Singers Vision Of Xmen 3?

[Ichi]

Singer's movies never had an epic quality -- they were admittedly smaller, more character-driven pictures.

Well we've seen stuff in this teaser that we didn't even get in Singer's films, so for me it's all relative.

Remember, Ratner doesn't have the burden of starting this franchise. Singer had alot to establish in X1, so he made the movie smaller. But, then there was X2 which was much bigger in it's scale, while still doing some more set-up. You can't say Singer's other sequel/s wouldn't have gotten bigger/more epic(which I thought X2 was). Alot of the stuff in the teaser is stuff Singer had set-up or was thinking of using too(Phoenix, Danger Room, Beast, I think Angel, along with him also wanting the Sentinels) Ratner gets to hop right in with the whole world set and big pieces already moving(Phoenix and the Brotherhood coming back). Also remember the character-driven part of your statement, which was a big reason why I liked the first two films. For all anyone knows Ratner's movie could be all flash and no character. Singer's films being character-driven isn't a bad thing. I just think that some of these slights on Singer don't seem fair or true to me.

[weapon-x]

there's a definite need to get an even balance between character development and doing justice to the effects and, with people like magneto, powers of the characters. singers films were well character driven for some charcters. no compaints there, but the x-men seemed weak apart from xavier and the possibility of him killing all mutants, and that was only when enhanced by cerebro.

Ratners films will have action, and are likeyly to do justice to the x-mens powers but i'm not sure if he's the kind of director to develop characters you can care about and sympathise with, we'll see.

[Seen]

Remember, Ratner doesn't have the burden of starting this franchise.

No, he has the bigger burden. He has to suceeed a brilliant director and two fantastic films. There's a lot of pressure on him, from the studio, fans and critics, to do more than just a satisfactory job but make a film that surpasses the last two installments.

People will be expecting an amazing film, based from the last two which were critically well recieved and financially big hits. No one was expecting anything with Singer's first film, and it exceeded expectations because everyone thought it would fail. And thus the anticipation was already built-in and guaranteed because of the success of the first film in regards with X2.

Plus Ratner has already faced a lot of criticism from certain fans and has to finish a film in a very short time, besides taking over from two other directors and still manage to produce a good movie. It's a whole lot of pressure and burden and if Brett Ratner pulls it off it'll put him in a higher category than Bryan Singer.

Singer had alot to establish in X1, so he made the movie smaller.

No, FOX shortstringed his budget. If he had more time and more money, he would've been allowed to make a bigger and greater film.

Singer has said he wasn't happy with the way X-MEN turned out. It was still a terrific film, but it was still lackluster. He was forced to make it smaller because he had no other choice.

But, then there was X2 which was much bigger in it's scale, while still doing some more set-up.

True. FOX gave him more money (around $45-50 million more, to be exact) and more time (Ian McKellen said in this film he was finally allowed some R&R) which resulted in (obviously) a better picture.

You can't say Singer's other sequel/s wouldn't have gotten bigger/more epic(which I thought X2 was).

Well I'm not sure how Singer would've handled X3, besides including Jean Grey in some degree, so you're right.

If FOX gave him more money and time, more than in X2, and Singer was allowed to include such things as Sentinels, quite possibly. But we don't know that, so it's speculative conjecture at this point. All we can do is judge from Singer's previous efforts.

Alot of the stuff in the teaser is stuff Singer had set-up or was thinking of using too(Phoenix, Danger Room, Beast, I think Angel, along with him also wanting the Sentinels)

Do you know that for sure?

Ratner gets to hop right in with the whole world set and big pieces already moving(Phoenix and the Brotherhood coming back).

He also has to bring characters such as Beast, Angel, Juggernaut etc to life. That ain't an easy task.

Also remember the character-driven part of your statement, which was a big reason why I liked the first two films.

I agree. Me too.

For all anyone knows Ratner's movie could be all flash and no character.

Have you seen RED DRAGON? And Avi Arad has said countless times that the filmmakers are going to continue the key emphasis on character and emotion in this film -- it's why the X-Men films have been so popular and successful in the first place.

Singer's films being character-driven isn't a bad thing.

Did I say that? If so, then I'm wrong. Of course Singer's films being character-driven isn't bad, but X-Men is a comic-book franchise and it needs big scope and scale.

Something the first film, and to an extent, the second film lacked. Of course there were still good films, but flawed.

I just think that some of these slights on Singer don't seem fair or true to me.

Well that is your opinion and naturally you are entitled to it. :)

[Ichi]

there's a definite need to get an even balance between character development and doing justice to the effects and, with people like magneto, powers of the characters. singers films were well character driven for some charcters. no compaints there, but the x-men seemed weak apart from xavier and the possibility of him killing all mutants, and that was only when enhanced by cerebro.

Ratners films will have action, and are likeyly to do justice to the x-mens powers but i'm not sure if he's the kind of director to develop characters you can care about and sympathise with, we'll see.

I like you.:up: :up:
I hate the rest of you!!!:) ;)

[TheVileOne]

The Liberty Island sequence was mostly IN DOORS. As was the White House sequence, which was cool nonetheless. The Alakli Lake Dam sequence was an improvement, yes.


Yes, barring Sabretooth and Wolverine's brawl on the head and Magneto's mutant machine in the torch.


But they weren't nearly as epic as Magneto re-routing the entire Golden Gate Bridge, infiltrating Alcatraz, toppling vehicles, with multiple mutants, Storm flying & fighting assorted mutant villains, a Danger Room sequence (supposedly, with Colossus giving Wolverine the Fastball special) etc etc.


We'll see, final products don't always look as good as the trailers :p .

[Seen]

Yes, barring Sabretooth and Wolverine's brawl on the head and Magneto's mutant machine in the torch.

Yes that was pretty cool but the sequences in X3 look far better IMO.

We'll see, final products don't always look as good as the trailers :p .

Of course. Right now we definitely will have to see, but currently it looks pretty good. :)

[GNR]

That X3/X4 back to back thing was just a rumour I'm pretty sure.

[Ichi]

No, he has the bigger burden. He has to suceeed a brilliant director and two fantastic films. There's a lot of pressure on him, from the studio, fans and critics, to do more than just a satisfactory job but make a film that surpasses the last two installments.

People will be expecting an amazing film, based from the last two which were critically well recieved and financially big hits. No one was expecting anything with Singer's first film, and it exceeded expectations because everyone thought it would fail. And thus the anticipation was already built-in and guaranteed because of the success of the first film in regards with X2.

Plus Ratner has already faced a lot of criticism from certain fans and has to finish a film in a very short time, besides taking over from two other directors and still manage to produce a good movie. It's a whole lot of pressure and burden and if Brett Ratner pulls it off it'll put him in a higher category than Bryan Singer.

I'm not saying Ratner didn't/doesn't have pressure. But Singer was putting his cred on the line when he accepted the job to direct X1. That was when comic book films were still a joke after Batman & Robin. Plus, like you have said, dealing with the lack of budget on a movie that needed big budget. On top of that, along with the writers having to actually decide on the X-Men movie universe(who is in, who is out, spandex, no spandex, etc.). The sequel had tremendous pressure, with the bigger budget means more pressure for success. Along with the fact that X2 had to really prove if X1 was a fluke or was X-Men a franchise.



Do you know that for sure?

I sure on all of them but Angel. Phoenix obviously with the end of X2. Singer said he was wanting Beast in X2 when he hosted a showing of X1 on Cinemax. There is concept art for The Sentinels on the X2 DVD, along with a picture of the Danger Room set being built but not used when they cut that scene out of X2.

Have you seen RED DRAGON? And Avi Arad has said countless times that the filmmakers are going to continue the key emphasis on character and emotion in this film -- it's why the X-Men films have been so popular and successful in the first place.

Yes, I thought he did a good job.:) But he also did Money Talks, and Rush Hours 1 & 2.:O :O I try not to listen to Mr. Arad. Seriously.


Did I say that? If so, then I'm wrong. Of course Singer's films being character-driven isn't bad, but X-Men is a comic-book franchise and it needs big scope and scale.

Something the first film, and to an extent, the second film lacked. Of course there were still good films, but flawed.

So in a franchise you can't build-up to something.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Yes, I thought he did a good job.:) But he also did Money Talks, and Rush Hours 1 & 2.:O :O I try not to listen to Mr. Arad. Seriously.

What were wrong with those movies?? I mean they are nowhere near Oscar nominees but they were fun action flicks. And people obviously liked the Rush Hour films considering they are making yet another one.

[PoSeiDon]

this will never end i guess. i have been satisfied with everything singer did with x1 and x2. singer and his team could have done way better on some things and storm could have been better, another actress would have had the same lines halle did. maybe if storm was written as a stronger character, it would have worked better, but we'll never know right? its all opinion

x3 has LOTS of pressure on it! and im hoping ratner and friends realize that.

but like i said in another thread, i dont think the likes of ian and patrick would have come back if the script was not up to snuff!

[Ichi]

What were wrong with those movies?? I mean they are nowhere near Oscar nominees but they were fun action flicks. And people obviously liked the Rush Hour films considering they are making yet another one.

In one word????

Generic.

Just read the Synopsis: http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?userid=99364472616679&searchID=4205779&item_id=4241

You see Chris Tucker acts like this because he's black, but Jackie Chan doesn't get it because he's Chinese. You GET IT!! HAAAA HA HA HAAAAAA!! TIME FOR EXTREME KUNG FU ACTION!! Then because it is Hollywood lay down some rap music, because in Hollywood kung fu pretty much always needs rap music.

Success and sequels being made doesn't mean jack when it comes to quality.(Example: Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raider, Fantastic Four, Cheaper By the Dozen, Daddy Day Care, etc.) If X3 sucks, I could care less if it is a success at the box office and leads to X4.

[Seen]

I'm not saying Ratner didn't/doesn't have pressure. But Singer was putting his cred on the line when he accepted the job to direct X1.

Ratner has a little more than just his credibility on the line directing X3. Fans are far more nitpicky and cautious then they were back in 2000.

That was when comic book films were still a joke after Batman & Robin.

I think BLADE had come out a year later and was relatively successful, so they weren't a complete joke.

Plus, like you have said, dealing with the lack of budget on a movie that needed big budget. On top of that, along with the writers having to actually decide on the X-Men movie universe(who is in, who is out, spandex, no spandex, etc.).

X3's writers, Zak Penn & Simon Kinberg, had to decide who is in, what should the plot be, what sub-plots should occur, what characters need to be developed and how, etc etc. And I'm sure Ratner has the same budget difficulties that Singer had, if not more.

The sequel had tremendous pressure, with the bigger budget means more pressure for success. Along with the fact that X2 had to really prove if X1 was a fluke or was X-Men a franchise.

X2 had great fan anticipation and a successful movie under its belt. In my opinion it was more smooth sailing.

During editing, Singer said he felt more at ease with this movie, meaning he felt more comofortable it was going to be a success than the last one. Of course the production was full of hardships and pains, Singer went in with a lot more creative control than he did with X-MEN.

I sure on all of them but Angel. Phoenix obviously with the end of X2. Singer said he was wanting Beast in X2 when he hosted a showing of X1 on Cinemax. There is concept art for The Sentinels on the X2 DVD, along with a picture of the Danger Room set being built but not used when they cut that scene out of X2.

Yes but Ratner's X3 differs undoubtedly from Singer's proposed X3. It appears Singer's version would have featured the Hellfire Club and Sentinels, where Ratner's version has "the Cure" (deprived from contemporary Astonishing X-Men comics) and other probable elements.

Yes, I thought he did a good job.:) But he also did Money Talks, and Rush Hours 1 & 2.:O :O I try not to listen to Mr. Arad. Seriously.

And Singer did APT PUPIL. At least Ratner's action comedies were entertaining and financially successful.

Also, I think when Arad means he wants to keep the allegorical drama he means it. He knows without it the X-Men franchise wouldn't work, and that has been reiterated by other members of the production subsequently to that.

So in a franchise you can't build-up to something.

You can but it has to go somewhere. You can't just build and build and never go anywhere. Which I felt Singer's films were doing to an extent.

[RedIsNotBlue]

In one word????

Generic.

Just read the Synopsis: http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?userid=99364472616679&searchID=4205779&item_id=4241

You see Chris Tucker acts like this because he's black, but Jackie Chan doesn't get it because he's Chinese. You GET IT!! HAAAA HA HA HAAAAAA!! TIME FOR EXTREME KUNG FU ACTION!! Then because it is Hollywood lay down some rap music, because in Hollywood kung fu pretty much always needs rap music.

Success and sequels being made doesn't mean jack when it comes to quality.(Example: Charlie's Angels, Tomb Raider, Fantastic Four, Cheaper By the Dozen, Daddy Day Care, etc.) If X3 sucks, I could care less if it is a success at the box office and leads to X4.

Hey I am no big fan of the Rush Hour movies but they were watchable, fun, and entertaining. That is all Ratner was trying to accomplish and he did. And it sounds like you just have a problem with rap being movies or having sterotypical humor or something.

And on those other movies you listed they had something that Rush Hour didn't. Starring hot chick(s)...which sadly makes money nowadays. And I haven't seen Cheaper by the Dozen and Daddy Day Care but those are movies made for families and children and I have a feeling that your not in that group to enjoy them.

[Ichi]

I think BLADE had come out a year later and was relatively successful, so they weren't a complete joke.


But Blade also wasn't really put out there as a "comic book" movie, more of a kung fu/vampire movie. He was a pretty obscure character, who's only real notoriety before that came from a couple episodes of Spider-Man. So they could repackage it and understate the comic book connections to avoid it being lumped in as a "comic book movie". X-Men put it all out there.

[bosef982]

Okay. This all needs to end. I can't believe I'm going to do this.


This debate centers around three things: Singer vs. Ratner, cinematic characterizations of X-Men, and comic faithfullness. Reading through the pages on pages of stuff, I still stand by what I say. Like the Guard, I do not believe in the convience of saying this is all "just opinion." Opinion is the easy way out, and sometimes opinions need to be contested when they abdicate the neccessary objective variables neccessary to buffer them -- namely, evidence.

We have heard many things, and the first I will start off with is Ratner's teaser. I've heard it described as "epic," 'better", "containing things that Singer would not touch". In 90 seconds, apparently, Ratner has erased nearly four hours worth of X-Men film. However, I think the danger lay in the expectation.

First and foremost, I have not heard anyone describe anything of substnace to this strailer. It's all superficial -- by that I mean image. Storm looks cool. Action looks cool. Explosions look cool. Magneto doing things that look cool. All flash and dazzle -- all spectacle. And isn't this the main concern we had? A less character-oriented X-film. Granted, we do not yet know if this too will be character oriented, but to laud this above Singer's films already without knowing this -- films that have such solid characterizations, is an aggregious logical fallacy and lacks the objective variables neccessary to be an educated opinion. For the most part, Fantastic Four looked cool -- it sucked (yet I own it...sigh).

So, we have this issue of characterization in the X-Men films. We have this issue of Storm and Cyclops in particular. However, I think before we discuss this, we need to explore why Singer made the choices he did and how the environment in which these choices took place.

First and foremost, something that many seem not to grasp is that the X-Men are comic book characters that are translated into film. Why is that amongst the fans of novels, musicals, and other mediums, comic book fans are the only ones who have this near cult-like attachment to faithfullness. The entire concept of adaptation seems lost on them, their own fervor for their preferential interpretation of the comic book apparently overriding decades, if not centuries, worth of dramatic philosophy.

What is that dramatic philosophy? Conflict. First and foremost, films have to be about conflict. In comics, you can have a few issues where the conflict is superficial for the most part (Bad guy wants to kill Lois, Superman must stop, Luthor's behind it -- FIGHT!). However, in films, there is no such waiver. Conflict. Conflict. Conflict. The more conflict, the better. Good Drama = Desire + Danger. A famous scholar once said that.

Desire is not waht you think it is. It's not simply what your a character wants. It's what your character needs -- and there is a huge difference. What your character needs is also what your character wants. A want can be a lover, a book, a golden ring, a boxing victory. Whatever. But this alone is superficial (i.e. Magneto wants to destroy Alcatraz). We must have a reason and this, if extreme and potent enough, delivers to the audience a dramatic need. This is done throuhg adding stakes, tramau, or soem other concept to your character's past or situation that motivates them in a way that is uncontrollable (i.e. Magneto, a Holocoust survivor, wants to destroy Alcatraz because they cured his companion Mystique, want to cure what he sees as his ordained mutation, and he has come to see Alcatraz as the symbol of his oppression). Ahhhh...there we go! We have not only want the character wants, but also what the character needs -- we know he needs it because we as an audience identify with his reasons for wanting it: love, vengence, vindication, anger.

Moving to danger.

Danger is not simply guns pointed at your main character. It's a loss, a trauma that can be a result of the hero failing and producing worse situations. It can also be the maintaince of the status qou. It can be both. (i.e. Matrix -- Neo not only is in danger of failing to break the cyber-reality status qou of the Matrix, but also in danger of losing his life.) And here we have this idea of danger, a threat -- or if you look at it in execution, danger is a disadvantage as well. In order to be in danger, you must be in a sitatuion where the circumstances are disadvantageous. You cannot have the upper-hand. That does not create danger. (i.e. Neo must face the invulnerable, never-been-beaten Agents.) Why is Neo in danger? Because no one's ever defeated the Agents before! This is danger. It's not just guns, it's a threat that puts a disadvantage on our main character. This is key to understanding the X-Men films, because this is a major difference between films in general and comics in general.

So, now we have danger and desire defined, and from thes two we get drama. Magneto, a Holocaust survivor, now angered by the curing and deahth of his companion, wants to destroy Alcatraz, a symbol of oppression. He fears that should he fail, mutants will be obliterated from the face of the planet. He decides to decides to assemble an army and lead them into a military confrontation at Alcatraz that could result in their deaths.

See, what that famous scholar forgot was Drama = Danger + Desire x Decision. Your character must always decide to act upon that desire, or if he chooses not to, the movie must then be about how his lack of decision created a worse situation, which is in and on itself a decision. The degree to that situation will magnfiy the importance of the danger and the desire.

Now, that we've established the backbone of films. THE backbone. We are talking in ways like, "Every singe monumental successful film has adhered to the above" type hyperboles. Yes, this is almost a categorical. Take any Oscar nominated film, take any of your tearjerkers, the movies that resonate and stay with you, take any of them -- they will follow Drama = Danger + Desire x Decision.

As a sidenote, it is important to note that even in ensemble film, either the group themselves must become a character (this is rare and typically not a good idea) or your team must center around a few characters. Take for example, Star Wars, which is an ensemble piece in its own way. It's centered around Luke. Take The West Wing, a famous television ensemble show. Each episdoe (which for our purposes can be seen as one film) centers typically on one character's arch. The Man in the Iron Mask, centers more on D'Argtana and Philippe. Rarely, if ever, will you find an ensemble film that counteracts these points of having a few actors as anchors.

So, now we can analyze the X-Men. Who, out of the the characters, has the type of rich, complex history that would make it perfect of this equation and anchor the ensemble cast, playing off each one in their own way. Also, let us also note that we must have a character that's very history can be used as a template to exposiate the history of the mutant conflict, the history of mutation in general, and the history of the X-Men as an established institution (since it's commonly agreed that an "origin" story would be very tedious).

