The Energon Pub

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:It's really silly that you're trying to argue against the official word just because it wasn't stated in the exact place for you to consider it real. Origins and X3 are non-canon. No amount of arguing is going to make you correct, it's just going to make you look sillier and sillier that you keep trying to argue for two movies that everyone hates.

Jesus Christ, get off it already.

im pretty sure ive seen you argue the same issues of whats canon the same way in other debates, im just not going to bother looking them up.

Dude, that's like, the epitome of not having a counter. "Oh yeah, I remember you doing some lousy things, but I just can't remember the specific times and dates or the subject matter. But I know they happened."

Come on Sto, you're better than that. And I really want to know where Emma Silverfox came from.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:It's really silly that you're trying to argue against the official word just because it wasn't stated in the exact place for you to consider it real. Origins and X3 are non-canon. No amount of arguing is going to make you correct, it's just going to make you look sillier and sillier that you keep trying to argue for two movies that everyone hates.

Jesus Christ, get off it already.

im pretty sure ive seen you argue the same issues of whats canon the same way in other debates, im just not going to bother looking them up.

Dude, that's like, the epitome of not having a counter. "Oh yeah, I remember you doing some lousy things, but I just can't remember the specific times and dates or the subject matter. But I know they happened."

Come on Sto, you're better than that.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:You know what, Sto? You're actually right about that one. My bad.

no problems friend

always a delight to debate these issues with someone that can remain open minded and civil

Here is the unofficially official timeline of the X-Men films, taken from their own wikia site. You know as well as I do those Wikia folks don't mess around with this stuff.

You will plainly see that Origins wants us to believe that Logan quit Stryker's Team X gig while in Nigeria in the year 1973, THE VERY SAME YEAR that Stryker now works for Trask and still hasn't even met Logan and Creed in order to even recruit them in the first place. Counter THAT.

I'll reserve my counter till you answer a question........makes you think Stryker met even met Logan and Creed by that point in DoFP?

Ill admit, he acted more afraid of mutants then i would expect, but i dont recall any indication that he did or did not reconize logan.

Except that in this case, Origins CLEARLY contains contradictions that can be seen within the body of the fiction. By default, that would make it non-canon.

yeah, i used to think that way..............fact is thats not the case.

contradictions are just mistakes, they happen, if by default they rendered things non-canon then "first class" made the very first film not canon.

That DoFP can be seen within the body of the fiction to overwright the time period that Origins supposedly takes place in only reinforces the fact that Wolverine's first solo film is no longer canon.

a year is 365 days long.So i see no issue with the events of both stories taking place in the same year.

btw, i dont recall an exact year being given in "origins",and wiki does do a bit of summarizing in such cases..

I'm being totally serious here when I ask this: do you have a credible source for this, or did you just pull it out of your ear?

the "origins" film itself tells us she is Silverfoxs sister
we saw her show no mental powers at all
they never call her Frost

and the same source you quoted earlier explains the same thing.
http://xmenmovies.wikia.com/wiki/Emma_Silverfox

Well, the trailer for Apocalypse has a scene which seems to make a big deal out of his baldness. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with Xavier deliberately deciding to shear his luxurious lockes.

you might be right, but dont mistake the use of a "dramatic entrance" as proof of a "big deal" story or plot wize.

These aren't the comics.

that doesnt matter, no matter how many deviations we get, the3 source must still be considered

and besides, they already did the "cant walk can walk again" thing

You sort of countered your own counter there

not at all

im just pointing out the different possibilities that fit the event.

While Xavier is taken that medication to restore his mobility, he has no access to his telepathy.

right, in 1973

dont you think itss possible and likely that Hank, or somewone else, refined the formula by the 80s, maybe giving him a bit more ability to walk and use his powers, at least for a short while?

If we were to assume it was an astral projection, why would he project himself walking when the students he rescued would only meet him in person later and see the truth?

1]on a physiological level, being in a wheelchair isint going to make a bunch of very scared kids believe you can save them and keep them protected

2] again, its something hesa done in comics

Then why would they bother casting him the way they did? If they wanted us to think he was younger, there are probably a dozen better choices than Danny Huston, who clearly looks 40-50 years old. So yes, it IS pretty safe to assume his age based on the actor they chose.

as i said, he loooks younger to me
and thats why its never safe to assume a characters age based on the actors, because it boils dowwn to individual perception.

let me ask you a question...are you a star trek fan?

Which ones? And don't say Amazing Spider-Man.

star trek, soap opera, any long running plays, take your pic, actors get swapped out for any number of reasons, replacements dont always look alike, said changes dont effect canon

Nemesis Maximo wrote:Dude, that's like, the epitome of not having a counter. "Oh yeah, I remember you doing some lousy things, but I just can't remember the specific times and dates or the subject matter. But I know they happened."

