Better Never Than Late on "New Mutants"

For date night last Friday my wife picked the movie "New Mutants". We had both wanted to see this movie, but we both also remembered how many times it was pushed back due to various reasons. That is usually never a good sign. I cannot recall a movie being wonderful after many reshoots and pushbacks. In fact, it seems you only ever hear about that stuff when it happens because the movies are not good.

That, unfortunately, happens to be the case with "New Mutants". From what I knew this movie was supposed to come out in 2018. I am pretty sure that Aarya was filming this movie as "Game of Thrones" was ending. Then it was stopped due to reshoots. Then they had to do more reshoots. Then they had to recast some roles. Then the pandemic hit. Then it got pushed back even further due to variants and other circumstances involved with COVID. Then it was just kind of dumped in the late summer months of 2020 and that release was met with very poor reviews from critics and fans. We opted to not go to the theaters because I still will not go to a theater to see movies I really want to see. We decided we would wait. And to be quite honest, I had forgotten about the movie. But it was on HBO the other night and my wife asked me to record it so we could watch it on date night. I did, and we proceeded to watch after the kids went to bed.

I have to say, I agree with most of the criticisms that the movie got from the general public. "New Mutants" was very dour and sad and filled with messy dialogue and action scenes. There were times when I didn't realize what was going on, and it is not like this is a complicated premise. It should have been pretty easy. These are the mutants that are supposed to take over for the X-Men. Aarya should have been cool as hell. She was a shapeshifting werewolf. But I couldn't get over her hair or her weird Irish accent. Anna Taylor Joy should have been dope, she had a sweet power, but she had some of the corniest dialogue and her backstory was the thing of nightmares. The guy from "Stranger Things" had an even worse accent than Aarya and I could not take anything about him seriously. His whole backstory was absurd. The fire dude, I have no idea who he was, had this weird tonal change halfway through the movie, becoming the "funny guy" out of nowhere. It was very confusing. And the doctor, she was in the new "Suicide Squad", was so easily pointed out as the true villain from the jump. Even the main girl, the newest of the new mutants, was just too sad and gloomy throughout the entirety of the movie. There were some cool things they did. I liked the new girl and Aarya being a couple. I find it comforting that these superhero movies are letting the characters be gay or bi. They do not all have to be straight. I also did like Taylor Joy fighting the big ass dream bear at the end. But that was about it.

I should have liked this movie. I am an X-Men fan. They were the first superhero movies I watched and really enjoyed. This should have been in my wheelhouse. But it took itself too seriously. It was too dark in tone. There was no real fun, and this was not on the level of "Logan", which wasn't made as a fun superhero movie. "New Mutants" was a big miss for me. I should have known because of all the pre release stuff, but I still wanted to give it a chance due to my love of the X-Men and all things mutant in the comic book world. But this did not work. Oh well, they canceled the rest of the trilogy they were going to make, and maybe that means they will go back to the drawing board to try to fix it. My fingers will be crossed until then.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast.

Come and support Ty and the podcast on Patreon.

Follow Ty on instagram and twitter.

SeedSing is funded by a group of awesome people. Join them by donating to SeedSing.

If You Listen to the Critics, you Might Miss Out On Good Movies Like "X-Men: Apocalypse"

It is your choice alone to sit in the movie theater

Last night I finally got around to seeing "X-Men: Apocalypse". As you all know by now, I am a big X-Men fan. They are my favorite group of superheroes, Wolverine is the best superhero all time and I pretty much like all the mutants that make up the X-Men. I think their stories are the most unique and the coolest, by far. I have liked all the X-Men movies, with the exception being "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". It pains me to say that because of my love for Wolverine, but it is a bad movie. I almost put "X-Men 3" as the other bad movie because that ending is an abomination, but the first 3/4 of that movie is very interesting and kind of cool. The ending is just so, so terrible.

