Sentinels you recognise because they're giant roots out to kill mutants. Like when the head comes off in the training session in X3, we all knew right away that was a Sentinel, despite no one mentioning sentinels anywhere in that film.
That said the past versions in DOFP were more recognisable than the future ones. But the future ones were obviously just these completely different super advanced shape shifting ones.
The color scheme like in TAS definitely would've been nice, but I think they went with going off the X-Men Evolution version which was primarily blue and gray.
If you're referring to the concept art then yeah, but being bulky was one of the things the final version in the film did right, IMO.
Wasn't expecting it to compare to Warcraft like that. Nice.
The head in that X3 scene looked more like a traditional Sentinel than the ones in DoFP. Hell, the concept art for the DoFP Sentinels from a simple image search I just did look better and closer to the robots we know than the final product in the film, as some have said with Apocalypse here and the concept art.
My point/argument though isn't that the Sentinels we had were unrecognizable (as different in appearance and traits as they were), but that the Apocalypse we got, though you're not a fan of, isn't anymore off-base or left field than the interpretations of the Sentinels and things we had in previous films. I mean with how overpowered the Sentinels in DoFP were especially in like the future, is it really any surprise that the Apocalypse we'd get would be a near-invincible villain with some god angle to him, etc.? Isaac's Apocalypse, though far from a perfect portrayal, fits just fine in the context of the established X-Movieverse.
tl;dr Expressing why I disagree with your statement on Apoc being unrecognizable.
Like I said with Sentinels they're killer robots out to kill mutants, and the past ones were much more like the type we'd recognise in terms of abilities.
Still, even they were clearly not perfect, and I definitely would have preferred the comic book versions. But I guess they get away with it because they had enough in common, and I guess because people generally love that film.
Really not sure what was Apoc about this Apoc though. Also don't think the film was good enough to get away with such a huge departure from the source material. Especially when the film was called "Apocalypse." DOFP wasn't exactly called (or marketed and hyped as) just "Sentinels." Just my opinion anyway.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Jun 27th, 2016 at 10:50 PM
Apocalypse was an amalgamation between the 616 and Ultimate verse. His background is that of the 616: He’s Egyptian, he body hops, been worshiped as a god, has a Darwinist ideology, alien connections, and four horsemen. But his power set is that of the Ultimate version: amassing other mutant powers, has a healing factor, telekinesis, psychic defense, control over other mutants(somewhat), and super strength.
__________________ "Happiness is a lie. Life is horror. The light is always dying all across the universe. The last star will flicker out someday, when it does, all that remains is shadow. And I will be its king!"'-Amahl Farouk
It starts off well enough, I thought. The scene in ancient Egypt is pretty great. The first 40 or so minutes of the movie is decent enough. Nothing exceptional, but enjoyable enough.
After that, things just become kind of... Meh. There's nothing in this that hasn't been done better in other X-Men movies. Far too much screen time is given to Charles and Erik and their bromance (not to mention Mystique). Apocalypse looks shit (it really should be a rule that characters in movies should at least be reasonable in their resemblance to who they're based on).
There isn't one scene in the entire movie that made me think "oh, that's cool". The closest was the Quicksilver scene, which admittedly wasn't terrible. For a movie called "X-Men", it neglects the actual characterisation in most cases. Just... Not really much to it, in the end. And for someone that's supposedly gay, Singer really seems to have a hard-on for Jean Grey.
lol @ them finally getting proper costumes after six movies though. FFS.
Looking at it now, I would probably sum the movie up like this-
The first half or so was the best out of the 2nd trilogy for me (when the horsemen were being gathered, the buildup to everything, etc), while during the 2nd half, it went downhill and became arguably the worst out of the new trilogy.
Isaac's acting was what saved Apocalypse for me, though still mixed on the appearance. There was doubts beforehand that he could really pull it off or was considered a miscast, but well... He did it fine, I felt. Some of the horsemen (i.e. Arch-Angel) were the real weak links here.
And I don't know, I still felt they got the team aspect of the X-Men down well in like the climax. There was the hard-on for Jean, yeah, but she wasn't doing practically everything like Wolverine in previous films. Speaking of...
Though it was just a cameo, the way Wolverine fought and killed (the choreography and such) also felt more believable and convincing than most of his fight scenes in the other movies. Both times I saw this, I was like, "Yeah, that's how he would fight", even if it took about 16 years to get that impression or for them to get better on doing some of the costumes.
__________________
Last edited by Ridley_Prime on Aug 25th, 2016 at 09:18 AM
You mean like that concept art posted in one of the previous pages? That wasn't perfect either, but suppose it still would've been preferable, to a point.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 27th, 2016 10:21 AM