Come on Sto, you're better than that. And I really want to know where Emma Silverfox came from.

thats not the issiue, its just that SW has a habit of bringing things to a personal level and i dont feel this topic is worth it

as to your request, its posted now, the system is slow today

Ironhidensh wrote:
Brace yourselves everyone.........

Shadowman is 100% correct here.

about what?
creator intent is canon?

if yes i got a few questions for you

now this is an interesting discussion that has effectively become one of authors intent vs fiction intent. For what it's worth I do lean to the authors side of things but that cones with knowing that things don't always work out nicely. I especially take that stance with these movies as I thought that x3 & origins were terrible movies.

Sto, what events would we have to see that would prove to you that they were no longer canon with your approach to these things

Okay, I posted a **** Deadpool trailer and only one person acknowledged it while the stupid round and round she goes debate continued.

Enough. That debate is over, it was going no where and we all know Sto and Shadowman are too damn stubborn to drop it.

So drop it or warnings will occur.

The first day of the 12 Days of Deadpool have begun.

I have a dilemma with deadpool, I want the film to be good, I like the style of comedy but at the same time I want fox to lose money so all there stuff goes back to marvel. I'm conflicted.

I get the feeling that Fox want this movie to fail so they can say "We told you it wouldn't work!"

ZeroWolf wrote:I have a dilemma with deadpool, I want the film to be good, I like the style of comedy but at the same time I want fox to lose money so all there stuff goes back to marvel. I'm conflicted.

Maybe they'll just figure out what Sony did, that they can make way more money by sharing with Marvel.

In the Beforetimes, while Sony could make money hand over fist with the Spider-Man movies, everything from merchandising went right into Marvel's pocket. Then Sony found out that if they agreed to share Spider-Man's movie rights with Marvel, they could get a cut of Marvel's tasty tasty merch-money, a cut of the profits for any MCU movie Spider-Man appears in, as well as being allowed to use any of the MCU characters in future Spider-Man movies.

Hopefully Fox figures out the same thing.

The thing with (Fo)X-Men is that none of the movies have performed financially poorly at the box office, the franchise is still using the continuity (sort of) that it started with, many of the key actors are the same (aside from different era stuff), and 5 out of the 7 films have met critical favor, with the 8th film poised to make a buttload of money (even if the critics are less forgiving) and the 9th film poised to both make money AND be favorably reviewed. Whereas with Spider-Man, 2/5 of the movies were loved, 2/5 hated, and 1/5 basically sitting at a 50/50 love/hate relationship with the fans.

The way I see it, the ONLY reason Fox would let Marvel have any of the X-Men back in the foreseeable future is if BOTH Deadpool and Apocalypse totally **** bomb. And we all know that won't happen.

Nemesis Maximo wrote:The thing with (Fo)X-Men is that none of the movies have performed financially poorly at the box office, the franchise is still using the continuity (sort of) that it started with, many of the key actors are the same (aside from different era stuff), and 5 out of the 7 films have met critical favor, with the 8th film poised to make a buttload of money (even if the critics are less forgiving) and the 9th film poised to both make money AND be favorably reviewed. Whereas with Spider-Man, 2/5 of the movies were loved, 2/5 hated, and 1/5 basically sitting at a 50/50 love/hate relationship with the fans.

The way I see it, the ONLY reason Fox would let Marvel have any of the X-Men back in the foreseeable future is if BOTH Deadpool and Apocalypse totally **** bomb. And we all know that won't happen.

All of the Spider-Man movies were financial successes as well, and Sony's deal had nothing to do with that, nor with critical reviews. A movie bombing is how Marvel can get the rights back 100%, but Sony's decision to share the rights was purely because they realized they could be making far more money than they already were.

http://screenrant.com/guardians-of-the- ... gn=SR-FB-P

I'll take a wait and see approach with that news, as awesome as it would be.

All new very much NSFW red band trailer.

Burn, have I told you before that I love you?

Ironhidensh wrote:Burn, have I told you before that I love you?

Who do you want banned?

Burn wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:Burn, have I told you before that I love you?

Who do you want banned?

Any birch ads ducking as whole who thinks Deadpool won't be ducking amazing.


I may have been drinking a littlentoday.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Burn wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:Burn, have I told you before that I love you?

Who do you want banned?

Any birch ads ducking as whole who thinks Deadpool won't be ducking amazing.


I may have been drinking a littlentoday.

We haven't had a good drunk posting in ages, keep drinking and keep posting!

And now DMX is going to be stuck in my head for the next week.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Burn wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:Burn, have I told you before that I love you?

Who do you want banned?

Any birch ads ducking as whole who thinks Deadpool won't be ducking amazing.


I may have been drinking a littlentoday.

You should ban Madeus for a day or two just for shits and giggles.

Okay, sorry, shits and guffaws.

Would anyone notice?

Burn wrote:Would anyone notice?

He would, and the funniest part is, he might not even suspect it's on purpose!!!

Trailers like that give me a lot of hope....but I still want fox to fail