There are actually good explanations for everything you listed there, and I'll address them all and if you find them valid you can bare them in mind for the next time you watch the movie.
the movie posses him as a God, who can't be stoped and not only does he not looked intimidating, but he never uses his power that make him earn the title of apocalypse.(And before you destroy me in the reply, take note that he, aparrently has the power to use matter or kill people with sand or just destroy everything when he wants [The movie doesn't explain well this]).
I think Apocalypse looks and sounds plenty intimidating, but that's a subjective matter of taste. The point I want to address here is him not earning the title of a "God" that can't be stopped, and that he has the power to destroy everything and everyone.
In the movie he completely destroys the world's ability to defend itself from him by removing every nuclear weapon from the Earth, which also removes all deterrents for major conventional warfare. In short, he casts the world into chaos.
He then obliterates the megacity of Cairo (population around 8 million people) and turns it into his monumental supervillain lair, and then speaks to every single human being on Earth at once and instructs them in his new coming age of ruling over them. He also gets his ally Magneto to level every structure on Earth (although was stopped in the early stages of it). So he does plenty of "God" like wrath in the short time he was present in our era.
A lot of the things that apocalypse does in the movie aren't properly explain; like why does he need to obtain 4 horseman, taking in to account that he could take the world out alone with no problem. When he wants to erradicate the humans so that the mutants can exist, I guess...; witch also leave me to this, they never give Apocalypse a reasson to do the thinks he does (I guess he's just the apocalypse).
The movie does explain what Apocalypse wants; "To control everything...to control, EVERYONE". His philosophy is presented as "the weak will die and only the strong will survive", and that could be his ultimate goal, it's his stated goal and he tells Xavier about how throughout the millennia he's been there to "spark the flames of civilization" but if you pay attention to the film it really seems as if that's just an excuse for him to obtain more power for himself. In short, he's got a very obvious God Complex.
As for his four Horsemen, Apocalypse needs loyal minions to protect him during times when he's vulnerable. It's important to remember that while he plays at being a God, that he's not really one. He's a mutant. He needs to be protected when he sleeps, he needs to be protected after expending a lot of energy, and he needs to be protected during the process where he assimilates other mutants. There are times when he's vulnerable, and that's when he needs his Horsemen. Also, Apocalypse needs adulation, servants, worshippers, clergy and followers to feed his ego, and the Horsemen serve him in that capacity too.
Therefor, there's no conection with the audience who feel like they're watching a cartoon character. And if we decide to go that far; given that apocalypse is so damn powerfull, why does he not end the lives of the fools of Xavier when they're trying to stop him for doing what he wanted.
He's not the type of character that one can connect to, no. He certainly is a cartoonish supervillain, and has no redeemable characteristics that I can see, in narrative terms he's essentially an ancient evil spirit, like an evil Jinn, or Lucifer. He's not a character to identify with, he's one to be loathed, and feared.
As for why Apocalypse doesn't simply slay the X-Men, that answer is two-fold. First, he kept Quicksilver and Mystique and Cyclops alive because he was using their lives to lure Charles out of hiding. Dead, they'd be of no use to him (at least until after he took over Charles' body, then he might wipe them out). Secondly he doesn't slay the X-Men earlier because there's no reason to; they didn't present any kind of threat to him. Their first meeting he discovers Charles, and then kidnaps him and Havok nearly kills all of the X-Men himself. For their second meeting he's trying to transfer his essence into Charles while his Horsemen keep the X-Men occupied, and then when he does engage them it's to lure Charles out of hiding. So there's never any real reason for him to eliminate them, if he could.
I hope that adequately answers your concerns over the character.
reply
share
sushiK999
8 years ago
Oscar was horribly miscasted for this film. He is a good actor, but not to Oscar's fault the whole Apocolypse character was horrible; didn't use powers correctly, voice SUCKED, weak plot,...
WTF?
reply
share
vetodo
8 years ago
Thanks...
Though I still kind of like Apocalypse. I guess my problem with the film isn't Apocalypse, but other things in the film.