Cyclops. Not really. He's one of Xavier's first students. Being that the X-men need to already established, this rules him out.

Jean Grey. Same goes for her. One of the first.

Storm. Uh-oh. Here we go. Now, while Storm certainly can relate to the struggle in her African youth of mutation, and is not one of Xavier's first students, she lacks the history to make her an engaging character. Being that she is from Africa, her mutations history is too far removed from the American socio-political struggles with mutation, making her a highly unfavorable canidate as an anchor character. Plus, a key to the ensemble "anchor" is that he/she plays off all the other characters very well, illuminating particular characteristics about them and thus, through the anchor character, others are characterized. Storm cannot do this. She gets along with Jean way to well, respects Xavier, and is respectful and platonically attached to Scott. Remember, the best type of characterization comes in the wake or midsts of conflict. How the character decidse to deal with conflict.

Beast and Angel are far too impractical for the first movie. Thus, on budgetary reasons alone, they must be left out. Plus, again, they lack the conflcitive relationships to make them great introducing characters. Rich, privilaged, and smart.

So, who are we left with, Logan and Rogue. Now, also, take into consideration the mandatory requirement taht your audience demographic relate to the character. T his is also key (as I said, we understand why Magneto wants to destroy humanity cause we can identify with his need for vindication as human beings).

Logan. I mean, come on, like him or hate him (I in fact do not like him), he is perfect for the "rookie" anchor. The "bad boy" loves goody-goody Jean, a girl already engaged. He hates straight-laced Scott, the guy the girl he likes is engaged to. Has no time or mind for Xavier's philosohpical ideals (he's a loner). Doesn't understand Storm's need for a philosophical underpinning to the mutant versus human war ("You're sure your on the right side...").

Also, his history illuminates the mutant debate so vividly. We get ideas of government interference, a key aspect in the comics. We learn about how mutations work, how wonderous they can be (he doesn't age! he heals!). We learn of experimentation, an idea later followed in X2.

However, he also conforms perfectly to the dramatic equation in a way that complements the other characters and the history of mutation. Logan wishes to discover his past to satisfy his need to know who he is. This is a very potent, simple, a basic human struggle that we can all realte to. The need to know who we are. And we play on this, Logan doesn't know who he is because as a mutant, someone exploited Logan and wiped his memory. Egats! That's terrible, says the audience. Gosh! But hold on, that's only his desire. What's the danger? In order to have his past discovered by a mutant telepath Xavier, Logan must join with the X-Men in discovering what neferious scheme Magneto has planned for Logan. Holy ****! Magneto's going to destroy humanity, and Logan factors in and although a longer, he has to work with the X-Men in order for Xavier to help him out. But wait, we also need the decision. A loner and wanting nothing to do with them, Logan must decide whether or not to ally himself with the X-Men in order for him to learn about his past. There you have it. Desire. Danger. Desire. In the end, drama. He's perfect for it.

As is Rogue. Rogue's desire is to be normal. To be able to touch someone. The danger. Here, the danger is that she can't. It's impossible. The struggle and danger here is the mental breakdown if our heroine doesn't realize she needs to accept this and comes to terms with it. We can all sympathize with this need to accept those things we don't like about ourselves. But what's the decision? Well, to embrace her mutation, something she learns to do via Logan and the X-Men. Logan must decide to go with Logan, to join the school, to leave the school after Mystique tricks her, to come back to the school under Logan's guidance (which plays on his character's equation as well), and to stay.

And, they most important thing, Logan and Rogue become ensemble anchors with illuminating character equations with little change to their comic characters. Storm, Cyclops, Jean would all require substantial changes in their characterziations and histories to "jive" with these CINEMATIC dogmas.

PART TWO'S NEXT

[weapon-x]

But Blade also wasn't really put out there as a "comic book" movie, more of a kung fu/vampire movie. He was a pretty obscure character, who's only real notoriety before that came from a couple episodes of Spider-Man. So they could repackage it and understate the comic book connections to avoid it being lumped in as a "comic book movie". X-Men put it all out there.

yep. Blade didn't even carry the marvel logo with it. x-men was the start of the super-hero/comic book film re-emergance. Without it it's unlikely there'd be many around today(although for some like dd or hulk it wouldn't have been a bad thing)

[bosef982]

Part TWo I want to touch briefly on X-Men 2 and why Logan's characterization was carried over into that film, as well as Jean's illuminated. But here, we're also going to discuss why Storm was characterized the way she was, treated as she was, and became what she is by the end of X2... but we'll do this within the context of not comics, but movies.

Now, we've alreayd discussed that all ensemble piecse need "anchors", characters that illuminate the themes of the film, have a rich character equation, and also can play off the other ensemble members in such a way as to illuminate them as well. We've seen how Logan fits this perfectly, being that with little change to his comic history, he can easily become a conflicting character that illuminates the dillemas of mutation, the dynamics of the X-Men institution, and the threat of Magneto. Rogue does as well, playing off themes of acceptance of one's self.

Now, as a note, I would also insert that Magneto is also a main character in both X-films on par, if not more, than Logan. But this is obvious.

So, to fast forward a bit, being that an X-Men film, due to its cinematic nature, almost demanded Logan as a anchor character, it would make no sense, and would actually be bad sequel form, to not continue the histories established in X1 in X2. Thus, Logan's history continues, which does put him in a anchor position again, however, again, he illuminates the current threat towards mutations (Stryker) while also illuminating other characters (Jean, Magneto, Xavier, Rogue, Pyro, and Iceman). OF course, in many ways, X2 is more severely a X-MAN TEAM film than X1 was by far. Logan only saves the X-Men ONCE, where as he is saved by Jean three times, Storm twice, Magneto twice, Iceman once, Pyro once. But, more on that later.

Storm's characterization is a great debate. A lot if may due with Singer's direction and Berry's actin, a lot of it actually. But let's discuss this "weak" idea we see. In X1, Storm makes the "I suppose, I'm afraid of them." comment. This is not a weak comment, this is a comment of strength. Unlike Magneto who hides his fear behind philosophies and violence, Storm admits it, and conquers it to serve a higher goal. That's what, within the context of this situation, Storm represents. Citing a particular comic book does no good. In Ultimate X-Men, Storm is a bit more unsure of her role in the world. In X-Treme X-Men, Storm actually branches of from Xavier, feeling that he's being too open with humanity. The entire concept of X-Men rests on fear. The X-Men move to stop Magneto, stop STryker, because they FEAR THE RESULT should they not. With such things as the Mutant Registration Act, and Dark Cerebro, what mutant isn't scared. Did you see Logan's reaction in the bar in X1 when the TV talked about mutants? That was shame and fear. Did you see all their responses in the forest in X2 when Magneto describes what Dark Cerebro could do? As Guard said, Storm fearing humanity -- as does Scott, Jean, and Xavier in their own ways -- is a perfrectly legitimate characterzation. However, once compared to her actions, her fear becomes noble, since Magneto and his fear has lead him down his path. Or like Mystique, who was afraid of to to school, and where her fear lead her. Storm rose above this. For those interested in characterization, this is there in the films.

But Storm didn't land in X1 in the snow. Okay. Yes, this could have been done. Great. But it wasn't. Why? Singer was lassoed by time and budget. Period. Two, he was focused on character -- and yes, he was focused on the characters of his ensemble anchors (Magneto, Logan, and Rogue) more than he was on the others. This is a perfectly valid and acceptable directorial practice. You prioritize. You can't play equal treatment and still make a good film. It'd either be generic or static. This is where the idea of rising above your own personal preferences comes into play. If you want to get mad at Singer, say he didn't use your favorite character, not that he didn't get the X-Men as if your one character was its core.

But in X2, Storm's transformation was amazing. She was a leader, leading the team to obtain Nightcrawler, to travel to Alkali Lake, to invade Alkali Lake, and to defeat Stryker. Um, and she has nothing to do? Please, what more? It borderlines on a Storm movie, if not a Logan movie.

But as someone said, Storm had to be rescued in Cerebro, saved by Jean, blah blah blah. Some have even said that in X1, her total ass-beating by Toad is a sign of weakness. Perhaps, so? But what is in our dramatic premise? Remember our character equations? As I said, sometimes ensemble films, even with anchors, take on a general character in the form of the group. This is the X-Men on Ellis Island in X1.

By this time, we need to see the dangers our heroes face in saving humanity. This is the groups dramatic desire, they need it to survive otherwise escalation will occur and because they are devoted to a dream. The danger is Magneto. However, we can't just have them waltz in and beat Toad and Mystique, this is much to simple and violates our cinematic demand and audience expecation of a type of danger. As also state, danger is also created through obstalces that are disadvantagous to our character or group. This can again be a barrier or simply a skill obstacle. For Storm's fight with toad, the danger exists in that Storm is not as good a hand-to-hand combatant as Toad is. She is one of many scenes in this sequence that shows the overall danger the X-Men face in the Statue of Liberty, and this in turn, when coupled with their dramatic desire, creates drama. When we see them defeated, we get discouraged becuase we have all sorts of personal attachemtns to them. However, when the audience sees them defeated (and alot of this rests on the fact that mass audiences make these movies bank) when they see them defeated, they feel suspense. They don't see them as being weak, they see our heroes as devoted and determined....why? Because they always get back up and kick ass! After your hero's been slapped around and thrown around in danger, it's time for the hero to conquer it. Storm does it. She rises and opens up a hurricane on Toad, displaying that when it comes to mutant powers, she is more masterful than Toad. The character overcomes the danger, which usually puts them at a disadvantage, by asserting their own advantage. Logan, after being defeated by Mystique, does much the same by "sniffing" her out. Also not, that Cyclops and Jean could not beat Toad. Only Storm could -- she saved their asses there as well.

But as numeroulsy noted, Storm is amazing in X2. She conjures several hurriances to cover their escape, single-handedly stops Cerebro from killing all of mankind, and organize the inflitration of Styrker's base. All the while, she deals with these ideas of anger versus fear -- and thus, it's almost noble. Yet, as I said, some say that she was then rescued by Jean and later, by Nightcrawler.

Oh, please. They are a team, they must work as one first off. But for a second, let's adhere to this logic. By this logic, everyone would lose their gripe that Logan is portrayed as a favorite, with his bad-ass, stop-all, save the X-Men style. For...Logan is saved by Iceman in the mansion scene, thus I guess nullfying his taking out the troops. He is saved by Pyro, during the house scene, and then saved by Jean and Storm as they pick them up fast in the X-Jet. He is saved by Storm as she conjures up the tornadoes, and later saved by Jean as she stops the missiles. He is then, soon after, saved by Magneto as he stops the plummeting X-Jet. Later, Magneto saves Logan by stopping Dark Cerebro. Later, in the base, after saving the X-men from drowning, he is saved by Rogue as she crash-lands the jet (oh, I suppose this would nullify Jean's acts in bringing Cyclops back and Storm's stopping of Cerebro) and then, again, he is saved by Jean. However, in comparison, LOGAN ONLY SAVES THE X-MEN WHEN HE CLOSES THE SPILLWAY DOORS. He saves the monce, compared to NINE TIMES they save him.

If, we go by your logic, Jean is the most central character of X2. She is saved by Storm once, Magneto once, and Logan once. However, she saves Logan twice, Magneto once (Cyclops blasting him), saves Cyclops, and saves the entire X-Men at the cost of her life. So, in by this logic we go, we find that Jean is the overused and Singer favorite of X2. But this is just using this logic.

The reason we can go back and forth like this is becasue SInger DID adhere to team dynamics. Everyone's doing something in these films. However, personal preferences and bias make fanboys want more and more and more, all the while ignoring the cinematic realities of SInge'rs choices and the way they were constructed. They want this to be a silver screen comic book, not realizing that such would violate the axioms of films that succeed in the market. It'd alienate mass audiences, fall to bring a franchise, and become at best, a cult classic later picked apart by fanboys mad about what STorm said in Act II.

The last note is on this term epic. It's too loose a word often thrown around by fanboys whenever they want to bring a sophistication to their favorite franchise. Stop it. Epics are not adventures alone. They are something more. Epics are long, teadious, heroic journeys (i.e. Star Wars, Matrix even, and Lord of the Rings). Batman Begins, Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, and even X-Men 3 most likely, will not be epics. Epic does not simply mean big -- that is an improper use of the word.

And, to say Singer's films weren't big is a tad superficial. How does one define big? Well, let's start with the first thing that comes to mind -- a movie is "big" if its events are spectacular and impact a large group of people. Well, in X-Men 1, having all the world leaders mutated would surley cause some big problems. And in X2, well, I'd say killing off an entire section of humanity, or all of humans, would most certainly probably make it into the major events history textbooks in schools, whoever may be writing them.

However, its fanboys fickle use of the word epic that allows them to attempt to critique Singer on these grounds.

So, there you go. My Treatise on Singer's Cinematic Choices in the Construction of the X-Men Films and the Logical Fallacies of Fanboys Born from Biased and Uneducated Perceptions on Source Material.

[The Guard]

Heh.

[Star]

Beast and Angel are far too impractical for the first movie. Thus, on budgetary reasons alone, they must be left out. Plus, again, they lack the conflcitive relationships to make them great introducing characters. Rich, privilaged, and smart.




Beast is BLUE. He's a perfect example of a 'not-so-normal' mutant who is trying to be seen as normal. If anything, it was stupid to not have him in them until now.

Angel, as much as I love him, I agree is comic wise rich and privaged. But in the movies, they're introducing a conflict in between him and his father which could prove to be interesting.

[bosef982]

Beast is BLUE. He's a perfect example of a 'not-so-normal' mutant who is trying to be seen as normal. If anything, it was stupid to not have him in them until now.

Angel, as much as I love him, I agree is comic wise rich and privaged. But in the movies, they're introducing a conflict in between him and his father which could prove to be interesting.


But acrobats wise and also, CGI would have to be used, as well as make up in the time alloted. In addition, Beast is enormously smart. I think Rogue's child age and cursed power proved more moving.

[The Guard]

Beast was in the original X-MEN script. So was Angel in a cameo when Wolverine was touring the manor grounds. Beast was the scientist character, who figured out pretty much everything about Magneto's plan. Eventually he was written out due to budget and most of his part was given to Jean Grey. She also replaced Beast as Wolverine's love interest. In the initial draft Wolverine was hitting on Beast.

[tonytr1687]

Part TWo I want to touch briefly on X-Men 2 and why Logan's characterization was carried over into that film, as well as Jean's illuminated. But here, we're also going to discuss why Storm was characterized the way she was, treated as she was, and became what she is by the end of X2... but we'll do this within the context of not comics, but movies.

Now, we've alreayd discussed that all ensemble piecse need "anchors", characters that illuminate the themes of the film, have a rich character equation, and also can play off the other ensemble members in such a way as to illuminate them as well. We've seen how Logan fits this perfectly, being that with little change to his comic history, he can easily become a conflicting character that illuminates the dillemas of mutation, the dynamics of the X-Men institution, and the threat of Magneto. Rogue does as well, playing off themes of acceptance of one's self.

Now, as a note, I would also insert that Magneto is also a main character in both X-films on par, if not more, than Logan. But this is obvious.

So, to fast forward a bit, being that an X-Men film, due to its cinematic nature, almost demanded Logan as a anchor character, it would make no sense, and would actually be bad sequel form, to not continue the histories established in X1 in X2. Thus, Logan's history continues, which does put him in a anchor position again, however, again, he illuminates the current threat towards mutations (Stryker) while also illuminating other characters (Jean, Magneto, Xavier, Rogue, Pyro, and Iceman). OF course, in many ways, X2 is more severely a X-MAN TEAM film than X1 was by far. Logan only saves the X-Men ONCE, where as he is saved by Jean three times, Storm twice, Magneto twice, Iceman once, Pyro once. But, more on that later.

Storm's characterization is a great debate. A lot if may due with Singer's direction and Berry's actin, a lot of it actually. But let's discuss this "weak" idea we see. In X1, Storm makes the "I suppose, I'm afraid of them." comment. This is not a weak comment, this is a comment of strength. Unlike Magneto who hides his fear behind philosophies and violence, Storm admits it, and conquers it to serve a higher goal. That's what, within the context of this situation, Storm represents. Citing a particular comic book does no good. In Ultimate X-Men, Storm is a bit more unsure of her role in the world. In X-Treme X-Men, Storm actually branches of from Xavier, feeling that he's being too open with humanity. The entire concept of X-Men rests on fear. The X-Men move to stop Magneto, stop STryker, because they FEAR THE RESULT should they not. With such things as the Mutant Registration Act, and Dark Cerebro, what mutant isn't scared. Did you see Logan's reaction in the bar in X1 when the TV talked about mutants? That was shame and fear. Did you see all their responses in the forest in X2 when Magneto describes what Dark Cerebro could do? As Guard said, Storm fearing humanity -- as does Scott, Jean, and Xavier in their own ways -- is a perfrectly legitimate characterzation. However, once compared to her actions, her fear becomes noble, since Magneto and his fear has lead him down his path. Or like Mystique, who was afraid of to to school, and where her fear lead her. Storm rose above this. For those interested in characterization, this is there in the films.

But Storm didn't land in X1 in the snow. Okay. Yes, this could have been done. Great. But it wasn't. Why? Singer was lassoed by time and budget. Period. Two, he was focused on character -- and yes, he was focused on the characters of his ensemble anchors (Magneto, Logan, and Rogue) more than he was on the others. This is a perfectly valid and acceptable directorial practice. You prioritize. You can't play equal treatment and still make a good film. It'd either be generic or static. This is where the idea of rising above your own personal preferences comes into play. If you want to get mad at Singer, say he didn't use your favorite character, not that he didn't get the X-Men as if your one character was its core.

But in X2, Storm's transformation was amazing. She was a leader, leading the team to obtain Nightcrawler, to travel to Alkali Lake, to invade Alkali Lake, and to defeat Stryker. Um, and she has nothing to do? Please, what more? It borderlines on a Storm movie, if not a Logan movie.

But as someone said, Storm had to be rescued in Cerebro, saved by Jean, blah blah blah. Some have even said that in X1, her total ass-beating by Toad is a sign of weakness. Perhaps, so? But what is in our dramatic premise? Remember our character equations? As I said, sometimes ensemble films, even with anchors, take on a general character in the form of the group. This is the X-Men on Ellis Island in X1.

By this time, we need to see the dangers our heroes face in saving humanity. This is the groups dramatic desire, they need it to survive otherwise escalation will occur and because they are devoted to a dream. The danger is Magneto. However, we can't just have them waltz in and beat Toad and Mystique, this is much to simple and violates our cinematic demand and audience expecation of a type of danger. As also state, danger is also created through obstalces that are disadvantagous to our character or group. This can again be a barrier or simply a skill obstacle. For Storm's fight with toad, the danger exists in that Storm is not as good a hand-to-hand combatant as Toad is. She is one of many scenes in this sequence that shows the overall danger the X-Men face in the Statue of Liberty, and this in turn, when coupled with their dramatic desire, creates drama. When we see them defeated, we get discouraged becuase we have all sorts of personal attachemtns to them. However, when the audience sees them defeated (and alot of this rests on the fact that mass audiences make these movies bank) when they see them defeated, they feel suspense. They don't see them as being weak, they see our heroes as devoted and determined....why? Because they always get back up and kick ass! After your hero's been slapped around and thrown around in danger, it's time for the hero to conquer it. Storm does it. She rises and opens up a hurricane on Toad, displaying that when it comes to mutant powers, she is more masterful than Toad. The character overcomes the danger, which usually puts them at a disadvantage, by asserting their own advantage. Logan, after being defeated by Mystique, does much the same by "sniffing" her out. Also not, that Cyclops and Jean could not beat Toad. Only Storm could -- she saved their asses there as well.