I put off seeing "X-Men: Apocalypse" for so long before the reviews were luke warm at best. The critics said that it was a waste of a good cast and the actors played cliché characters. They were hardest on Oscar Issac, who played Apocalypse, but I thought he did just fine. In fact, I enjoyed this movie.

My blog today is not a review, but more so an indictment of critics. But, I will give a short review. "X-Men: Apocalypse" is not even close to the same level as some other movies in the X-Men universe. "X-Men 2", "X-Men", "X-Men: First Class" and "X-Men: Days of Future Past" are all better movies than "Apocalypse". But,as I said, I enjoyed all 2 and a half hours. I was never bored, the story was interesting and I really liked the acting. Michael Fassbender, James McCavoy, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicolaus Hoult and the kid that played Havoc were all just fine reprising their roles. And the new people, the girl from "Game of Thrones" as young Jean Grey, the kid that played young Cyclops, the young Nightcrawler and young Storm, Psylock and Oscar Issac, I thought they all did a good job. I felt that "Apocalypse" was a fine addition to the X-Men pantheon. It was a good popcorn movie and I think most people would enjoy it if they watched it.

This all leads me to my main point. After the movie, I checked back on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and IMDB and other sites like that to see if I misread the reviews. Well, I did not misread anything. The movie scored a 44% on Rotten Tomatoes, hovered right around a 5/10 on Metacritic and IMDB and seemed to be considered a flop by most websites that compile critics reviews. I read most of the consensus' on each site, and they all said virtually the same thing. They said the movie was "overwrought with action and clichéd characters that take away from a compelling story and good actors".

I could not disagree more. First off, overwrought with action? It is a god damn superhero movie. Superhero movies are supposed to be filled with action because they have superheroes in them. The same critics did not say this about movies like "Captain America: Civil War" or any other X-Men movie, and I feel like all those had way more action scenes than "Apocalypse". "Civil War" was basically all action, and critics loved that movie. I think it is a better movie too, but it is not that much better than "Apocalypse". And all the other X-Men movies that these same critics loved, like "Days of Future Past" for instance, they loved the action scenes and said they added so much to the story. I love the scene where Magneto destroys that baseball field in "Days of Future Past", but there was also a very similar scene in "Apocalypse", and the critics claimed it was "overwrought with action sequences". That is totally baffling to me.

Then, to call the characters cliché, what were they expecting? These characters are already in the ether. They have all been established a long, long time ago by the creators of the X-Men comic books. They cannot be any more clichéd than the characters in the comic books that I'm sure these critics read and loved. That is such a blanketed, ill-conceived criticism, in my opinion. I understand when they say that about a movie that does not have established characters, but saying it about a superhero movie is asinine. If these characters are clichéd, so is Captain America, Iron Man, Dr. Strange, basically any superhero, that these critics gave wonderful, glowing reviews, they are all clichéd. They are all the same character that they are in the comic books, so they are clichéd versions of their comic book characters. I'm sorry critics, but you cannot have it both ways. If the people that made these movies started to add new characters themselves, rabid fans would demolish them on social media, and I guarantee that you critics would chastise the people writing these movies for adding new, unnecessary people in an established universe.

I just do not understand the hatred for "Apocalypse" coming from so many well-known critics. I feel like they need to bad mouth some movies sometimes just because. they have no real reason, they just want to dislike something, so they choose the new superhero movie coming out with big expectations, and that is the one that they are going to crush on their websites and papers. This may be the same thing that happened with "Batman V Superman", but that movie had a director with a known track record of being mediocre. The X-Men movies have a well established, albeit a creepy dude, directing these movies, and for the most part, they have gotten glowing reviews.

I guess what I'm really trying to say is, do not trust critics, me included. If you want to see, read or listen to something, do it. Do not base your decision on what these people say. I wish I hadn't waited so long to see "Apocalypse", but I read, and trusted these critics, and it was the wrong choice. I try not to listen to critics, but I made a mistake. I really enjoyed "Apocalypse", and I think most fans of superhero and X-Men movies will enjoy it too. Check it out, if you want.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He has not been kind to the movie critics this year. Hear him talk about it all on a classic X Millennial Man Podcast that is all about the Oscars.