Though it deserves a 7.1/10
reply
share
choricitojr (2)
7 years ago
Actually, i have some counter-arguments to your explanation.
I think Apocalypse looks and sounds plenty intimidating, but that's a subjective matter of taste.[/quote]
He doesn't, at least to me, but looking at many well-casted and well-portrayed villains for many movies, i think that Apoc was bad "decorated", he has a very bad design. A good villain tends to look tall, big, imposing, dark features (blue gray to dark blue gray would be a better color).
Look at this picture for example, to give you an idea of what could have been but wasn't.
http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Apocalypse-1-665x385.jpg
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1xQlBWBhBv4/V6imp2tlRpI/AAAAAAAAEEQ/cIku-zqAEU4YHQkPml15RNk59arNaFFywCLcB/s1600/x-men-apocalipsis.jpg
http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2015/07/apocalypse-cosplay-vs-movie-146212.jpg
http://www.elmulticine.com/imagenes/noticias/12/x-men-apocalipsis-fanart2.jpg
Tall, big , dark tends to frighten humans. That's why the one casted should have been at least 1.90m tall. But anyway, it's just "taste"...
[quote]So he does plenty of "God" like wrath in the short time he was present in our era.[/quote]
Yes, he does.
BUT, it was only about a few hours at most.
In the original comic, he conquered part of U.S.America for many months / years.
In my opinion, it would have been better, if the villain looks menacing, to end him winning this, even killing charles (i.e.: xteam kills charles to prevent his power being taken). And then entering the "age of apocalypse" that so many of us true fans have waited to see in the big screen.
Then do a 2nd movie where he would be defeated by Cable and Magneto, and then restoring the timeline where Charles lives (or something like that).
[quote]The movie does explain what Apocalypse wants; "To control everything...to control, EVERYONE". His philosophy is presented as "the weak will die and only the strong will survive", and that could be his ultimate goal, it's his stated goal and he tells Xavier about how throughout the millennia he's been there to "spark the flames of civilization" but if you pay attention to the film it really seems as if that's just an excuse for him to obtain more power for himself. In short, he's got a very obvious God Complex.[/quote]
He has some sort of God Complex, but only because he has the amount of power and capacity needed to became one in an operative sense; i.e.: a god can control a group of phenomena completely (climate, water, etc.)
With enought mutants being swallowed, he could have become a true "god" in the sense of being everywhere, anywhere.
But that's not the point, he wants to control everything because he has the power to.
You are now a partial ant for your government, so am i, and you cannot control some things because government controls it for you, even sometimes not giving a f.. about your well-being. That crude is real life, and he wanted to conquer countries / the world because he can, not more nor less. Probably civilization exists in that fictious reality because he constructed enormous pyramids and cities, organizing mankind, and pushing mankind to defeat him with even more organization.
[quote]He's not the type of character that one can connect to, no. He certainly is a cartoonish supervillain[/quote]
He's not what you portray of him, well about the movie you are right, but it could have been presented in a way where someone can connect to his ideals.
I , for one, understand that he's right, sionism and other global agenda is contrary to mankind's well being and progress, so another "power" entering the field would be a lot better than having almost all governments sion-controlled.
Did you think about the last part of the movie for a minute? Even Charles agrees that the "non-nukes" world is a better one? In the brief moment that Apoc was there, he wiped out that super-power from villanous humans to use one against the other, oppresing noble people (like in Syria) with the threat of bombing if not obeying.
Current politics is no different what Apocalypse wanted to do. We could all have related to if his motives where better explained.
[quote]As for why Apocalypse doesn't simply slay the X-Men,[/quote]
He was very kind and pityful for his own "children", as he himself said. He didn't kill them probably because he wants them to exist. His ideal world consist of his children battling themselves to see who's fit to survive.
There are many cases where he could have smashed the hell out of x-guys but didn't.
[quote]I hope that adequately answers your concerns over the character.
It was a bad movie ruining one of the most iconic villains that x-men has. He should have been a real menace and his demise should have been a very long and complex one, instead of "rushing to Cairo and see what happens". Both X and Apoc didn't plan a bit. Both rushed to their
reply
share