But as numeroulsy noted, Storm is amazing in X2. She conjures several hurriances to cover their escape, single-handedly stops Cerebro from killing all of mankind, and organize the inflitration of Styrker's base. All the while, she deals with these ideas of anger versus fear -- and thus, it's almost noble. Yet, as I said, some say that she was then rescued by Jean and later, by Nightcrawler.

Oh, please. They are a team, they must work as one first off. But for a second, let's adhere to this logic. By this logic, everyone would lose their gripe that Logan is portrayed as a favorite, with his bad-ass, stop-all, save the X-Men style. For...Logan is saved by Iceman in the mansion scene, thus I guess nullfying his taking out the troops. He is saved by Pyro, during the house scene, and then saved by Jean and Storm as they pick them up fast in the X-Jet. He is saved by Storm as she conjures up the tornadoes, and later saved by Jean as she stops the missiles. He is then, soon after, saved by Magneto as he stops the plummeting X-Jet. Later, Magneto saves Logan by stopping Dark Cerebro. Later, in the base, after saving the X-men from drowning, he is saved by Rogue as she crash-lands the jet (oh, I suppose this would nullify Jean's acts in bringing Cyclops back and Storm's stopping of Cerebro) and then, again, he is saved by Jean. However, in comparison, LOGAN ONLY SAVES THE X-MEN WHEN HE CLOSES THE SPILLWAY DOORS. He saves the monce, compared to NINE TIMES they save him.

If, we go by your logic, Jean is the most central character of X2. She is saved by Storm once, Magneto once, and Logan once. However, she saves Logan twice, Magneto once (Cyclops blasting him), saves Cyclops, and saves the entire X-Men at the cost of her life. So, in by this logic we go, we find that Jean is the overused and Singer favorite of X2. But this is just using this logic.

The reason we can go back and forth like this is becasue SInger DID adhere to team dynamics. Everyone's doing something in these films. However, personal preferences and bias make fanboys want more and more and more, all the while ignoring the cinematic realities of SInge'rs choices and the way they were constructed. They want this to be a silver screen comic book, not realizing that such would violate the axioms of films that succeed in the market. It'd alienate mass audiences, fall to bring a franchise, and become at best, a cult classic later picked apart by fanboys mad about what STorm said in Act II.

The last note is on this term epic. It's too loose a word often thrown around by fanboys whenever they want to bring a sophistication to their favorite franchise. Stop it. Epics are not adventures alone. They are something more. Epics are long, teadious, heroic journeys (i.e. Star Wars, Matrix even, and Lord of the Rings). Batman Begins, Spider-Man 1 and 2, X-Men 1 and 2, and even X-Men 3 most likely, will not be epics. Epic does not simply mean big -- that is an improper use of the word.

And, to say Singer's films weren't big is a tad superficial. How does one define big? Well, let's start with the first thing that comes to mind -- a movie is "big" if its events are spectacular and impact a large group of people. Well, in X-Men 1, having all the world leaders mutated would surley cause some big problems. And in X2, well, I'd say killing off an entire section of humanity, or all of humans, would most certainly probably make it into the major events history textbooks in schools, whoever may be writing them.

However, its fanboys fickle use of the word epic that allows them to attempt to critique Singer on these grounds.

So, there you go. My Treatise on Singer's Cinematic Choices in the Construction of the X-Men Films and the Logical Fallacies of Fanboys Born from Biased and Uneducated Perceptions on Source Material.

Great posts. I also don't understand the "Storm had nothing to do in X2" argument. Maybe not in X1, but in 2 she had plenty to do. She was the centerpiece of the X-jet dogfight sequence and she practically saved the day in the climax. Plus she had some genuine "character moments" with Nightcrawler.

[bosef982]

Beast was in the original X-MEN script. So was Angel in a cameo when Wolverine was touring the manor grounds. Beast was the scientist character, who figured out pretty much everything about Magneto's plan. Eventually he was written out due to budget and most of his part was given to Jean Grey. She also replaced Beast as Wolverine's love interest. In the initial draft Wolverine was hitting on Beast.


Feral-homo-sex. Oh YEAH! :D

And think, Beast has claws and teeth, Logan a healing ability. Oh yeah!

[The Guard]

Great posts. I also don't understand the "Storm had nothing to do in X2" argument. Maybe not in X1, but in 2 she had plenty to do. She was the centerpiece of the X-jet dogfight sequence and she practically saved the day in the climax. Plus she had some genuine "character moments" with Nightcrawler.

I never got the attitude of "she doesn't do anything". In these ensemble films, where it's hard enough to find everyone screentime, Storm got quite a bit to do. One wonders if what happened to Cyclops in X2 happened so Storm could have more screentime and more of a leadership role.

[RedIsNotBlue]

She also replaced Beast as Wolverine's love interest. In the initial draft Wolverine was hitting on Beast.

Uhh are you for real?

[Yve]

She also replaced Beast as Wolverine's love interest. In the initial draft Wolverine was hitting on Beast.
Heh. I knew there was a reason Logan/Jean always seemed a little forced for me. :)


Storm got quite a bit to do. One wonders if what happened to Cyclops in X2 happened so Storm could have more screentime and more of a leadership role.

I've wondered that on more than one occasion too. But rather than go off on an 8 page diatribe about it, I'll just say that I was happy Cyke got what little time he did in X2, rather than written off altogether (or possibly killed -- eeep! :eek: ) I mean, it aggravates me that he's missing for 2/3 of the movie, but I realize that not everyone can share the limelight in a large ensemble cast. So I cope. And I always assumed that he would get his due screentime in X3, what with the Phoenix SL, but it looks like that's not to be either. It's unfortunate. :(

[bosef982]

Uhh are you for real?


No, he's being silly.

[RedIsNotBlue]

No, he's being silly.

Okay just making sure. That would have been unforgiveable.

[Tron5000]

I bet those were 2 very excellent posts, but my eyes froze trying to read them...Brain can't handle that much at 2 am.

[BigMac]

I bet those were 2 very excellent posts, but my eyes froze trying to read them...Brain can't handle that much at 2 am.

I hear ya.

[spideyboy_1111]

Heh. I knew there was a reason Logan/Jean always seemed a little forced for me. :)


I've wondered that on more than one occasion too. But rather than go off on an 8 page diatribe about it, I'll just say that I was happy Cyke got what little time he did in X2, rather than written off altogether (or possibly killed -- eeep! :eek: ) I mean, it aggravates me that he's missing for 2/3 of the movie, but I realize that not everyone can share the limelight in a large ensemble cast. So I cope. And I always assumed that he would get his due screentime in X3, what with the Phoenix SL, but it looks like that's not to be either. It's unfortunate. :(
what upset me though was the fact scott is alot like a 2-d character as is, he is the stern leader... thats his character, sure hes a ladies man and a play boy, but the point is he appears hollow as is, why rip a character out when he could be as easy to put in, just making him tell the team where to go and what to do. acting like a leader, thats all most of us wanted

[Hotaru]

By Bosef982:
Storm. Uh-oh. Here we go. Now, while Storm certainly can relate to the struggle in her African youth of mutation, and is not one of Xavier's first students, she lacks the history to make her an engaging character. Being that she is from Africa, her mutations history is too far removed from the American socio-political struggles with mutation, making her a highly unfavorable canidate as an anchor character. Plus, a key to the ensemble "anchor" is that he/she plays off all the other characters very well, illuminating particular characteristics about them and thus, through the anchor character, others are characterized. Storm cannot do this. She gets along with Jean way to well, respects Xavier, and is respectful and platonically attached to Scott. Remember, the best type of characterization comes in the wake or midsts of conflict. How the character decidse to deal with conflict.

Storm's characterization is a great debate. A lot if may due with Singer's direction and Berry's actin, a lot of it actually. But let's discuss this "weak" idea we see. In X1, Storm makes the "I suppose, I'm afraid of them." comment. This is not a weak comment, this is a comment of strength. Unlike Magneto who hides his fear behind philosophies and violence, Storm admits it, and conquers it to serve a higher goal. That's what, within the context of this situation, Storm represents. Citing a particular comic book does no good. In Ultimate X-Men, Storm is a bit more unsure of her role in the world. In X-Treme X-Men, Storm actually branches of from Xavier, feeling that he's being too open with humanity. The entire concept of X-Men rests on fear. The X-Men move to stop Magneto, stop STryker, because they FEAR THE RESULT should they not. With such things as the Mutant Registration Act, and Dark Cerebro, what mutant isn't scared. Did you see Logan's reaction in the bar in X1 when the TV talked about mutants? That was shame and fear. Did you see all their responses in the forest in X2 when Magneto describes what Dark Cerebro could do? As Guard said, Storm fearing humanity -- as does Scott, Jean, and Xavier in their own ways -- is a perfrectly legitimate characterzation. However, once compared to her actions, her fear becomes noble, since Magneto and his fear has lead him down his path. Or like Mystique, who was afraid of to to school, and where her fear lead her. Storm rose above this. For those interested in characterization, this is there in the films.
We seem to be lacking understanding, both ways. I think I know why, I guess you find one aspect of Storm's character unimportant while I find it very meaningful.
I know, that in early draft of X1 there was a scene of young Storm being oppressed by her village on an event of her powers manifestation. IF that was shown on screen, all this fear of humans thingy would make sense (even tough that would be so different to her comic-book origin). However, it was never established on the silver screen! So this version of her history is non-existent! In the comic books however, many times she was shown as a person not fearing humans but trying to assimilate with them (mutants and humans should form one society). She feared that mutants may feel superior to humans and to human laws and that's what she fought against. When she first came to America, she didn't even understand why do the X-Men keep hiding.
She has left Xavier's to look for Destiny's Diaries, not because Xavier went out in the open (that really happened after her departure). When Xavier wanted to keep a mutant boy who murdered humans, not to give him back to authorities, she argued with him and accused him of using different laws for mutants, she's said that being equal is about being subject to the same laws as well. She funded X.S.E. to bring mutants who harm humans to justice, and X.S.E. was created with support of human governments.
In Ultimate Universe she's the one that often states is sorry for Hank or Kurt 'cos of what they look like, as their looks make them harder to "blend in".
Now, what I'm trying to say all along, is that what made Storm stand out of the rest of X-Men (among other things), was this subtle difference. She was persecuted, she was hunted by humans as a leader and a team member of outlawed mutant group (when the laws were giving no right for mutants), but when the laws changed and more and more mutants started to be born, she noticed a danger of this whole situation going the other way. Xavier and the rest od Institute ignored that, creating X-Corps and opened the Institute for all mutants, they were dealing only with mutants, ignoring humans existence.
See, in the movies Storm is showing Xavier's attitude. She's saying that she's afraid of them (people), and that she's teaching at the school where mutants are save from regulars. She's fighting her fight to keep others save (she went out to get Rogue back, to get Nightcrawler, to get young students back) fromt he hostile word of human society. She doesn't need to go out in the open, she just wants to stay at school. She's helping to save those people from Magneto's machine and Dark Cerebro, 'cos she's just a good person and she doesn't want to see people dying. That's all.
Now, in the comic books she's not fighting to be save, she's fighting to be equal. Now, why would she want to be equal with something she fears? She's afraid of persecutions, mutant massacres etc. but she understands that in the core of this problem lies not human bad nature, but them not being equal. She understands her responsibilities as a person wielding such a great power.
Geez, my poit still isn't completly clear... I'll blame the language barrier ;) - saying all this in polish would be sooo easier, hehe.
As far as all these things she was doing in X2. I went to the cinema with 3 of my friends, who aren't comic book fans. After the screening I asked that what were their toughts of Storm (as she's my favorite) and their comments were the same: "she didn't really do much, did she?". See, I know that she had all those tornadoes, blizzards etc., but by saying "it's not how you start that counts, it's how you finish" I was trying to find an answer why do people find her character unsignifficant, despite all those things she's done. And I think that's the answer - she finished in the backgroud, so people consider her as such.

[X-Maniac]

Bosef, your analysis in the Singer thread attempts to justify everything he did, on his behalf, without any confirmation that what you say is what he intended and that it is correctly interpreted. Do we know all this for sure?

Furthermore, you make it clear that you believe what you say is the inarguable truth and the final line about "Fanboys Born from Biased and Uneducated Perceptions on Source Material" must therefore apply to all those who think otherwise.

So i - and others whose views vary - am a fanboy who is biased and uneducated?

Thanks. Obviously other opinions aren't allowed. Goodbye to this forum I think. I am obviously too biased and uneducated to take part in debate. I evidently must accept that what was done was perfect.

[spideyboy_1111]

Bosef, your analysis in the Singer thread attempts to justify everything he did, on his behalf, without any confirmation that what you say is what he intended and that it is correctly interpreted. Do we know all this for sure?

Furthermore, you make it clear that you believe what you say is the inarguable truth and the final line about "Fanboys Born from Biased and Uneducated Perceptions on Source Material" must therefore apply to all those who think otherwise.

So i - and others whose views vary - am a fanboy who is biased and uneducated?

Thanks. Obviously other opinions aren't allowed. Goodbye to this forum I think. I am obviously too biased and uneducated to take part in debate. I evidently must accept that what was done was perfect.


dont worry maniac, personally anyone who registered on these boards is a fan boy or girl, whether they buy a comic or not, the boards educate them and they like the media form of these comic characters enough to debate about them on message boards. Thus making them an official fan boy or girl. Any one who denies there fan boy/girl-dom is in denile and is even more of a fan boy/girl then they even could realise

[X-Maniac]

And, you know what, I still feel the movie versions of Storm, Cyclops and even Jean were lacking in definition/motivation compared with Magneto, Mystique, Rogue and Wolverine. Okay, it's tough to serve all those characters well. The lack of origin scenes for Storm, Cyclops and Jean has not helped.

The origin scene for Storm would, to a large extent, have justified the fear and anger she has shown.

Singer was attracted to Wolverine's story, partly on a popularity basis (we suspect) and partly because as an adopted child he too has questions about his mysterious past.

However, Cyclops also has a mysterious past (orphaned in a plane crash, links to geneticist Mr Sinister) ... he also has questions and mysteries that are yet to be addressed.

Jean Grey - well, there is a part of me wishes that a human Beast (like Steve Bacic's TV cameo in X2) had been the medic/scientist instead of Jean, but we got what we got and it served the story very well (allowing scenes with Wolverine and Xavier among other things). Her origin scene in X3 will at last give her (and Xavier) some background. If there HAD been a human Beast in X1, he could have become furry etc at some later point - either from Magneto's machine in X1, Cerebro's mutant effect at the end of X2 or the cure storyline in X3. Beast became furry in the comics when he believed he had found the chemical trigger for mutation.

So, what I am saying is that although i love Singer's movies and the fact he brought X-Men to life on the big screen, and there were good reasons that he did what he did, his way is not the only way and it is not flawless or perfect. For me to ponder on the movies or compare them to the comics I've read for so long does not make me wrong, it does not make me a Singer-hater or some kind of nutty fanboy.

[spideyboy_1111]

very true.. no one knows what happen to cyclops between the ages of 14-17... ive heard a rumor that some people think he actually sold his body. this would explain for his inhability to get close to anyone and the cause of his failed mariage with jean as well as the fling hes had on going with emma. Not to mention the cause of his sterness

[skruloos]

The origin scene for Storm would, to a large extent, have justified the fear and anger she has shown.
The problem here is that it is just more exposition and would be redundant information. If we already see that humans fear mutants through the congressional hearing, how Rogue's parents react to her power, and how Nightcrawler is treated in X2, then showing more examples of that for other mutants would just be beating a dead horse. It'd be great if Singer had chosen to focus on Storm instead of Rogue but as it is, it's delineated pretty well why Storm's fear and anger would be justified by the overall response to mutants.


Singer was attracted to Wolverine's story, partly on a popularity basis (we suspect) and partly because as an adopted child he too has questions about his mysterious past.

However, Cyclops also has a mysterious past (orphaned in a plane crash, links to geneticist Mr Sinister) ... he also has questions and mysteries that are yet to be addressed.
The problem at this point is that Cyclops' history is mired in the history of other major characters. Wolverine's stands alone (save for a bit with Sabertooth) but Logan's is easier to rewrite since we don't know conclusively what's real in the comics anyway. Cyclops' known history is pretty straightforward and accepted and changing it would mean omitting a lot of details that Cyclops fans probably would not appreciate, i.e. Havok, Corsair, and Sinister. His history would probably be changed more than Rogue's. I love Cyclops (much more than Wolverine) but I don't think his history is strong enough to build a movie on. To me, Cyclops becomes more interesting as part of the X-Men and with his relationship to Jean.

[spideyboy_1111]

actually storms fear and anger is more then just "I fear humans cuz they hate mutnants and that angers me" its the whole fact she paranoid of tight/confined spaces as well as the fact her parents were killed right infront of her, not to mention she had rocks thrown at as a kid, as well as rummaging around on the streets trying to survive.. thats a big amount of background info

[weapon-x]

i don't know if this has already been touched on but about storm having nothing to do in x1 and x2 and being a pussy.

This notion is based upon her character in the comics. I think it's important to seperate the comics and movies and realise that this is a reinvention. Although it would have been nice to see a more pro-active storm this is how she was portrayed, reguardless of fault or the comic version. I think it's safe to say that most of the characters are not as they are in the comic. This is how it is, nuff said.

[skruloos]

actually storms fear and anger is more then just "I fear humans cuz they hate mutnants and that angers me" its the whole fact she paranoid of tight/confined spaces as well as the fact her parents were killed right infront of her, not to mention she had rocks thrown at as a kid, as well as rummaging around on the streets trying to survive.. thats a big amount of background info
I know why Storm fears humans and I understand her history. However, let's look at the story they're trying to tell. Her claustrophobia has no relevance. Kids throwing rocks at her, IMO, is not on par with Rogue's parents rejecting her. And Storm's background as a street urchin is irrelevant to the story at hand as well since it doesn't necessarily play into the mutant/human conflict as much. It'd be great if the movies had unlimited amounts of time to just explore character histories that are not important to the plot but that's just not the case. Maybe if a different type of conflict had been chosen then Storm's history would be more relevant but just trying to squeeze it in for the sake of the fans is just poor storytelling.

[GeneralRashMan]

He also wanted Magneto and Xavier to have a gay relationship in the past......because Bryan Singer supports it because he does that also...I think...If Im wrong please dont be mad

[boywonder13]

He also wanted Magneto and Xavier to have a gay relationship in the past......because Bryan Singer supports it because he does that also...I think...If Im wrong please dont be mad

Did you just edit you quoute?