Is Wolverine Really the Best Member of the X-Men?

You better not badmouth my favorite hero

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

Topic sentence number four from my wife, "having Wolverine's powers wouldn't be all that great". This is incredibly tough for me. I'm a huge X-Men fan and my favorite superhero, by an incredibly wide margin, is Wolverine. He has the coolest suit, attitude and, quite frankly, the best powers. At least, that's the way that I see it. This topic has been brought up a few times just in casual conversation in my home, but I have never had to argue against Wolverine. This will be tougher than yesterday's topic, but I'm going to do my absolute best.

Here it goes.

We all know that Wolverine has an adamantium skeleton and claws. The claws come out when Wolverine is angry, frightened, or a big fight is about to happen. He also has the ability to regenerate. This means, if he is stabbed, shot, basically maimed in any way, his body will heal it self. Adamantium is the strongest metal in the world, even more so than vibranium, which Captain America's shield is made of. The fact that Wolverine can regenerate makes it pretty much impossible for him to die. He has lived through wars, gunshot wounds, stab wounds, sword fights, fights with other mutants, everything that has come his way, he has survived. Those powers sound so kick ass to me, but I do see why some people may not like them, and why they aren't all they are cracked up to be.

First off, when Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton, it is blindingly painful. They replace his bones with metal. That would not be a good time at all. To be a guinea pig for some insane scientist or war general, that would stink. To be given a new skeletal structure, against your will, would be very hard to deal with. Then, this makes his claws turn to metal. His claws were originally bone protrusions, but when his skeleton was replaced, that made the claws adamantium as well. It had to have been painful enough when the claws were made of bone. Imagine how hurtful that would be. One minute you are cool and calm, then BAM! bone claws come shooting out of your hand. Now, imagine that happening with metal claws. That would hurt like a son of a bitch. I bet he'd, if he couldn't regenerate, have to get stiches all the time. Also, metal shooting out of your hands is flat out insane. That would also be very hard to cope with as well.

The biggest, possibly most brutal part of Wolverine's existence is the fact that he can regenerate and never die. Sure, it would be nice to have a wound heal on its own, but you still have to deal with the pain of getting brutally injured. At least with Deadpool, he can just laugh it off. Wolverine, he deals with the pain. That is a bummer. I can't imagine having to fight in wars, fight ninjas, fight mutants, fight bad guys and be a test subject in a lab. Just think of all the horrific injuries that he has suffered through. I've never been shot or stabbed or even really been in a legit fight, but I bet all those things hurt. I have broken bones before, and that hurt like hell. I don't even want to think about what a stab wound or a gunshot would feel like. Wolverine has had to endure all of these things, and he always comes back at full health.

Which leads me to what may be the hardest thing that Wolverine has to deal with. He can never die. Think about that for a second. Wolverine has to see all his family, friends, lovers and well wishers die. He lives through all of it because he is a mutant and because he has a metal skeletal system that can heal itself. When Jean Grey dies in "X-Men 3", spoiler alert, I felt the anguish and pain that Wolverine felt, but he had to move on. He has to have lost all of his family by now. That's a bummer. In fact, I think his only "sibling" is Sabertooth, and he became a bad guy that Wolverine has to fight. Wolverine cannot, and probably doesn't want, to make long term friendships or find a lifelong partner because his life will never end. He let himself get too close to Jean Grey, and he paid the price when she went nuts and eventually perished. This has the be the worst thing for Wolverine. In my mind it sounds great to live forever, but I never think about all the people that I would see pass away. When I sit back and think about it, it's a total bring down. Wolverine did not choose to have this power, it was given to him, which makes it even worse. This is why he is a loner. This is why he is so gruff and doesn't particularly like working with a team. This is why he barely says anything. He does not want anyone to get to close to him and he doesn't want to get too close to anyone. Living forever sure sounds great, but it definitely is not.

