natural self reinforcing and repairing processes of bone would make one spectacular skeleton.