:)

I was just about to bash you. Bryan Singer is not gay but Magneto (Ian Mckellan) is gay.

[DACrowe]

Well yes Bryan Singer is gay (as is Alan Cumming who played Nightcrawler) but I don't think that is a big deal at all. I think they (and McKellan especially too) did great jobs for the X-Men.

But there are some poeple out there who do get stupidly and easily offended due to their ignorance for such things.

Oh well.

[boywonder13]

Why is everyone bashing Singer.

His X3 would have been a much better "Film" in general than Ratner's.

[Electrix]

Why is everyone bashing Singer.

His X3 would have been a much better "Film" in general than Ratner's.

No proof. Just opinion.

[boywonder13]

Proof You Ask proof....


X-Men pretty much revived comic book movies. The Second X film was praised. The Script was give a good review by various websites. Even with a low budget the movies made alot of money. (I know his movies did have some downfalls)

X-Men 3. Super Hero movies are now more common. The script was torn apaart by AICN (Alot of it seems to be in the movie). Brett Ratner record: He had this crazy vison of a Superman Movie and lied that he was a fan of Superman.

I wonder if he is also lying about being an X-Men fan. At least Singer was a greater X-Fan.

[Retroman]

Update (sort of)
Singer wasn't the only one who had problems withg FOX. Writer David Hayter said the following in a recent interview....

With your schedule getting tighter, have we seen the last of your writing in the X-Men series?

Unfortunately, yes.

Would you like to continue work on this series, or would you rather move on with other things?

I would have loved to have written the third movie, as Bryan Singer and I had many discussions about the full course of the story. Unfortunately, the studio and I had a bit of a falling out. But I hope the third movie will be great, and it sounds like they are taking their lead from the first two.Source: http://www.metalgearsolid.org/featurez/interviews/davidhayter.php

[Angry Sentinel]

I cannot believe I read the last 5 pages.... who am I kidding, of course I did, what else would I do at work.

To Bosef: I still say Singer = Good director... bad interpreter. Great points about X2 Storm though.

To Guard: Keep guarding your balls

To Skruloos: Xmaniac's example may be off, but his idea is correct. I do agree that it would be difficult to fit certain things into this series, considering what's already been established

To Xmaniac: The Guard keeps forgetting that it's not poor interpretation of the film, but poor re-envisioning of the source material. The movieverse by the Guard's own definition is a different "universe" not an adaptation (like most movies are)... and it probably should be.

To Hotaru: DAMN FINE good Sir! Damn fine indeed. Even though I do agree with the movieverse progression theories about Storms characterization as detailed by Bosef; I wholeheartedly think it should have been handled better from the start. I dont know if this was intentional (considering all of the tension we've heard) but it looks as though X3 will have a good payoff for her portrayal.

[cookiva]

Update (sort of)
Singer wasn't the only one who had problems withg FOX. Writer David Hayter said the following in a recent interview....

Source: http://www.metalgearsolid.org/featurez/interviews/davidhayter.php

hmmmmmm

[bosef982]

It's amazing how people get offended when people call them out or attempt to explicate a argument. What's more than amazing is the total lack of understanding that argument.

One, to address this concept of fanboys. If you notice, I do refer to the "we" at times in my posts. That would include myself as a fan at least. Fans love these movies, they sign up on these boards and post. A "fanboy" is someone who goes to the extreme, they are purists I say, or comic dogmatists. That's a fanboy.

Two, on opinions. I never said that opinions are not wanted; I stated that uneducated opinions are unwanted. Don't simplify. Saying taht Storm had nothing to do in X2 is an uneducated opinion. Why? Because when we list what she did, there is plenty that was done. This isn't a matter of debate or opinion. I also was challenging the opinion that some people hold of "Singer's film suck because he got the characterizatoins of Storm wrong." This is an uneducated opinion, because unlike an educated opinion, it fails to take in the totality of the films. It picks what it wants and attempt to make an opinion -- this is uneducated and such an opinion is not welcome. This is why I said, if you go, "I don't like the X-Men films b/c Storm got shafted" it's an opinion. It may be an opinion I disagree with, due to the facts. IT may be an opionion that fails to define itself ( as in how STorm got shafted), but it is a more reasonable opinon that that of "Singer's film suck" or "Ratner's films will be better films b/c Storm is characterized better". Storm's characterization, Scott's characterization is in no way related or indicate to the qualtiy of a film, even an X-Men film. As I said, educated opinions are good, uneducated bad. And I will continue to draw this line. Get angry and scream when I choose to challenge that opinion as wrong, but I shall continue to do so.

It would appear that after such an extensive and in-depth post, the only rebutal anyone could come up with is basically repeating exactly what they said in previous posts, which my post had already invalidated. Good job.

Hatura, the whole "how they finish" is again an idiotic approach to analyzing the impact of a character in film. As I demonstrated, if you apply that logic, the X-films become something else entirely, where Logan is no longer Singer's favorite. You CANNOT deny this -- your logic if applied to other situations fails. If you do this in an attempt to understand why she didn't have, in your mind, much to do, it does not neccessarily mean its right. It means your attempt failed and you need to try again. And at points like this, it's a great idea to step back and examine your first premise -- is it that Storm had nothing to do, or is it something else...like the actor portraying Storm? See, you're working from a pre-existing premise in whic you're alreayd comfortable and not taking into account other variables.

Now, back to characterization, I thought the analysis of films and comics would better illuminate why this was the case. Singer made a creative choice based on the equations of film, NOT COMIC BOOKS! Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I'm curious. Why is it that if dialogue in the film is not pulled directly off the page, fanboys (by which I mean extreme fans who are unable to differintiate between interpretation and comic book) throw hissy fit, slapping their hands over their ears, frowning, and saying, "NO!"

The whole Storm wasn't characterized right, she was afraid. Well, you totally missed the nobility in her actions. I suppose that's okay. But also, fall back into the cinema equation, Scott already fullfills in the movies what STorm does in the comics -- a devote follower of Xavier's dream who does not fear humans and wants to protect them. By adding the fear aspect (which I alreayd demonstrated is apparent in all their characters) Singer was attempting to illuminate her in a different way. If you don't like this, then the movie itself is not a bad film, it does not suck -- for than you implying a fetish towards Storm which on itself would make you then a hypocrite for your citiques for Singer. If you don't like the characterization, you don't like the film. Period. That's it. The film does not become bad because you don't like it -- drop your ego.

But you'll say, "So no films bad then?" No, again, educated opinion and not resorting to the conventions of "it's all opinion" will help against this. In order to determine a bad film, you must apply the paradigms film has created, and evne that dramatic plays have evoked, for the past centuries. If a film holds to those, it is good -- the rest is a matter of taste. For example, people love Titanic, and on analysis, it holds to the conventions of film, has good direction, great characterizations, and amazing FX and pace. HOwever, I dont' care for it. Now, am I arrogant enough to say these movies sucked? No. I simply say I don't like the movie. It could be because I don't like the characterizations or I don't like the pace, too fast for me. Who knows? But what matters, is that the crew constructed a film. It's like with anything. If you don't like pizza, it doesn't neccessarily become "Bad food." However, say you like pizza, and someone makes it, and its undercooked nad the cheese is moldy. This is than "bad food" objectively -- there's no arguing it. However, if if the pizza was made good, the anti-pizza person would still dislike it, even though it's pizza.

This is what people miss. And the only way to decipher these things is through debate. However, when the debate consists of one person attempting to ingnite a progressive series of analyses and discussions, and others just retreading their own, tired, unsupported opinions as if they're were fact, nothing can get accomplished.

Again, also, people blame Singer for the faults in X1. For example, the assume it was him who din't want a CYlcops, Storm origin scene. However, we all know that it was Fox who didn't want to budget those. So, don't get mad at Singer, he tried. Get mad at the Studio that you all are so seemingly lauding now because of a 90 second trailer. The script did have those scenes, it wasn't singer who said, oh, I don't want those -- it was Fox. But again, fanboyism keeps you from breaking out of this narrow thinking and embracing that you can't just pick a scapegoat and scream at him all the while.

The nuances of p roducing and creating a film are either ignored to you...or I'm beginning to suspect...beyond some's comprehension. I had wanted to have faith and have confidence in people's ability to at least formulate a progressive argument back at me. Instead, I get posters who beg the very question. They repost and reargue the very points that are in contention as if they are in fact. It's like this:

BOY: The sky is blue.

GIRL: No it's not.

BOY: Why?

BOY: But, wavelenths create that color, light wavelengths, bounce of objects and such, making it blue.

GIRL: Because...the sky is not blue. The wavelengths do not matter. The sky is not blue.

BOY: But, wavelenths are colors, created by scientists and proven by science. That is an inescapable fact. Thus, since sunlight illuminates that atmosphere in such a way, it is blue.

GIRL: No, the sky is not blue. Scientists are wrong. You're arrogant, and apparently there's no room for opinion here. You hate me. And you're just repeatnig yourself. God!

BOY: Well, if scientists are wrong, how do we delineate between when they are right? If we are not scientists ourselves, don't we have to trust --

GIRL: The sky is not blue. Period.


This is the process of our arguements here. HOweve,r how could this be overcome. Just by some progressive thinking. You think I put fanboys in a lose situation in the above analogy. I didn't.

BOY: The sky is blue. We have a wheel of colors, which are demonstrations of how light impact certain objects. These colors function on wavelengths. This color is blue. The sky is blue.

GIRL: No it's not.

BOY: Why?

GIRL: Because...color is a perception of the human mind, dependent upon our subjective naming and analysis.

BOY: But, wavelenths are colors, created by scientists and proven by science. That is an inescapable fact. Thus, since sunlight illuminates that atmosphere in such a way, it is blue.

GIRL: Doesn't matter, its still a human classification of a natural phenomenon. Plus, as you said, the light itself is what makes all this happen. Independently, as your comment suggests, the atomsphere is not blue.

BOY: Then what is it?

GIRL: It isn't anything...yet. The sky becomes blue.

See, in the second example, the girl stepped out of the context of the argument and brought in external sources relevant to the argument. In this case, when I say, "cinema demands this..." and you say "comics demand this..." you've evaded my argument, not defeated it. If we're talking cinema, comics have no bearing. If I say, "Storm was made such a way..." and you say "That's not Storm..." you're begging the question. If I say, "STorm had this, this, and this to do in X2" and you say, "But STorm didn't have enough to do in X2" you've agained, begged the question.

This isn't being arrogant people, this is being mroe reasonable than I think you're use to on these boards.

[bosef982]

I cannot believe I read the last 5 pages.... who am I kidding, of course I did, what else would I do at work.

To Bosef: I still say Singer = Good director... bad interpreter. Great points about X2 Storm though.

To Guard: Keep guarding your balls

To Skruloos: Xmaniac's example may be off, but his idea is correct. I do agree that it would be difficult to fit certain things into this series, considering what's already been established

To Xmaniac: The Guard keeps forgetting that it's not poor interpretation of the film, but poor re-envisioning of the source material. The movieverse by the Guard's own definition is a different "universe" not an adaptation (like most movies are)... and it probably should be.

To Hotaru: DAMN FINE good Sir! Damn fine indeed. Even though I do agree with the movieverse progression theories about Storms characterization as detailed by Bosef; I wholeheartedly think it should have been handled better from the start. I dont know if this was intentional (considering all of the tension we've heard) but it looks as though X3 will have a good payoff for her portrayal.


But as I've stated, being that X-Men is a film interpretation, a totally different universe, aren't contentions of particular characterizations all matter of taste not in film, but in source material.

Singer nailed alot of characterizations, but a few he left behind b/c there wasno time. Does this even make him a bad interperter? I don't neccessarily think so.

Again, personal taste is a huge influence here that needs to be overcome. I was hoping that my analysis of character would help show why Singer made the choices he did, and not others.

I mean, read Jurrassic Park and then look at the film...does this make Speilberg a bad interpreter? The differences are huge, not only in plot, but some characterizations.

[Angry Sentinel]

But as I've stated, being that X-Men is a film interpretation, a totally different universe, aren't contentions of particular characterizations all matter of taste not in film, but in source material.

Singer nailed alot of characterizations, but a few he left behind b/c there wasno time. Does this even make him a bad interperter? I don't neccessarily think so.

Again, personal taste is a huge influence here that needs to be overcome. I was hoping that my analysis of character would help show why Singer made the choices he did, and not others.

I mean, read Jurrassic Park and then look at the film...does this make Speilberg a bad interpreter? The differences are huge, not only in plot, but some characterizations. I would completely agree except that we have come to learn that he really isnt that responsible for the progression that we have seen... Much of what was done in X2 for that character hasnt been clearly established as being Singers ideas. And If what I read about his idea for X3 was correct; Then he still didnt truly establish/portray/reflect a hearty version of the original Orroro Munroe....nor did he plan to. So how does your arguement of "time constraints" hold up across...

(as Woodsy Owl wood say) "one, a two, a three... A Three Movies!"?

[bosef982]

I would completely agree except that we have come to learn that he really isnt that responsible for the progression that we have seen... Much of what was done in X2 for that character hasnt been clearly established as being Singers ideas. And If what I read about his idea for X3 was correct; Then he still didnt truly establish/portray/reflect a hearty version of the original Orroro Munroe....nor did he plan to. So how does your arguement of "time constraints" hold up across...

(as Woodsy Owl wood say) "one, a two, a three... A Three Movies!"?

True, but his intentions with X3 of Storm have been linked to his fear that Halle Berry would not return and not wanting to get stuck in that situation. He was writing her out because between bad set chemstiry and public remarks, she was -- for all intents and purposes -- done with X3. Then,well, she made some horrible movie and had to come back to save her career.

But, by that time, Singer had left and she began stating that she'd come back to X3 if she had more to do, citing that she had nothing to do in the previous films. Funny thing is, her entire argument rests on a false premise: that storm had nothing to do in X2.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm trying to decide if I really want to get back into this "discussion"...some of you guys are off-base but I'm feeling lazy today. :p

[Hugh'sMrs]

very true.. no one knows what happen to cyclops between the ages of 14-17... ive heard a rumor that some people think he actually sold his body. this would explain for his inhability to get close to anyone and the cause of his failed mariage with jean as well as the fling hes had on going with emma. Not to mention the cause of his sterness

I think Scott prostituting himself when he lived on the streets is just in fan fic.

[Angry Sentinel]

True, but his intentions with X3 of Storm have been linked to his fear that Halle Berry would not return and not wanting to get stuck in that situation. He was writing her out because between bad set chemstiry and public remarks, she was -- for all intents and purposes -- done with X3. Then,well, she made some horrible movie and had to come back to save her career.

But, by that time, Singer had left and she began stating that she'd come back to X3 if she had more to do, citing that she had nothing to do in the previous films. Funny thing is, her entire argument rests on a false premise: that storm had nothing to do in X2. Alright, you may be right. And since I cannot prove his true intentions on the subject(or the intentions of others), I will give him (and your arguement) the benefit of the doubt. But for these same reasons (lack of concrete evidence of thought and intention) I think you should consider the possibility that he simple "blew" that one.

The guy is still a "heck" of a director, if for no other reason than the fact that he nailed the aspects(tone, themes) he was attempting to convey. And with this Superman project, I do believe I'm starting to see a real sense of "signature" from Mr Singer. This guy likes story...real story, not the run of the mill crap you can see any day and fall asleep on. So he has my attention, cause if there's one thing I like more than just about everything else... it's a great story. :up:

[Hugh'sMrs]

Update (sort of)
Singer wasn't the only one who had problems withg FOX. Writer David Hayter said the following in a recent interview....

Source: http://www.metalgearsolid.org/featurez/interviews/davidhayter.php

Hayter had filed a lawsuit against Fox. I thought that was common knowledge. :confused:

[weapon-x]

But as I've stated, being that X-Men is a film interpretation, a totally different universe, aren't contentions of particular characterizations all matter of taste not in film, but in source material.

yeah. to quote myself from a different thread, it's about time people seperate the comics and the films. People should think of the film as a re-imaging or re-working. Things aren't going to be exact as they are in the comic. in fact i think it's more interesting that way.

[Retroman]

Hayter had filed a lawsuit against Fox. I thought that was common knowledge. :confused:
Really? I didn't know that.:confused:

[Angry Sentinel]

yeah. to quote myself from a different thread, it's about time people seperate the comics and the films. People should think of the film as a re-imaging or re-working. Things aren't going to be exact as they are in the comic. in fact i think it's more interesting that way. And to quote myself from many, many threads...

Storm's re-imagining or re-working in X1 was RE-HORRIFIC!

Who you blame is up to you.

[GeneralRashMan]

I was afraid that Bryan Singer would make Spider-Man gay when he did athat movie. Im glad he didnt though

[GeneralRashMan]

I was afraid that Bryan Singer would make Spider-Man gay when he did athat movie. Im glad he didnt though

[boywonder13]

I was afraid that Bryan Singer would make Spider-Man gay when he did athat movie. Im glad he didnt though


What the heck??? :confused: Sam Raimi did Spider-Man.

What are you saying?

Confused!!

[weapon-x]

And to quote myself from many, many threads...

Storm's re-imagining or re-working in X1 was RE-HORRIFIC!

Who you blame is up to you.

wasn't blaming anyone or justifying anything

[plasticfangs]

Storm being bad is because...HALLE BARRY SUCKS.

The fact is, she has no respect for the medium, and phoned in her performance. She didn't bother trying to make the character believable, or interesting. And that accent was terrible.

[Angry Sentinel]

Sorry, I wasnt trying to imply that you did. I just wanted to use the whole "re-horrific" thing
*laughs at self*


Welcome to the X-boards Weapon-X... enjoy

[X-Maniac]

Yes, there are going to be changes from the comics, but the characters still have to make sense in a clear way.

With Magneto, you can see immediately and clearly why he is what he is. Same with Rogue. And Wolverine. Also Mystique was given a strong motivation ('it's because of people like you that i was afraid to go to school') - that's why she does what she does, that's why she is siding with Magneto.

In my view, as I said above, the driving forces behind Storm, Cyclops and Jean were not as clear. They were not given origin scenes --- of course there was no room to give everyone origin scenes in X1.. it's a shame we could not have had another origin scene in X2 (either Cyclops or Storm... Cyclops' origin would have shown the background of an orphan finding all the things he missed as a child - a family with the X-Men, a father in Xavier and finding love with Jean, which would then have made the loss of Jean even more poignant for him).

This is not just about comparing movie characters with comics (Mystique, Rogue, Magneto, and others all differ vastly). Fanboys want the characters to be almost exactly like the comics. I do not fall into that category.

Storm's portrayal seemed a little fuzzy - she became a caring mother figure and teacher who was the only adult to openly admit a fear for normal humans, a fear which had grown into anger in X2. Her accent hinted at a background that was never explained. We can never expect her to be the Amazonian, aloof goddess in the comics. But she just seemed vague.

I've tried before to justify all her actions and dialogue, for own benefit as much as anyone else's, to try to force it all to make sense.

So. Here is what we have so far from her, some of this taken from earlier things I've said on here:

1. In X1 - she tells Wolverine 'at least I've chosen a side' in the 'war' (between mutants and humans) Magneto has predicted. She has chosen to fight against Magneto's anti-human stance and to fight for Xavier's dream of peace and co-existence. We have from her a definite statement that she is fighting for the side that protects humanity and wants to integrate peacefully.