Look, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Wolverine, but my wife has a good point. It would be kind of a drag to be Wolverine. He has a very solitude life and he doesn't let people in. That would be very disheartening to live that way. Wolverine is still, and will always be, my favorite superhero, but there is a definite downside to his powers and they aren't as great as I may think they are. You win again wife.

Ty with a little help from his wife

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. If he can't be Wolverine, his next favorite X-Man is Dazzler. He may not live forever, but his tweets will. You should follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Marvel v DC: Ty has his favorite

I'm by no means an expert when it comes to comic books and super heroes.

My knowledge has recently been expanded since I've met and married my wife. Our three year old son has only made me more knowledgeable. So, I've had a good nine year crash course in all things super heroes. I'm here to tell you today why Marvel super heroes are so much better than DC super heroes. They each have some great heroes, but, when it comes down to it, Marvel is leap years ahead. Sure, you have what many people consider to be the best and strongest hero on team DC in Superman. Superman is cool, but compared to any one of the Avengers, I don't think he stacks up all that well. I mean, first you have Ironman. He's a super smart, rich inventor that creates all of his own gear. He created a suit that flies and shoots repulsor blasts. How awesome is that. I'd take that over X Ray vision any day. Next, we have Thor, who's a God. He's the only one that can lift his mighty hammer, save for Vision, and he's an awesome fighter. Superman may be an alien, but a God he's not. Then there's Captain America. He was created in a lab to be a super soldier and his shield is made of the strongest medal in the world, vibranium. He's also the greatest team player of all time and the world's best leader. He may be, for all intents and purposes, as strong as Superman. The final, main Avenger, just happens to be the best, in my opinion, the Incredible Hulk. This is a guy that, when he gets angry, turns into a huge, "hulk" of a man that can beat the hell out of almost anybody. He's super strong and the Avengers count on him to take on their toughest competition. He is stronger than Superman and he looks way cooler. Like I said, Superman is cool, but compared to the four main Avengers, it's not even close.

I like Batman a lot. I love all the movies, except for the horrible "Batman and Robin", and think he's really cool. But, when I want dark, dangerous superheroes, give me the X Men and, especially, Wolverine. Wolverine is just as dark, if not darker than Batman. Where Batman is a rich orphan who creates his own equipment, Wolverine is a mutant that can heal himself and never dies. He also has claws made of adamantium. Claws that, literally retract from his hands when a fight is about to happen. I will take Wolverine 100 times out of 100 if the question is, Would you rather be Batman or Wolverine? I'd even go as far to ask if it's a rhetorical question. That's how much more I like Wolverine.

Even when you get to the lower, some might say lamer, super heroes, Marvel is so much better than DC. DC has the Flash, Aquaman and Robin. The Flash can run really fast, pretty boring if you ask me. Aquaman lives in the sea and fights from the water. Yawn. And Robin, he's just a sidekick to Batman that's kind of good at karate. Big deal. Marvel on the other hand has the Fantastic Four. They may not be as cool as the Avengers or X Men, but they are much cooler than the three DC characters I just named. You have Mr. Incredible who can stretch his body to help save victims that may be falling or can't get out of a bad situation. He's a super genius too. Sue Richards, aka the Invisible Women, can turn invisible and also makes force fields. That's pretty dope. The Human Torch's body turns to fire when his powers are activated and the fire power also helps him to fly. Pretty cool, right? Then there's The Thing, a huge man made out of rock that can destroy the bad guys, while also protecting your everyday citizen. He's almost as cool as the Hulk. Almost.

There are many more super heroes in both the DC and Marvel world's, but I wanted to focus on the most popular, in my opinion, ones out there right now. There's also some pretty cool bad guys on both sides, but I say again, I only wanted to focus on the good guys and why I like Marvel more than DC. Please, let me know why, in your opinion's, that I'm wrong in the comment section, but Marvel is so much cooler.

I'm sorry, but it's true

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  The head editor strongly disagrees with this post and will send a rebuttal soon. Follow him on twitter @tykulik