2. She tells Senator Kelly she is afraid of normal people. It seems natural enough for a group of very different people - misfits, some with obvious physical differences - to feel that way though only she is heard to say that she is afraid. So she fears normal people, but is still fighting for them.

3. She fights Toad after he kicks the living **** out of her, there is no mention or obvious sign of her comicbook claustrophobia. Is she simply enraged, is she at last actually fighting for the side she has chosen, is she stopping Toad so the X-Men can get on with stopping Magneto and his war?

4. At the start of X2 she is in the museum telling the children that it's now believed the more advanced Cro-Magnon man interbred with Neantherdal man and that there was no war with one wiping out the other. This has to be an allegory for the mutant/human struggle, and as such it backs up her quest for peace and integration. Previously it was believed that the more advanced Cro Magnon (just as mutants are the more advanced) had killed off the less advanced Neanderthal (as normal humans are to mutants). So the analogy is saying 'we shouldn't kill off humans, we should live with them, don't fight Magneto's cause'. Which backs up her decision of which side to fight with, which cause to follow.

5. In X2, we have her telling Nightcrawler she and Jean teach at a school for 'people like us' where they can be safe 'from everyone else'. That backs up her own personal fear - it's the second time she mentions fear, why is she so afraid, more so than Jean or Cyclops or Xavier?

6. Nightcrawler tells her he pities normal people who have not experienced the things they have, and she says she gave up on pity a long time ago. Why? Is this self-pity? Or does she mean she feels no pity for those who hate mutants? What happened to maker her give up that pity?

7. And when he says someone so beautiful should not be so angry, she says 'Sometimes anger is all we have'. This could refer to her calling on rage to bring the fury of the elements, as she did with Toad in X1. She shows no real anger since that statement. Nothing happens in which she obviously acts upon anger.

I don't want to over-analyse, but when you follow through the dialogue like this, there are things that do not immediately add up.

[Angry Sentinel]

^ So your really uncomfortable with the "Fuzzy" characterization. I see... And I think this is due in large part to the fact that the movieverse never planned to use Storm as much more than a perepherial character. As Bosef just posted, they either had to write her out because they were not sure of future installments... or they were chosing to write her out because they could not come to an agreement on portrayal.

I was going to make this arguement with Bosef as well, but there is still a lot of conjecture here. A lot of what we are discussing is just our own interpretations of what has been said. Although there is no arguing that there are two completely different characters on screen between X1 and X2. Is this growth? Or actress demands?

What the heck??? :confused: Sam Raimi did Spider-Man.

What are you saying?

Confused!! Yeah, apparently someone thinks they need to ruin a perfectly good forum discussion.

[weapon-x]

Sorry, I wasnt trying to imply that you did. I just wanted to use the whole "re-horrific" thing
*laughs at self*


Welcome to the X-boards Weapon-X... enjoy

ha.fair. just got a little defensive. and yeah. hale berry did mess up storm. totally the wrong choice.

[X-Maniac]

^ So your really uncomfortable with the "Fuzzy" characterization. I see... And I think this is due in large part to the fact that the movieverse never planned to use Storm as much more than a perepherial character. As Bosef just posted, they either had to write her out because they were not sure of future installments... or they were chosing to write her out because they could not come to an agreement on portrayal.

I was going to make this arguement with Bosef as well, but there is still a lot of conjecture here. A lot of what we are discussing is just our own interpretations of what has been said. Although there is not argueing that there are two completely different characters on screen between X1 and X2. Is this growth? Or actress demands? .

Difficult to know how much is down to actress demands and studio politics! Maybe some of the inconsistencies are down to having to 'toughen up' the character in X2. But they should still have taken a linear progression from X1, we needn't have seen character growth through events, but through dialogue.

I wonder why they wanted Storm to be so peripheral. Movies do try for ethnic minority representation, and Storm is the obvious choice for a black character in X-Men. It's just the dialogue that seemed not to give a clear sense of motivation, though I should add that Cyclops and Jean also did not have clear motivation. I don't want to seem hyper-critical, I am just pondering and reflecting.

[bosef982]

I was afraid that Bryan Singer would make Spider-Man gay when he did athat movie. Im glad he didnt though

Will you shut the **** up? Your passive homophobic jabs at Singer's sexuality, and other gay men/women on these boards, is trolling.


Stop it. Now!

[Hotaru]

Bosef, I'll stop now. Apparently my English isn't good enough as you still fail to get my point.
Just tell me, in the movie-verse Storm was apparently hurt by humans, that's why she's angry and fearful of them. Now tell me - what's the difference between her and Mystique? Why is one of them fighting for Xavier, while the other's on Magneto's side? They're both angry and fearful. Please, explain. Mind you, I'm an idiot as you claimed me to be, so use straightforward arguments, so I can understand them.
One more thing - I was never bashing Singer for his work on X1 and X2. I was aknowledging some room for improvement.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Bosef, I'll stop now. Apparently my English isn't good enough as you still fail to get my point.
Just tell me, in the movie-verse Storm was apparently hurt by humans, that's why she's angry and fearful of them. Now tell me - what's the difference between her and Mystique? Why is one of them fighting for Xavier, while the other's on Magneto's side? They're both angry and fearful. Please, explain. Mind you, I'm an idiot as you claimed me to be, so use straightforward arguments, so I can understand them.
One more thing - I was never bashing Singer for his work on X1 and X2. I was aknowledging some room for improvement.

Since you are not from America, I don't know if you are familiar with the Civil Rights movement from the 1960's here in the U.S.

The X-Men (Xavier & Magneto) has been compared time and time again to a comic book version of the Civil Rights movement, with Xavier and Magneto being Martin Luther King, Jr, and Malcolm X respectively.

Now, I am no Civil Rights expert, seeing as though I am only 22 years old, and a white male. Of course I've learned about it in school and such, but there is no way that I can know as much about it as the black people who actually lived through the oppression.

But basically, Martin Luther King, Jr, fought for equality between whites and blacks (minorities of all races, really, but blacks specifically). He believed that we could achieve that goal not through violence, but through non-violent protest and civil disobidience (civil disobidience being black people eating in restaraunts that were "white only", and not leaving when asked to leave. Peacefully resisting arrest, i.e. body going limp and making police drag you off)

Malcolm X was a bit more radical. He was not afraid of violence against the oppressors, as he was more of the "fight fire with fire" attitude, that if the white man was going to oppress the blacks, that they were justified in fighting back.

That would be the difference between Storm being abused and fighting for Xavier, and Mystique being abused and fighting for Magneto. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr, had the same goals. They wanted the oppresive laws abolished, and blacks given the same rights as whites. However, they both had different ideals on how to go about getting those goals accomplished.

[conan69]

"Malcolm X was a bit more radical. He was not afraid of violence against the oppressors, as he was more of the "fight fire with fire" attitude, that if the white man was going to oppress the blacks, that they were justified in fighting back."

Until he got away from elijah muhammad. His philosphy had radically changed after leaving the Nation of Islam. They killed him when he really was on the verge of great things.

[Hotaru]

That would be the difference between Storm being abused and fighting for Xavier, and Mystique being abused and fighting for Magneto. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr, had the same goals. They wanted the oppresive laws abolished, and blacks given the same rights as whites. However, they both had different ideals on how to go about getting those goals accomplished.
Thank you! I have heard of this comparison, but not in such detail.
The goal of the question was to make him see, that as far as we know Storm and Mystique shared very similar (if not identical) past, and they have very similar (if not identical) feelings of fear towards humans. However, one of them stands by Xavier, the other by Magneto. And movies will give NO explanation of why it is so.
Isn't there something wrong, when we can't really tell the difference between a good and a bad guy, apart from that one of them is good and one of them is bad? What made them choose who they chose? An argument that they have chosed who fits them most is no argument, as one might as why did that person fit her the most? And so on, and so on...
They have made Storm different form the comic-books, but somewhere in between they've lost her reason for being with Xavier. As I hadn't known the books I could very well see Storm fighting on Magneto's side.

[bosef982]

"Malcolm X was a bit more radical. He was not afraid of violence against the oppressors, as he was more of the "fight fire with fire" attitude, that if the white man was going to oppress the blacks, that they were justified in fighting back."

Until he got away from elijah muhammad. His philosphy had radically changed after leaving the Nation of Islam. They killed him when he really was on the verge of great things.

Yes, Malcom X was becoming his own sort of MLK.

What's been said is mostly spot-on. I am 23, however, I just got my B.A. in History. MLK was filled with anger and annoyance and frusteration towards whites, but knew he had to rise above that and set the example. That's why his actions -- like Storm's -- can be seen as more noble than incongrous.

Also, throwing a pity party for yourself does nothing to salvage your points and only demonstrates what I did in my little mock analogy of arguments on SHH

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Bosef, again: :up: :up: :up: :up:

I think you are totally on point in your arguement. There is one part I'd like to address from your first big post:

First and foremost, something that many seem not to grasp is that the X-Men are comic book characters that are translated into film. Why is that amongst the fans of novels, musicals, and other mediums, comic book fans are the only ones who have this near cult-like attachment to faithfullness. The entire concept of adaptation seems lost on them, their own fervor for their preferential interpretation of the comic book apparently overriding decades, if not centuries, worth of dramatic philosophy.

There is no way of saying this that won't come off as pompous, egotistical, arrogant, whatever, so I am just going to say it and state from the get go that my intentions are not to offend (even though they will)

I think it has to do with the form of media that comic books are, and the types of people that read them.

Novels are a more "intelligent" form of medium. It is higher level writing and storytelling, and character development, etc... It relies on stimulating the mind, and making the person think. Novels are a form of entertainment for the educated person. Go to college, it is just expected of you that you read novels.

Comic books are simpler. Their target audience is for children and teenagers. The level of writing is not as complex as novel writing, and instead of relying on stimulating the mind, it relies on pictures and action, and larger than life characters.

(^ This is where the offending comes in. Keep in mind I am NOT saying that comic books are a lesser form of entertainment. I have a stack of X-Men comics myself, and I think that it takes a great deal of imagination to come up with these characters and stories. However, simply put, novels are the educated man's entertainment, comic books are not)

I think because of the form of entertainment that novels are vs. comic books, they tend to have different followings. A movie based on a novel is going to have a higher acknowledgement for change, considering novel readers are probably more interested in the underlying tones and themes, the symbolism, etc... more so than the direct literalness "well this exact occurance happened so it should happen in the movie"

Comic book fans don't always get the symbolism and themes and tones presented in a comic book (see all of the arguments regarding the costumes, or not enough action), and want that literalness, they want the action, they want the "big", and when someone like Singer comes along and presents the tones and themes of the source material, and prioritizes that over flashy uniforms and optic blasts, a lot of the comic book fans just don't "get it", and think because these characters have been toned down from their comic book counterparts, that they were misinterpreted.

Now on to the big debate of the day, and that is Storm. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said regarding Storm's character. She had plenty to do, and was just as much a part of the movie as Wolverine, or anyone else. I think some people are really just grasping for straws when they say stuff like "Storm should have been shown landing on the snow in X-Men" or "Storm should have left the jet when she created those tornadoes" or "Storm had to be saved by Nightcrawler, so it takes away from what she did"... I really think those are beyond nitpicking. That's just wanting stuff to be there that doesn't need to be there, and just showing that no matter what happens, you're not going to be satisfied.

On that note, I do believe there is some validity to the "Storm wasn't portrayed correctly" arguement. I used to feel that Rogue wasn't portrayed correctly, but then I realized that she actually was, again, in the form of "themes and tones". No, she wasn't flying around, throwing tanks and Sentinels and punching Juggernaut through buildings. But her character; her feelings towards her powers, her being scared, those are very accurate to her character.

After I realized that, I did being to realize where Storm was portrayed incorrectly. I feel that Halle is to blame for Storm coming off as weak, as I think Halle was just bad for the role. But I still even believe that Singer and co. were to blame for the rest.

I did get the sense that Storm's mindset was that of Magneto or his followers; "I guess I'm afraid of them", "I gave up on pity long ago", "Sometimes anger can help you survive".

Now, I don't claim to be an expert of the comics since I've only really began collecting them since a bit after X-Men came out, and my collection is only about 85 or so issues, but I have been a fan of the X-Men most of my life (thanks in large to the Animated Series of the 90's), and I feel that I do have at least a more than average understanding of these characters and who they are.

I never remember from the comics or cartoons Storm ever having a mindset towards humans that bordered Magneto's. I've always seen her as a strong willed woman (something that Halle does not portray) who could handle her own in crunch time. She was strong enough to be able to be put into a leadership role if neccesity dictated (something we did see in X2).

My impressions of her from the cartoons, and the comics that I've read, is that she is a no-nonsense, business first type of woman (as I have seen through her many encounters with Gambit, and her "rolleyes" type of responses to his wit). At the same time, she is also a very trusting person, the one person who will stay in your corner no matter what, even if nobody else will be (again, through her encounters with Gambit. The fact that she was the only one, by my understanding, that supported Gambit through the trial that got him abandoned in Antarctica. The fact that she was the one who lobbied to get him into the X-Men, even when nobody trusted him. And the fact that she is the one person that Gambit can count on, period, when he really needs someone in his corner. My favorite example being from Uncanny X-Men #326 I believe it is)

I don't see this really come through in the movies, thus far. Her trusting, forgiving attitude, is pretty much ruined through her fear and anger towards humans. The Storm I know would not have anger towards humans, because even if she didn't agree, she's understand where they were coming from, and her motivation for following Xavier's dream would be to try to enlighten them, and make them understand that mutants may be potentially dangerous, but that doesn't mean they have to be.

I don't see Storm being in anyone's corner when their backs are against the wall. Granted, the closest to this we see is Wolverine, and the fact that Cyclops in particular, but even the rest of the X-Men seem a bit cautious towards him. The Storm I know would lobby to let Logan prove himself. That yea, he may come off as a bit of an arrogant *******, but that he really has a heart of gold and needs a chance to show that. But I guess that role is given to Xavier.

Again, my take on Storm is just that; my take. One take on a character. Lightning Strikez or X-Maniac or anyone else may have a different view of the character. But that is how I view the character, and why I feel she was portrayed incorrectly.

But in no way do I think her (in my opinion) incorrect portrayal ruined the movies.

I do blame a mix of Bryan and Halle for Storm's portrayal though. Halle for coming across as weak, losing the accent in X2, etc...

But I do blame Bryan too. I believe he did state somewhere that he was not even a fan of the Storm character, and only put her into the franchise because the studio wanted her. Which is not something I agree with, because Storm is one of my "Vital" characters that are an absolute must have, and I don't agree with Bryan's wanting to just cut her out of X-Men 3. I believe this not really liking the character led to him probably not being too inspired when interpreting her character from comic book to big screen.

[weapon-x]

Isn't there something wrong, when we can't really tell the difference between a good and a bad guy, apart from that one of them is good and one of them is bad?
whose to say that mistique is a bad guy, the bad guys are the oppressors. It's the old tale of one mans terrorist is another mans freedow fighter. Perhaps it is questionable in their methods but i don't think it's as black and white as that. Magneto and the brother hood aren't bad guys really, extremists yes. btw i'm not condoning the actions of extremists but they have their way and they believe it to be right. damn this is some deep s**t going on in this thread.

[bosef982]

whose to say that mistique is a bad guy, the bad guys are the oppressors. It's the old tale of one mans terrorist is another mans freedow fighter. Perhaps it is questionable in their methods but i don't think it's as black and white as that. Magneto and the brother hood aren't bad guys really, extremists yes. btw i'm not condoning the actions of extremists but they have their way and they believe it to be right. damn this is some deep s**t going on in this thread.


I totally agree with you here. The nuances of Magneto's morality is not as simple as some people may think, or as easily resolved as many would want.

[bosef982]

Bosef, again: :up: :up: :up: :up:

I think you are totally on point in your arguement. There is one part I'd like to address from your first big post:



There is no way of saying this that won't come off as pompous, egotistical, arrogant, whatever, so I am just going to say it and state from the get go that my intentions are not to offend (even though they will)

I think it has to do with the form of media that comic books are, and the types of people that read them.

Novels are a more "intelligent" form of medium. It is higher level writing and storytelling, and character development, etc... It relies on stimulating the mind, and making the person think. Novels are a form of entertainment for the educated person. Go to college, it is just expected of you that you read novels.

Comic books are simpler. Their target audience is for children and teenagers. The level of writing is not as complex as novel writing, and instead of relying on stimulating the mind, it relies on pictures and action, and larger than life characters.

(^ This is where the offending comes in. Keep in mind I am NOT saying that comic books are a lesser form of entertainment. I have a stack of X-Men comics myself, and I think that it takes a great deal of imagination to come up with these characters and stories. However, simply put, novels are the educated man's entertainment, comic books are not)

I think because of the form of entertainment that novels are vs. comic books, they tend to have different followings. A movie based on a novel is going to have a higher acknowledgement for change, considering novel readers are probably more interested in the underlying tones and themes, the symbolism, etc... more so than the direct literalness "well this exact occurance happened so it should happen in the movie"

Comic book fans don't always get the symbolism and themes and tones presented in a comic book (see all of the arguments regarding the costumes, or not enough action), and want that literalness, they want the action, they want the "big", and when someone like Singer comes along and presents the tones and themes of the source material, and prioritizes that over flashy uniforms and optic blasts, a lot of the comic book fans just don't "get it", and think because these characters have been toned down from their comic book counterparts, that they were misinterpreted.

Now on to the big debate of the day, and that is Storm. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said regarding Storm's character. She had plenty to do, and was just as much a part of the movie as Wolverine, or anyone else. I think some people are really just grasping for straws when they say stuff like "Storm should have been shown landing on the snow in X-Men" or "Storm should have left the jet when she created those tornadoes" or "Storm had to be saved by Nightcrawler, so it takes away from what she did"... I really think those are beyond nitpicking. That's just wanting stuff to be there that doesn't need to be there, and just showing that no matter what happens, you're not going to be satisfied.

On that note, I do believe there is some validity to the "Storm wasn't portrayed correctly" arguement. I used to feel that Rogue wasn't portrayed correctly, but then I realized that she actually was, again, in the form of "themes and tones". No, she wasn't flying around, throwing tanks and Sentinels and punching Juggernaut through buildings. But her character; her feelings towards her powers, her being scared, those are very accurate to her character.

After I realized that, I did being to realize where Storm was portrayed incorrectly. I feel that Halle is to blame for Storm coming off as weak, as I think Halle was just bad for the role. But I still even believe that Singer and co. were to blame for the rest.

I did get the sense that Storm's mindset was that of Magneto or his followers; "I guess I'm afraid of them", "I gave up on pity long ago", "Sometimes anger can help you survive".

Now, I don't claim to be an expert of the comics since I've only really began collecting them since a bit after X-Men came out, and my collection is only about 85 or so issues, but I have been a fan of the X-Men most of my life (thanks in large to the Animated Series of the 90's), and I feel that I do have at least a more than average understanding of these characters and who they are.

I never remember from the comics or cartoons Storm ever having a mindset towards humans that bordered Magneto's. I've always seen her as a strong willed woman (something that Halle does not portray) who could handle her own in crunch time. She was strong enough to be able to be put into a leadership role if neccesity dictated (something we did see in X2).

My impressions of her from the cartoons, and the comics that I've read, is that she is a no-nonsense, business first type of woman (as I have seen through her many encounters with Gambit, and her "rolleyes" type of responses to his wit). At the same time, she is also a very trusting person, the one person who will stay in your corner no matter what, even if nobody else will be (again, through her encounters with Gambit. The fact that she was the only one, by my understanding, that supported Gambit through the trial that got him abandoned in Antarctica. The fact that she was the one who lobbied to get him into the X-Men, even when nobody trusted him. And the fact that she is the one person that Gambit can count on, period, when he really needs someone in his corner. My favorite example being from Uncanny X-Men #326 I believe it is)

I don't see this really come through in the movies, thus far. Her trusting, forgiving attitude, is pretty much ruined through her fear and anger towards humans. The Storm I know would not have anger towards humans, because even if she didn't agree, she's understand where they were coming from, and her motivation for following Xavier's dream would be to try to enlighten them, and make them understand that mutants may be potentially dangerous, but that doesn't mean they have to be.

I don't see Storm being in anyone's corner when their backs are against the wall. Granted, the closest to this we see is Wolverine, and the fact that Cyclops in particular, but even the rest of the X-Men seem a bit cautious towards him. The Storm I know would lobby to let Logan prove himself. That yea, he may come off as a bit of an arrogant *******, but that he really has a heart of gold and needs a chance to show that. But I guess that role is given to Xavier.

Again, my take on Storm is just that; my take. One take on a character. Lightning Strikez or X-Maniac or anyone else may have a different view of the character. But that is how I view the character, and why I feel she was portrayed incorrectly.

But in no way do I think her (in my opinion) incorrect portrayal ruined the movies.

I do blame a mix of Bryan and Halle for Storm's portrayal though. Halle for coming across as weak, losing the accent in X2, etc...

But I do blame Bryan too. I believe he did state somewhere that he was not even a fan of the Storm character, and only put her into the franchise because the studio wanted her. Which is not something I agree with, because Storm is one of my "Vital" characters that are an absolute must have, and I don't agree with Bryan's wanting to just cut her out of X-Men 3. I believe this not really liking the character led to him probably not being too inspired when interpreting her character from comic book to big screen.


You know what, I've never thought of it this way. It makes a lot of sense, a lot. And I can see the issue with Storm's characterization now that you explain it that way, and how it can go both ways. I also think it's interesting that out of all the characters, Rogue was changed the most drastically.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Why would Halle be to blame for losing the accent in X2? That is a directorial decision, not a cast member choice. Anna Paquin's natural Southern accent was also seriously restricted in the second film.

[Angry Sentinel]

You know what, I've never thought of it this way. It makes a lot of sense, a lot. And I can see the issue with Storm's characterization now that you explain it that way, and how it can go both ways. I also think it's interesting that out of all the characters, Rogue was changed the most drastically. :eek: :eek: .... I cant believe it!... just kidding:) !!

Nell did put it rather well. But I gotta say that a lot of people have been trying to express that exact same thing.

But in no way do I think her (in my opinion) incorrect portrayal ruined the movies.

I do blame a mix of Bryan and Halle for Storm's portrayal though. Halle for coming across as weak, losing the accent in X2, etc...

But I do blame Bryan too. I believe he did state somewhere that he was not even a fan of the Storm character, and only put her into the franchise because the studio wanted her. Which is not something I agree with, because Storm is one of my "Vital" characters that are an absolute must have, and I don't agree with Bryan's wanting to just cut her out of X-Men 3. I believe this not really liking the character led to him probably not being too inspired when interpreting her character from comic book to big screen. I dont think anybody really thought it ruined the movie perse, just possibly made that element less enjoyable for them. In the same way that it would be if Gambit were characterized in a different tone, you would frown... still enjoy the movie, but frown. And you would be most happy to get into a "discussion" with anyone who tried to tell you that it(the movie) did capture the heart of the character.

STRONGLY AGREED...It has been my position all along that they were both responsible (Bryan and Halle).

It appeared to me that these elements were the case for Bryan's reasonings. But as Bosef has stated there could be another side to the looking glass and we really cant prove for certain which is absolutely true.


Hotaru & Xmaniac: you have both given me something new to think about with the poorly established character's motives. Yes, we have often seen the same incidences lead someone to two different paths; but generally, in good storytelling, we do have a clearly established feeling as to why each one would have chosen their respective paths....


GOD I LOVE THIS DISCUSSION, GOOD JOB EVERYONE!!! :up:

[X-Maniac]

Now on to the big debate of the day, and that is Storm. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said regarding Storm's character. She had plenty to do, and was just as much a part of the movie as Wolverine, or anyone else. I think some people are really just grasping for straws when they say stuff like "Storm should have been shown landing on the snow in X-Men" or "Storm should have left the jet when she created those tornadoes" or "Storm had to be saved by Nightcrawler, so it takes away from what she did"... I really think those are beyond nitpicking. That's just wanting stuff to be there that doesn't need to be there, and just showing that no matter what happens, you're not going to be satisfied.

I want to respond to this. It was me who said I would have liked to see Storm landing on the snow, and leaving the jet to create the tornadoes. I felt it would have been more in keeping with accurately portraying the comicbook character - namely the fact that she flies. She wears a cape, and yet she has not flown, only levitated upwards from the elevator shaft.

Many Storm fans - and even Halle herself - have said that Storm should be seen flying. Scenes showing her flying were apparently cut from X2 (a scene of her flying over water, and a scene generating the electrical storm at the dam - those may in fact be the same scene).

All I was doing was saying where I would have liked to have seen flight scenes. It's not 'beyond nitpicking'. It's what I think. These movies are not beyond reproach. We are entitled to give our comments and our personal vision of how we would, perhaps, have done things.

If I'd done those movies, I would have had her landing on the snow (immediate character introduction for fans, immediately everyone in the movie and watching the movie know this is another mutant, her trademark power of flight is established). And i would have certainly tried out the idea of having her eject from the jet and fly into the clouds to create the tornadoes, later landing beside Magneto, with him saying 'When will these people learn how to fly' to Mystique and then Storm landing and saying 'Some of us already can'.

Because those things were not done does make my ideas and opinions crap, wrong or beyond nitpicking. They are things I would have liked to have seen, or would have liked to have done. If you disagree then fine, but that does not make you holier-than-thou Mr Perfect while I am wrong.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I would completely agree except that we have come to learn that he really isnt that responsible for the progression that we have seen... Much of what was done in X2 for that character hasnt been clearly established as being Singers ideas. And If what I read about his idea for X3 was correct; Then he still didnt truly establish/portray/reflect a hearty version of the original Orroro Munroe....nor did he plan to. So how does your arguement of "time constraints" hold up across...



Exactly right. That's why I said, that while Bryan has excelled in "getting" the X-Men, he missed the point entirely with Storm. Halle is far from infallible, but in my opinion she was set up for failure by Bryan and his decision making process.

[X-Maniac]

I never remember from the comics or cartoons Storm ever having a mindset towards humans that bordered Magneto's. I've always seen her as a strong willed woman (something that Halle does not portray) who could handle her own in crunch time. She was strong enough to be able to be put into a leadership role if neccesity dictated (something we did see in X2).

My impressions of her from the cartoons, and the comics that I've read, is that she is a no-nonsense, business first type of woman (as I have seen through her many encounters with Gambit, and her "rolleyes" type of responses to his wit). At the same time, she is also a very trusting person, the one person who will stay in your corner no matter what, even if nobody else will be (again, through her encounters with Gambit. The fact that she was the only one, by my understanding, that supported Gambit through the trial that got him abandoned in Antarctica. The fact that she was the one who lobbied to get him into the X-Men, even when nobody trusted him. And the fact that she is the one person that Gambit can count on, period, when he really needs someone in his corner. My favorite example being from Uncanny X-Men #326 I believe it is)

I don't see this really come through in the movies, thus far. Her trusting, forgiving attitude, is pretty much ruined through her fear and anger towards humans. The Storm I know would not have anger towards humans, because even if she didn't agree, she's understand where they were coming from, and her motivation for following Xavier's dream would be to try to enlighten them, and make them understand that mutants may be potentially dangerous, but that doesn't mean they have to be.

I don't see Storm being in anyone's corner when their backs are against the wall. Granted, the closest to this we see is Wolverine, and the fact that Cyclops in particular, but even the rest of the X-Men seem a bit cautious towards him. The Storm I know would lobby to let Logan prove himself. That yea, he may come off as a bit of an arrogant *******, but that he really has a heart of gold and needs a chance to show that. But I guess that role is given to Xavier.

Again, my take on Storm is just that; my take. One take on a character. Lightning Strikez or X-Maniac or anyone else may have a different view of the character. But that is how I view the character, and why I feel she was portrayed incorrectly.

But in no way do I think her (in my opinion) incorrect portrayal ruined the movies.

I do blame a mix of Bryan and Halle for Storm's portrayal though. Halle for coming across as weak, losing the accent in X2, etc...

But I do blame Bryan too. I believe he did state somewhere that he was not even a fan of the Storm character, and only put her into the franchise because the studio wanted her. Which is not something I agree with, because Storm is one of my "Vital" characters that are an absolute must have, and I don't agree with Bryan's wanting to just cut her out of X-Men 3. I believe this not really liking the character led to him probably not being too inspired when interpreting her character from comic book to big screen.

I also want to respond to this. Your 'take' on the comicbook character is close, but not entirely correct. As Chris Claremont himself said, Storm joined the X-Men out of a sense of duty and responsibility, persuaded by Xavier to step into the outside world and use her great powers for the greater good, rather than simply bringing rain on to the crops. She is also very black and white in her views, fairly intolerant, very straightforward, and she sees right and wrong very sharply. She also has a fairly aloof and independent manner (slightly superior at times), which probably comes from having to survive on the streets as an orphan and a thief, from walking alone for a year across Africa to the tribal peoples she was drawn to by some sort of ancestral genetic memory, and from being seen as -- and becoming -- a goddess. She survived a tragic and rough childhood, and became elevated to something more than human in a fairly narrow and simple world. So she's never been 'normal', she was a street thief and then a goddess, and then a superhero; she went from being a criminal to being a fighter for justice!

In the movie, this would all have probably been too 'unreal' a background. It makes her so unusual, so difficult to relate to, and difficult perhaps for an audience to relate to. So, instead, she became a caring mother figure and a teacher -- nothing wrong with that, it could be seen as an extrapolation of her 'earth mother' aspect.

Without that unfilmed movie origin scene (included in the extended novelization) in which village children bullied her and led her to cause rock-sized hailstones to rain down on them, we never really understand the fear she shows or the anger that makes her respond.

I am a great fan of Storm, but i don't put much blame on Halle at all. She didn't have the Amazonian height of the comicbook version, but others varied too in stature (Jean, Wolverine, etc) so I soon got over that. They'd have to cast a Masai warrior to get Storm's comicbook stature.

It's the portrayal through background and dialogue that was most out of tune - we got no idea as to why she does what she does. If she's there out of duty and a sense of right and wrong, like in the comics, we never knew about it. Everyone involved in the movie allowed it to happen.

But..BUT BUT.. this is not to say that the movies are bad or that Singer did a bad job. We are now focusing very tightly on just one character - because the fans have not been entirely happy with it and Halle and Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn have all mentioned it too.

I also feel characterisation was not there for Jean and Cyclops, just in case you leap on me for being selfish about Storm. But once again this not really detract from the movies. We are JUST debating the way the characters worked - both within the film's own structure, and when compared with the known comicbook behaviours.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think Scott prostituting himself when he lived on the streets is just in fan fic.
well its an idea, thats why i say "many believed" because in all honesty its never been written what has happened within those years

[spideyboy_1111]

I know why Storm fears humans and I understand her history. However, let's look at the story they're trying to tell. Her claustrophobia has no relevance. Kids throwing rocks at her, IMO, is not on par with Rogue's parents rejecting her. And Storm's background as a street urchin is irrelevant to the story at hand as well since it doesn't necessarily play into the mutant/human conflict as much. It'd be great if the movies had unlimited amounts of time to just explore character histories that are not important to the plot but that's just not the case. Maybe if a different type of conflict had been chosen then Storm's history would be more relevant but just trying to squeeze it in for the sake of the fans is just poor storytelling.
pretty sure rogue was the one who freaked out on her "foster parents" her "parents" wanted to help but rogue is the one who ran away, they didnt reject her.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

pretty sure rogue was the one who freaked out on her "foster parents" her "parents" wanted to help but rogue is the one who ran away, they didnt reject her.

You're right.

When watching X-Men, I never got the impression that her family outcasted her or anything.

I got the impression that after she discovered what happens when she touches someone, she ran away on her own. Her motivation for that could have been anything; she ran away because she didn't want to hurt her family and friends, she ran away because she didn't know what kind of reaction people would have to her.

That's the impression I got. Her family didn't seem too uncaring of her situation at the time.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I want to respond to this. It was me who said I would have liked to see Storm landing on the snow, and leaving the jet to create the tornadoes. I felt it would have been more in keeping with accurately portraying the comicbook character - namely the fact that she flies. She wears a cape, and yet she has not flown, only levitated upwards from the elevator shaft.

Many Storm fans - and even Halle herself - have said that Storm should be seen flying. Scenes showing her flying were apparently cut from X2 (a scene of her flying over water, and a scene generating the electrical storm at the dam - those may in fact be the same scene).

All I was doing was saying where I would have liked to have seen flight scenes. It's not 'beyond nitpicking'. It's what I think. These movies are not beyond reproach. We are entitled to give our comments and our personal vision of how we would, perhaps, have done things.

If I'd done those movies, I would have had her landing on the snow (immediate character introduction for fans, immediately everyone in the movie and watching the movie know this is another mutant, her trademark power of flight is established). And i would have certainly tried out the idea of having her eject from the jet and fly into the clouds to create the tornadoes, later landing beside Magneto, with him saying 'When will these people learn how to fly' to Mystique and then Storm landing and saying 'Some of us already can'.

Because those things were not done does make my ideas and opinions crap, wrong or beyond nitpicking. They are things I would have liked to have seen, or would have liked to have done. If you disagree then fine, but that does not make you holier-than-thou Mr Perfect while I am wrong.

That's fine. You're right, you do have the right to have your own opinion, but I also have the right to have mine. And my opinion is the same as that of bosef and others who stated that those scenes simply would not work in a cinematic context.

Flight was established for Storm, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, and I feel it was more powerful when she came flying up the elevator shaft to catch an unexpecting Toad off guard and whoop his ass. BTW, I think that scene of Storm coming out of the elevator shaft, and the storm she causes, blasting the doors almost off of their hingest as she steps through them, I think that's the single best visual in the entire movie. And for general audiences who don't know that Storm can fly, I think it would have been more powerful for them. She gets knocked down the elevator shaft, then all of a sudden here she comes all pissed off. The effect would have been lost on the general audience had we seen her flying in the first 20 minutes of the movie or so.

I also disagree with her flying out of the Blackbird to summon the tornadoes for the same reason as has been said before. What, she's supposed to leave cover to summon these tornadoes just to make it look cool? I think that scene looked bad ass enough as it was. Logically, and cinematically, I don't think it makes any sense for her to leave the jet to summon those tornadoes. And no offense or anything, but I feel that "Some of us already can" line would be a bit cheesy.

Storm getting her butt kicked by Toad? Well, how about Wolverine getting his ass handed to him by Mystique. And whether or not Storm is a good hand to hand fighter in the comics, I think you, and I, and general audiences, and everyone else, can agree that Wolverine is a much better hand to hand fighter than Storm. It's called suspense, and it's needed for a quality cinematic experience.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't think I ever said that. If that's what you want to think, then fine.

But I am also entitled to my opinion that I think that is beyond nitpicking, as I see it as complaining about stuff that makes good cinema.

And it wasn't you, no, but it was grasping for straws when Lightning Strikez had to mention like, 5 blows from the same fight (kicked in the stomach, kicked in the face, knocked over a table, knocked down an elevator shaft) and the fact that they used Storm when Wolverine stabbed Mystique as reasons on how they ****ed up Storm's character.

That's the kind of stuff that I agree with bosef about in this arguement. I think you and LS are arguing over petty stuff.

I do agree with you and LS, however, that Storm's character was not correctly portrayed, and I gave you my reasons why above.

Now, X-Maniac, please don't come back and say your opinions are not welcome, and I'm Mr. High And Mighty over here. Because I'm not saying that.

But if you want your opinion to be heard and accepted, then you have to also accept the fact that others aren't going to agree. We also have the right to say we disagree with your opinion, and explain why. I've done that. If you feel the way you feel tho, I'm not going to say you're wrong. My opinion may be that you are wrong, but that's what happens in disagreements.

[Star]

I don't think that Storm should have left the Jet to make the tornados. That would be stupid, and in the movies she comes off as very maternal towards the x-kids, so why would she leave a jet where some of them are, she'd want to protect them.

Besides, Storm is controlling the tornados and flying the jet at the same time. Although Jean can fly the jet as well, Jean can't fly the jet and manuver around about 15 tornados. Storm could TRY to keep them away, but Jean wouldnt really know where they were going. Which is why it makes sense for her to stay in the jet and make sure her tornados don't cause trouble for the x-men.

[Star]

Why would Halle be to blame for losing the accent in X2? That is a directorial decision, not a cast member choice. Anna Paquin's natural Southern accent was also seriously restricted in the second film.

Anna Paquin has a natural New Zealand accent, not southern...

[bosef982]

Well, it's a directorial -- or even a producer's choice -- because Halle Berry couldn't do it right.

[bosef982]

Exactly right. That's why I said, that while Bryan has excelled in "getting" the X-Men, he missed the point entirely with Storm. Halle is far from infallible, but in my opinion she was set up for failure by Bryan and his decision making process.


This is a change in position from this, which you posted on Page 4.

Suddenly Matthew left and then Brett arrived. Brett is continuing with the characterization, and as we can see from the trailer, she's got a more prominent role--as Storm should have. She, along with Cykes, Xavier, Jean and Wolverine are the most popular X-Men of all time. Bryan didn't "get it".

Which one is it? Did he get it, or not?

[X-Maniac]

That's fine. You're right, you do have the right to have your own opinion, but I also have the right to have mine. And my opinion is the same as that of bosef and others who stated that those scenes simply would not work in a cinematic context.

Flight was established for Storm, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, and I feel it was more powerful when she came flying up the elevator shaft to catch an unexpecting Toad off guard and whoop his ass. BTW, I think that scene of Storm coming out of the elevator shaft, and the storm she causes, blasting the doors almost off of their hingest as she steps through them, I think that's the single best visual in the entire movie. And for general audiences who don't know that Storm can fly, I think it would have been more powerful for them. She gets knocked down the elevator shaft, then all of a sudden here she comes all pissed off. The effect would have been lost on the general audience had we seen her flying in the first 20 minutes of the movie or so.

I also disagree with her flying out of the Blackbird to summon the tornadoes for the same reason as has been said before. What, she's supposed to leave cover to summon these tornadoes just to make it look cool? I think that scene looked bad ass enough as it was. Logically, and cinematically, I don't think it makes any sense for her to leave the jet to summon those tornadoes. And no offense or anything, but I feel that "Some of us already can" line would be a bit cheesy.

Storm getting her butt kicked by Toad? Well, how about Wolverine getting his ass handed to him by Mystique. And whether or not Storm is a good hand to hand fighter in the comics, I think you, and I, and general audiences, and everyone else, can agree that Wolverine is a much better hand to hand fighter than Storm. It's called suspense, and it's needed for a quality cinematic experience.

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't think I ever said that. If that's what you want to think, then fine.

But I am also entitled to my opinion that I think that is beyond nitpicking, as I see it as complaining about stuff that makes good cinema.

And it wasn't you, no, but it was grasping for straws when Lightning Strikez had to mention like, 5 blows from the same fight (kicked in the stomach, kicked in the face, knocked over a table, knocked down an elevator shaft) and the fact that they used Storm when Wolverine stabbed Mystique as reasons on how they ****ed up Storm's character.

That's the kind of stuff that I agree with bosef about in this arguement. I think you and LS are arguing over petty stuff.

I do agree with you and LS, however, that Storm's character was not correctly portrayed, and I gave you my reasons why above.

Now, X-Maniac, please don't come back and say your opinions are not welcome, and I'm Mr. High And Mighty over here. Because I'm not saying that.

But if you want your opinion to be heard and accepted, then you have to also accept the fact that others aren't going to agree. We also have the right to say we disagree with your opinion, and explain why. I've done that. If you feel the way you feel tho, I'm not going to say you're wrong. My opinion may be that you are wrong, but that's what happens in disagreements.

No problem. It may well be that those ideas for scenes that I mentioned would NOT work. But I can see them in my mind's eye and i feel -- in my opinion --- that they could have worked. I know what you mean about holding back on the flight power until she hovers up from the elevator shaft at the end... this kind of 'holding back' is something that is sometimes done in movies for dramatic impact. It's one way of doing things, for sure. But not the only way.

It was a shock for Storm fans to see so things held back in the movies - her background, her motivations, some of her powers too. This is because she is such a strong and central character in the comics. And also because, even if you disregard any comparison with the comics, her movie portrayal was at times a little vague and weak. No matter which actress was chosen to say the lines about being scared, or how they delivered them, the lines clearly said this was a woman who was frightened....and who was bullied by Sabretooth and beaten up by Toad. Yes, she hit back.. but the weediness of the character before that didn't feel right to many people, for a character dramatically named Storm who was part of a superhero fighting force that had established an underground hi-tech base, jet and uniforms.. seemingly prepared for missions against baddies!

Non-fan moviegoers might well have wondered who was this unconventional black woman with unusual white hair and why is she there..the hair and accent certainly makes her stand out from the others at Xavier's school... it needed some 'filling in' and we didn't get it.

However, I do not blame Halle, as I said.

And what we have seen so far in X3's trailer is, to me, heartening. It's not a case of saying 'See, Ratner can do it, Singer can't' (we don't really know for sure what Singer would have done with X3 and its massive budget). This is not a case of dissing Singer, but of praising Ratner for carrying the torch with Phoenix and the building 'war' and delivering the goods with such characters as Angel and Beast. The fact that this Ratner movie includes Storm and has promised to define the character better is an added bonus.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

This is not a case of dissing Singer, but of praising Ratner for carrying the torch with Phoenix and the building 'war' and delivering the goods with such characters as Angel and Beast. The fact that this Ratner movie includes Storm and has promised to define the character better is an added bonus.

But this is what I was talking about in my other thread; "Will X-Men 3 really be a director's movie?"

How can you credit Brett Ratner for all of this stuff that was determined long before he got there.

IF you have to give credit to any director, then it actually goes to Matthew Vaughn, because he, along with Penn and Kinberg, wrote out the skeleton of what this movie was to be, and that included carrying on Phoenix, including the war, Angel, and Beast, and giving Storm a larger role.

Matthew Vaughn even said something along the lines of "Halle is the only cast member I haven't talked to yet, but I'm hoping she'll return. I've really expanded her role so hopefully she'll want to come back"

But no, that credit does not go to Brett Ratner.

I'm not anti-Ratner by any means, I never have been. But whether the movie turns out good or bad, this really isn't his film. Yea, he'll leave a visual stamp on it, set a pace, and all of that. But the overall tone of the movie was established when they wrote out a script and had a plot figured out (plot is probably the biggest factor in setting a tone of a movie). The plot was established. The characters coming in were established. Brett Ratner didn't have a hand in any of that.

So if this movie turns out to be totally awesome and epic, we can't say "Brett Ratner did was Singer didn't!" because Ratner DIDN'T DO IT. He put the cookies in the oven, and put a few sprinkles on them, but that's about it. The recipe and ingredients were right there in front of him. He just had to put it together.

And if this movie totally ****ing bombs, I don't think that Ratner can totally be blamed for that either, as most creative decisions were made before he came on board.

If totally ****tarded things happen like Cyclops dying, Xavier dying, Wolverine and Storm hooking up, that won't be Ratner's fault. That was all stuff that got okayed long before he was even around.

Yes, of course, being the director, he does deserve some credit / blame depending on the outcome, because he is still the guy in charge. But unfortunatley, it is unfair to both Ratner and Singer to compare these movies and directors against each other and say who handled the X-Men better, because Bryan Singer got to do 2 movies from scratch, and Brett Ratner had to get 1 movie made where all the creative direction had already been determined.

It may well be that those ideas for scenes that I mentioned would NOT work. But I can see them in my mind's eye and i feel -- in my opinion --- that they could have worked.

I know how you feel. No matter how good this movie is, it's never going to be the movie that it could have been, for me.

Whenever I watch this movie, I'm going to see the prison escape scene and think to myself "So why couldn't Gambit have been fit in here?"

When Iceman leaves Rogue for Kitty Pryde, and Rogue is all alone, I'm always going to think to myself "These guys really couldn't find a place for Gambit in this movie? It's right there!!!"

I understand the frustration Storm fans are going through with her inaccurate portrayal. It's a very similar frustration I face as a Gambit fan. The "he should be in, he can be fit in, he's ne of the most recognizable X-Men characters, and he was promised to us" frustration that I face with this franchise.

I'm not a huge Storm fan, but I am hoping that she's done better this time around. For the sake of the movies, I think that continuity is more important at this juncture than getting Storm right, so I hope they don't disregard continuity just to make her more comic book like. But I hope they get her better... as accurate to the comics as they can while maintaining the continuity of her character that's already been established.

[bosef982]

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


achem...continue.

[The Guard]

Uhh are you for real?
No.
We seem to be lacking understanding, both ways. I think I know why, I guess you find one aspect of Storm's character unimportant while I find it very meaningful.
It's not that he (or I) find it unimportant. No one is saying they didn't omit something about Storm from the comics. But the dialogue, the things she does, are very in keeping with many aspects of her personality from the comics, and relevant in the context of the film, to the themes it establishes, etc.
I know, that in early draft of X1 there was a scene of young Storm being oppressed by her village on an event of her powers manifestation. IF that was shown on screen, all this fear of humans thingy would make sense (even tough that would be so different to her comic-book origin). However, it was never established on the silver screen! So this version of her history is non-existent!
This version of her history may not have been spoken of in the films. However, you can easily imagine something like that happening to her via the way Xavier talks about humans reacting to mutants and the dialogue Storm has with Senator Kelly in X-MEN and her talk with Nightcrawler in X2. Something bad obviously happened to her, be it racism, bigotry, or outright hatred of mutants. Something involving the world hating and fearing her. Does it really have to be spelled out to be understood? It's clearly in her past? Does it matter if she was a goddess in the context of these films? Or if she walked the streets? Would it be nice to see, sure (but we have screentime issues again). But not seeing it hardly destroys what's onscreen.
In the comic books however, many times she was shown as a person not fearing humans but trying to assimilate with them (mutants and humans should form one society). She feared that mutants may feel superior to humans and to human laws and that's what she fought against.
And in X-MEN and X2 what is she? A teacher. So obviously that aspect of her character still exists in X-MEN. As for Storm feeling mutants may feel superior to humans, and fighting against that...she does that in the movies, too. Who does she fight? Magneto. What does Magneto feel? That mutants are superior. Why, pray tell, would Storm teach at a school for mutants run by a man who clearly wants to preach tolerance, and fight against evil mutants if not to attempt to foster peace between humans and mutants and protect them from each other. This aspect of her character is there. It's just not overt.
Now, what I'm trying to say all along, is that what made Storm stand out of the rest of X-Men (among other things), was this subtle difference. She was persecuted, she was hunted by humans as a leader and a team member of outlawed mutant group (when the laws were giving no right for mutants), but when the laws changed and more and more mutants started to be born, she noticed a danger of this whole situation going the other way. Xavier and the rest od Institute ignored that, creating X-Corps and opened the Institute for all mutants, they were dealing only with mutants, ignoring humans existence.
You are citing comic book examples. From a world that has far more chances to tell these stories than the films do. Storm in the films CANNOT be all the things she has been in the comics in the span of three films. It's just not possible. Has she been perfectly portrayed? No. But correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to feel like omitting this aspect is an error in character. Despite the MANY aspects she has shown in the films that are pretty much bang-on.
See, in the movies Storm is showing Xavier's attitude. She's saying that she's afraid of them (people), and that she's teaching at the school where mutants are save from regulars. She's fighting her fight to keep others save (she went out to get Rogue back, to get Nightcrawler, to get young students back) fromt he hostile word of human society. She doesn't need to go out in the open, she just wants to stay at school. She's helping to save those people from Magneto's machine and Dark Cerebro, 'cos she's just a good person and she doesn't want to see people dying. That's all.
That's all, huh? When did fighting the forces that want to tear us asunder become a small thing? When did teaching Xavier's ideals and guiding young minds to become better, more rounded, informed people become small potatoes?
What do you think she's teaching at that school? To hide from the world? Doubt it. Just because we don't see Storm go shopping or out into the world doesn't mean she doesn't want to see humans and mutants live in peace, or just wants to hide in Xavier's school. There's actually no evidence in the film to suggest that she does in fact just want to hide in the school. We never see much of their "personal lives", so how can we say? The side she has chosen in the war on mutants, however, confirms that she does indeed want to see humans and mutants working together, because she is opposing Magneto, the force who wants to see one prevail at the expense of the other. Sure, she has reservations about humanity as a whole. That's a valid character point. Because she clearly also has a lot of hope left.
Now, in the comic books she's not fighting to be save, she's fighting to be equal. Now, why would she want to be equal with something she fears?
What a question to ask. Why does any group want equality? Or want to be equal with a group they fear? So the groups won't have to fear each other anymore.
She's afraid of persecutions, mutant massacres etc. but she understands that in the core of this problem lies not human bad nature, but them not being equal. She understands her responsibilities as a person wielding such a great power.
Geez, my poit still isn't completly clear...
No...it's not, actually. What is your point, then? You seem to be talking about things that Storm is shown to be in the comics and then implying that she isn't any of these things. She is these things. The main failing point of her character, as far as I'm concerned, is that she's a little too meek, a little too unsure of herself, by what Halle Berry and whoever directed her has put onscreen.
And, you know what, I still feel the movie versions of Storm, Cyclops and even Jean were lacking in definition/motivation compared with Magneto, Mystique, Rogue and Wolverine.
Why? Because there wasn't as much of their motivation shown? Because they didn't have speeches about what motivates them and arguments where other people told them what to be motivated about? Ten bucks that's why.
Okay, it's tough to serve all those characters well. The lack of origin scenes for Storm, Cyclops and Jean has not helped.
What's an origin scene going to accomplish that wasn't already touched on in this film? That powers manifested and they were different and shunned? WE ALREADY KNOW THAT. You know why? Because they clearly DO have powers, we SEE evidence of Cyclops and Jean being shunned in both films, and we are told that many humans hate and fear mutants via the films. Logically, they received similar treatments as other mutants. Because of their connection to Xavier, their motivations for working for him then become equally obvious. He protected them. Taught them to view what others considered a curse as gifts. They agree with his philosophy, and they are good people at heart. So they have chosen to help others like themselves, and fight for mutant/human equality along the way. These are their motivations. They are all the same in this regard, but these are their motivations nonetheless. Why don't we SEE that these are their motivations in neatly wrapped up dialoge? Because showing THREE people with the exact same motivations is pretty pointless, isn't it? Especially when their motivations should be obvious from the two films we have already seen. It's RIGHT THERE.

The origin scene for Storm would, to a large extent, have justified the fear and anger she has shown.
The fact that she has talked about anger and fear alone should justify them in the context of these movies. I find it laughable that people need to know exactly WHY she's so angry and has any fear. BECAUSE SHE IS A MUTANT AND MANY PEOPLE HATE AND FEAR MUTANTS IN THE FILM FRANCHISE. She's been persecuted because she's different, and seen others persecuted because they are different. Clearly that is why she is angry and scared in the film, in the context of her discussions about these aspects.
However, Cyclops also has a mysterious past (orphaned in a plane crash, links to geneticist Mr Sinister) ... he also has questions and mysteries that are yet to be addressed.
Which, as interesnig as it is, is more or less irrelevant to the movie franchise. Let's face it, Wolverine's mysterious past is a bit more engaging than Cyclops'. And maybe Cyclops came from a normal home in this franchise. It's a movie. Not the comics. Although, not showing this aspect hardly makes for a bad characterization of Cyclops.
The problem at this point is that Cyclops' history is mired in the history of other major characters. Wolverine's stands alone (save for a bit with Sabertooth) but Logan's is easier to rewrite since we don't know conclusively what's real in the comics anyway. Cyclops' known history is pretty straightforward and accepted and changing it would mean omitting a lot of details that Cyclops fans probably would not appreciate, i.e. Havok, Corsair, and Sinister. His history would probably be changed more than Rogue's. I love Cyclops (much more than Wolverine) but I don't think his history is strong enough to build a movie on. To me, Cyclops becomes more interesting as part of the X-Men and with his relationship to Jean.
Exactly.
This isn't, and was never supposed to be, THE X-MEN BEGIN. People seem to have a problem like that, but I fail to see how not showing bits and pieces of their origins (and that is ALL there would have ever been time for in these films) makes the overall characterization bad. You can EASILY imagine what happened to these characters in their pasts, simply because of the kinds of characters the actors have put onscreen.
What some fans fail to understand, is that this is not a case where some characters have been "done justice" while others have been "shafted". Everyone has been "shafted", in terms of what COULD be told about them if there were time and money for it. We have gotten bits and pieces of EVERYONE's past, including Magneto and Xavier. We don't know much about ANY of these characters beyond how the react to things in the stories we've seen. The only person to receive the "origin" treatment was Wolverine, and even HIS has been very incomplete. There is simply not time to say "This happened in Cyclops past, and this happened in Storm's past, and this happened in Jean's past, and this happened in Rogue's past, and this happened in Wolverine's past, and this happened in Xavier's past, and this happened in Mystique's past, and this happened in Juggernaut's past". Stryker had a three minute bit to show why he hates mutants so much, but we learned nothing of Deathstrike beyond that Stryker used her. This is not a "weakness" of the franchise, this is the reality of an ensemble film that has a large, intricate story.
And some of you need to get that through your heads and accept that not showing "the exact comic book origin" does not make these bad takes on the characters. It makes them incomplete ones, in some cases, but what adaption is EVER complete? Witness BATMAN BEGINS. As much as we learn about Bruce Wayne, they really only told us the basics, choosing to focus instead on an interesting story. We learn next to nothing about Carmine Falcone, The Scarecrow, Rachel Dawes, James Gordon, and even Ra's Al Ghul. But we found out the basics, and it worked well. Something very similar applies to the X-Men franchise. Because X-Men is an ensemble style franchise, with tons of characters to give TIME to, let alone develop. You're going to get bits and pieces here and there, that form the whole. And studio politics and actor demands don't make it any easier. I would LOVE to see some of you ATTEMPT a script with just Xavier, Magneto, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm and Wolverine and try to do justice to the characters. I'd love to see that. Many of you seem to think it's as easy as just "putting it in somewhere". It's not.
actually storms fear and anger is more then just "I fear humans cuz they hate mutnants and that angers me" its the whole fact she paranoid of tight/confined spaces as well as the fact her parents were killed right infront of her, not to mention she had rocks thrown at as a kid, as well as rummaging around on the streets trying to survive.. thats a big amount of background info
You bring up an excellent point. Storm is not devoid of fear in the comics. I find it very fitting that her deepest fear in the film franchise happens not to be claustrophobia or something similar, but what she fights against so heroically in several ways. I find it poetic, even.
To Xmaniac: The Guard keeps forgetting that it's not poor interpretation of the film, but poor re-envisioning of the source material. The movieverse by the Guard's own definition is a different "universe" not an adaptation (like most movies are)... and it probably should be.
Opinion, and I'd love to see your reasoning for it. What you feel is "poor", nine times out of ten equals something being "different" or "too different" from the comic book norm.
The whole Storm wasn't characterized right, she was afraid. Well, you totally missed the nobility in her actions. I suppose that's okay. But also, fall back into the cinema equation, Scott already fullfills in the movies what STorm does in the comics -- a devote follower of Xavier's dream who does not fear humans and wants to protect them.
Storm wasn't afraid all the time. And to pretend that having fear is a character weakness is absurd. It doesn't mean she's always quaking in her boots, it means she has some fear and anger. What sane person doesn't? And good point about Cyclops, but Storm is also clearly a devoted follower of Xavier, teaching his methods and fighting his war. And fearing humans doesn't mean she can't act to help them and foster better human/mutant relations. And she clearly does.
By adding the fear aspect (which I alreayd demonstrated is apparent in all their characters) Singer was attempting to illuminate her in a different way.
Exactly. Saying "there's more to this character than just righteous anger".
BOY: The sky is blue.

GIRL: No it's not.

BOY: Why?

BOY: But, wavelenths create that color, light wavelengths, bounce of objects and such, making it blue.

GIRL: Because...the sky is not blue. The wavelengths do not matter. The sky is not blue.

BOY: But, wavelenths are colors, created by scientists and proven by science. That is an inescapable fact. Thus, since sunlight illuminates that atmosphere in such a way, it is blue.

GIRL: No, the sky is not blue. Scientists are wrong. You're arrogant, and apparently there's no room for opinion here. You hate me. And you're just repeatnig yourself. God!

BOY: Well, if scientists are wrong, how do we delineate between when they are right? If we are not scientists ourselves, don't we have to trust --

GIRL: The sky is not blue. Period
It's funny because it's true.
And to quote myself from many, many threads...

Storm's re-imagining or re-working in X1 was RE-HORRIFIC!
Yes, there are going to be changes from the comics, but the characters still have to make sense in a clear way.
They do. And they make sense without having to throw out everything you know about the comic characters, too.

With Magneto, you can see immediately and clearly why he is what he is. Same with Rogue. And Wolverine. Also Mystique was given a strong motivation ('it's because of people like you that i was afraid to go to school') - that's why she does what she does, that's why she is siding with Magneto.
You can also instantly see who Cyclops is. And Jean Grey. And by the time X-MEN is over, you know who Storm is. Being afraid to school is hardly a "strong motivation". Having clearly been persecuted because she is different, and being angry about it is. But if that is a strong motivation, why are Storm's obvious motivations not? Because a particularly incident from her past is not explicitly stated? There's not a particular incident from Xavier's past stated...do his motivations fall apart?

[The Guard]

In my view, as I said above, the driving forces behind Storm, Cyclops and Jean were not as clear.
No, they weren't as deeply explored, or "obvious". Try thinking a little harder. In the movies, it clearly has everything to do with being mutants, and subscribing to Xavier's teachings.
They were not given origin scenes --- of course there was no room to give everyone origin scenes in X1.. it's a shame we could not have had another origin scene in X2 (either Cyclops or Storm... Cyclops' origin would have shown the background of an orphan finding all the things he missed as a child - a family with the X-Men, a father in Xavier and finding love with Jean, which would then have made the loss of Jean even more poignant for him).
How is that even relevant to the story of X2? And how did you not get a sense of the X-Men as Cyclops adopted family from "If anything happens, I'll take care of them"?

Storm's portrayal seemed a little fuzzy - she became a caring mother figure and teacher who was the only adult to openly admit a fear for normal humans, a fear which had grown into anger in X2. Her accent hinted at a background that was never explained. We can never expect her to be the Amazonian, aloof goddess in the comics. But she just seemed vague.
Or...something of a mystery? Hmm...
1. In X1 - she tells Wolverine 'at least I've chosen a side' in the 'war' (between mutants and humans) Magneto has predicted. She has chosen to fight against Magneto's anti-human stance and to fight for Xavier's dream of peace and co-existence. We have from her a definite statement that she is fighting for the side that protects humanity and wants to integrate peacefully.
Bingo.

2. She tells Senator Kelly she is afraid of normal people. It seems natural enough for a group of very different people - misfits, some with obvious physical differences - to feel that way though only she is heard to say that she is afraid. So she fears normal people, but is still fighting for them.
Bingo.

3. She fights Toad after he kicks the living **** out of her, there is no mention or obvious sign of her comicbook claustrophobia. Is she simply enraged, is she at last actually fighting for the side she has chosen, is she stopping Toad so the X-Men can get on with stopping Magneto and his war?
Don't overcomplicate things. She's fighting because she's in a fight. It's twofold: She has to defeat Toad because someone has to, and she's pissed because he hurt her. If you want to look at why she's there to begin with as a hint to her motivations, she's there to find Rogue and stop Magneto, which is twofold: to oppose the forces that want to tear mutants and humans apart, and to protect the innocents who have been caught in the middle of the growing war.

4. At the start of X2 she is in the museum telling the children that it's now believed the more advanced Cro-Magnon man interbred with Neantherdal man and that there was no war with one wiping out the other. This has to be an allegory for the mutant/human struggle, and as such it backs up her quest for peace and integration.
Bingo.
5. In X2, we have her telling Nightcrawler she and Jean teach at a school for 'people like us' where they can be safe 'from everyone else'. That backs up her own personal fear - it's the second time she mentions fear, why is she so afraid, more so than Jean or Cyclops or Xavier?
Who says she's more afraid than they are? They all live at the school, don't they? Xavier started it to protect mutants, didn't he? The fear goes deeper than just Storm. And to back that up, it seems to me that Storm provides the literary voice for the common mutant in these films.
6. Nightcrawler tells her he pities normal people who have not experienced the things they have, and she says she gave up on pity a long time ago. Why? Is this self-pity? Or does she mean she feels no pity for those who hate mutants? What happened to maker her give up that pity?
It means she feels no pity for those who choose to hate. This is borne of anger, because she has clearly been mistreated, and seen others mistreated, because of the mutant aspect. The specifics don't matter in the context of the film.

7. And when he says someone so beautiful should not be so angry, she says 'Sometimes anger is all we have'. This could refer to her calling on rage to bring the fury of the elements, as she did with Toad in X1. She shows no real anger since that statement. Nothing happens in which she obviously acts upon anger.
No. She says "Sometimes anger can help you survive." There is a huge difference between that and "is all you have". What does "anger can keep you alive" tell you about her past? And her current state of mind?

I don't want to over-analyse, but when you follow through the dialogue like this, there are things that do not immediately add up.
How don't they add up? They form a more coehesive picture of Storm as a character. The reason these character aspects "conflict" should be obvious. Storm herself is conflicted. And this is shown in the film. It's similar to the way that Wolverine clearly wants to belong somewhere and stop running, but still feels like a loner and an outcast. Which makes them ideal for a hookup, don't you think?

I was going to make this arguement with Bosef as well, but there is still a lot of conjecture here. A lot of what we are discussing is just our own interpretations of what has been said. Although there is no arguing that there are two completely different characters on screen between X1 and X2. Is this growth? Or actress demands?
I don't see two different characters. She still has the same motivations, and the same goals. I see a character who is growing as a person, but is not fully developed into who she will be. She has less fear than she showed in X2. She is however, still full of anger.
I wonder why they wanted Storm to be so peripheral. Movies do try for ethnic minority representation, and Storm is the obvious choice for a black character in X-Men. It's just the dialogue that seemed not to give a clear sense of motivation, though I should add that Cyclops and Jean also did not have clear motivation.

What is "clear motivation" to you? Is it speeches and dialogue about what motivates people? Do you not see their actions? I honestly do not see how you can not see what Cyclops and Jean's motivation is in these films. Quite honestly, Wolverine's motivation, by your logic, isn't that "clear" either. We dont' actually see any reasons for him to join the X-Men other than the same reasons Jean and Storm and Scott had. Which I why I think they haven't tried to outright "tell" the audience what these characters motivations are: they're all pretty much the same, as I stated above. Is that not motivation enough?
Just tell me, in the movie-verse Storm was apparently hurt by humans, that's why she's angry and fearful of them. Now tell me - what's the difference between her and Mystique? Why is one of them fighting for Xavier, while the other's on Magneto's side?
Because one of them was mentored by Xavier, and one of them was mentored by Magneto. Though they both hate and fear on some level, one of them was taught tolerance at some point, and the other was not, she only had hatred reinforced in her life. Their mentors interventions in their lives made all the difference.
The goal of the question was to make him see, that as far as we know Storm and Mystique shared very similar (if not identical) past, and they have very similar (if not identical) feelings of fear towards humans. However, one of them stands by Xavier, the other by Magneto. And movies will give NO explanation of why it is so.
Think about it, then. Why did Pyro join the Brotherhood, despite beginning with Xavier? Because that's the kind of person he was, at heart. Because Magneto's values appeal to Pyro. Because all Pyro has ever known is hatred, and has not tried to break out of the mold. He has not tried to be tolerant of others and their differences. The same holds true with Mystique. It very much has to do with personal choices, and moral character.
Isn't there something wrong, when we can't really tell the difference between a good and a bad guy, apart from that one of them is good and one of them is bad?
There are MASSIVE differences.
What made them choose who they chose?
Tolerance VS. intolerance. Hatred and a desire for revenge VS. love and a desire for understanding.
They have made Storm different form the comic-books, but somewhere in between they've lost her reason for being with Xavier.
Why? She's right there, teaching his students, fighting his war. So tell me what her reason might potentially be.
As I hadn't known the books I could very well see Storm fighting on Magneto's side.

You might be able to envision it, but there'd be no logical reason, and the facts don't back it up. Because Storm clearly rejects Magneto's ideals and is a good person at heart, not someone who gave in to hatred and intolerance.
There is no way of saying this that won't come off as pompous, egotistical, arrogant, whatever, so I am just going to say it and state from the get go that my intentions are not to offend (even though they will)

I think it has to do with the form of media that comic books are, and the types of people that read them.
Someone had to say it.

Comic books are simpler. Their target audience is for children and teenagers. The level of writing is not as complex as novel writing, and instead of relying on stimulating the mind, it relies on pictures and action, and larger than life characters.
And so, generally speaking, many comic book readers do not fully understand or care about some of the loftier themes and literary devices?

I think because of the form of entertainment that novels are vs. comic books, they tend to have different followings. A movie based on a novel is going to have a higher acknowledgement for change, considering novel readers are probably more interested in the underlying tones and themes, the symbolism, etc... more so than the direct literalness "well this exact occurance happened so it should happen in the movie"
I'll buy that.

Comic book fans don't always get the symbolism and themes and tones presented in a comic book (see all of the arguments regarding the costumes, or not enough action), and want that literalness, they want the action, they want the "big", and when someone like Singer comes along and presents the tones and themes of the source material, and prioritizes that over flashy uniforms and optic blasts, a lot of the comic book fans just don't "get it", and think because these characters have been toned down from their comic book counterparts, that they were misinterpreted.
Definitely agree.

I think some people are really just grasping for straws when they say stuff like "Storm should have been shown landing on the snow in X-Men" or "Storm should have left the jet when she created those tornadoes" or "Storm had to be saved by Nightcrawler, so it takes away from what she did"... I really think those are beyond nitpicking. That's just wanting stuff to be there that doesn't need to be there, and just showing that no matter what happens, you're not going to be satisfied.
Exactly.

On that note, I do believe there is some validity to the "Storm wasn't portrayed correctly" arguement. I used to feel that Rogue wasn't portrayed correctly, but then I realized that she actually was, again, in the form of "themes and tones". No, she wasn't flying around, throwing tanks and Sentinels and punching Juggernaut through buildings. But her character; her feelings towards her powers, her being scared, those are very accurate to her character.
Yep.

After I realized that, I did being to realize where Storm was portrayed incorrectly. I feel that Halle is to blame for Storm coming off as weak, as I think Halle was just bad for the role. But I still even believe that Singer and co. were to blame for the rest.
What is "the rest"?
I did get the sense that Storm's mindset was that of Magneto or his followers; "I guess I'm afraid of them", "I gave up on pity long ago", "Sometimes anger can help you survive".
The mindset of Magneto can't be her mindset. Or she'd be a villain. Storm's mindset is obviously that of someone who was persecuted, but chose to foster understanding and peace instead of wanting to destroy her and mutantkind's tormentors. This mindset, buying into Xavier's "tolerance" and "understanding" aspects, is NOT the mindset of Magneto and his followers. Therefore Storm is clearly very different than they are, and has a markedly different mindset. What she has is similar motivations, but not the same ones by any stretch.

I never remember from the comics or cartoons Storm ever having a mindset towards humans that bordered Magneto's.
Does that make it an invalid take on her character? Can you see how, for a character like Storm, as a mutant, she would likely have these aspects to her character, but overcome them because of who she is?
I've always seen her as a strong willed woman (something that Halle does not portray)
And how.
My impressions of her from the cartoons, and the comics that I've read, is that she is a no-nonsense, business first type of woman (as I have seen through her many encounters with Gambit, and her "rolleyes" type of responses to his wit).
She has been all business in X-MEN and X2. Very to the point, outspoken, and unwilling to take much crap from anyone. At least through dialogue. Halle's portrayal of her does not scream "confidence"
At the same time, she is also a very trusting person, the one person who will stay in your corner no matter what, even if nobody else will be (again, through her encounters with Gambit. The fact that she was the only one, by my understanding, that supported Gambit through the trial that got him abandoned in Antarctica. The fact that she was the one who lobbied to get him into the X-Men, even when nobody trusted him. And the fact that she is the one person that Gambit can count on, period, when he really needs someone in his corner. My favorite example being from Uncanny X-Men #326 I believe it is)

I don't see this really come through in the movies, thus far. Her trusting, forgiving attitude, is pretty much ruined through her fear and anger towards humans.
So she has some fear and anger. Where in the movies do you see her choose to let her anger and fear outweigh her trust, in her relationships with people (Except for Sabertooth and Toad, even with Magneto she appeals to his humanity)? She doesn't let that happen in these films. Ever. In fact, when she has a chance to let her hatred take over, she chooses to trust Kelly, with her emotions, if nothing else. Then why, out of all the X-Men, does she stay there with Senator Kelly? Why does she not let him die alone? Why does she talk so intimately with him about her feelings on humanity and mutantkind? Why is she the one who bonds with Nightcrawler, who for all they know, is dangerous? She's as trusting as anyone has been in these films, certainly far more so than Jean, Cyclops, and even Xavier, simply by the nature of the conversations she's had with people. She's bared herself emotionally more than any of them, really. The "fear and anger" may not be overt in the comics, but it's not hard to see it being there somewhere, simply because she is a mutant, and sees the results of hatred every day. How does having some fear and anger toward humans hurt her character? I mean, you live in the same world I do, are you honestly telling me that you don't have some fear anf anger over humanity's actions from time to time? Why should Storm be any different?
The Storm I know would not have anger towards humans, because even if she didn't agree, she's understand where they were coming from, and her motivation for following Xavier's dream would be to try to enlighten them, and make them understand that mutants may be potentially dangerous, but that doesn't mean they have to be.
First, she never expressly says "anger toward humans". She says "anger". Anger can come from many places. It can come from how humants treat mutants, or how Magneto has treated humans or the whole damned conflict.
You say the Storm you know would not have anger toward humans. I call bull****. Why?
Let's roleplay.
You are a mutant. Because you are a mutant, people think differently of you. They may even shun you. And if they don't shun you, then by your work with Xavier, you are exposed to many situations where mutants ARE hated and shunned. Do you honestly think that wouldn't make someone like Storm angry? The suffering of anyone? I do. If not, what makes her angry then? Attacks on her physical person? The character in the comics and the movies, afterall, is named "Storm"? That name hardly suggests someone devoid of anger and tumultuous emotions.
You can't always choose who or what you become angry at, or what you fear. You can however, choose what you do with that anger and fear, and if you let it control you or make you inactive. Storm doesn't. She has turned it into something positive.
Does Storm go around preaching tolerance to humans and mutants in the movies? No, she's clearly starting with mutants. But it's not hard to see this version of Storm branching out and becoming something more, where she tried to spread the word to mutants. Her character hasn't reached that point yet in this movie. Doesn't mean she won't.

[The Guard]

I don't see Storm being in anyone's corner when their backs are against the wall.
Then what movies were you watching? You do realize, that when the delegates at the UN conference have their "backs against the wall", she risks her life to take on Magneto and his followers, and uses her powers to save their lives, right? Whose corner is she in at that point? Do you think she's just fighting Magneto for the hell of it? Or for just Rogue? Seems like she's on their side, to me in that situation. In X2, she uses her powers to save humanity when their back is against a wall, right? And when the kids are in a cell with their "backs to the wall", who finds them and rescues them. Storm.
The Storm I know would lobby to let Logan prove himself.
Now you're just nitpicking, with more of this "they could have had a moment like this in there" stuff. She did, in X-MEN, try to get him to see what was truly important beyond himself. But you don't remember that, do you?
Again, my take on Storm is just that; my take. One take on a character. Lightning Strikez or X-Maniac or anyone else may have a different view of the character. But that is how I view the character, and why I feel she was portrayed incorrectly.
So, because it doesn't conform to your particular view of a character, it's all wrong? "I don't like it", fine. "It's wrong"? Wow.

But I do blame Bryan too. I believe he did state somewhere that he was not even a fan of the Storm character, and only put her into the franchise because the studio wanted her. Which is not something I agree with, because Storm is one of my "Vital" characters that are an absolute must have, and I don't agree with Bryan's wanting to just cut her out of X-Men 3. I believe this not really liking the character led to him probably not being too inspired when interpreting her character from comic book to big screen.
And yet he gave her some of the most emotional and thematically relevent stuff in both movies and let her save the day in X2.
Why would Halle be to blame for losing the accent in X2?
Because she could not hold onto an accent in X-MEN. She wavered into three or four different ones, despite limited screentime.
That is a directorial decision, not a cast member choice.
The decision occurred because Halle proved she couldn't hold one.

I want to respond to this. It was me who said I would have liked to see Storm landing on the snow, and leaving the jet to create the tornadoes. I felt it would have been more in keeping with accurately portraying the comicbook character - namely the fact that she flies. She wears a cape, and yet she has not flown, only levitated upwards from the elevator shaft.
First, what you describe is not "flight", it is "landing". Second, because she flies...we have to see that right away? A more important part of her character might be the fact that she CREATES STORMS, which we DO see right away. Flying was established in X-MEN...when there was a reason for it to be there, storywise. And you did see the cape she was wearing, right? I'm pretty sure most audience members did.
And i would have certainly tried out the idea of having her eject from the jet and fly into the clouds to create the tornadoes, later landing beside Magneto, with him saying 'When will these people learn how to fly' to Mystique and then Storm landing and saying 'Some of us already can'.
Call and response dialogue that removes all impact from Magneto's words! Does it get any more clever? Lost in your example is how Storm would manage to catch up to a supersonic jet that would probably be miles away so quickly, or even would have known where it went after she ejected.

Because those things were not done does make my ideas and opinions crap, wrong or beyond nitpicking. They are things I would have liked to have seen, or would have liked to have done. If you disagree then fine, but that does not make you holier-than-thou Mr Perfect while I am wrong.
No one called your ideas crap, or wrong. They are, however, nitpicking when you let "Why wasn't it done MY way" make what is onscreen bad. However, what makes you "wrong" is that you seem to not give a damn how it impacts the believeability of the story, at least in the case of the jet thing.
Exactly right. That's why I said, that while Bryan has excelled in "getting" the X-Men, he missed the point entirely with Storm. Halle is far from infallible, but in my opinion she was set up for failure by Bryan and his decision making process.
Please...stop...blaming...Bryan Singer...entirely...for Storm's portrayal. The studio, Bryan Singer, the writers (to a point, though I don't think they got anything WRONG, they just didn't INCLUDE certain things), and last, but certainly not least, Halle Berry are ALL to blame in part.
I also want to respond to this. Your 'take' on the comicbook character is close, but not entirely correct. As Chris Claremont himself said, Storm joined the X-Men out of a sense of duty and responsibility, persuaded by Xavier to step into the outside world and use her great powers for the greater good, rather than simply bringing rain on to the crops.
Which would seem to be in keeping with what we see in the film.
She is also very black and white in her views, fairly intolerant, very straightforward, and she sees right and wrong very sharply.
Which would also seem to be in keeping with what we see in the film.
She also has a fairly aloof and independent manner (slightly superior at times)
This is also found in the films.
In the movie, this would all have probably been too 'unreal' a background.
What it would have been is far too much irrelevant screentime. Unless you're going to give Cyclops, Jean, Xavier, Rogue, Iceman, etc, the same treatment, which is not possible.
It makes her so unusual, so difficult to relate to, and difficult perhaps for an audience to relate to. So, instead, she became a caring mother figure and a teacher -- nothing wrong with that, it could be seen as an extrapolation of her 'earth mother' aspect.
She's always been a mother figure and a teacher in the comics. This is not a CHANGE to the character. The only change is that they seem to not have made her so forceful and intense, and they have given her a bit more humanity with the "fear and anger".

Without that unfilmed movie origin scene (included in the extended novelization) in which village children bullied her and led her to cause rock-sized hailstones to rain down on them, we never really understand the fear she shows or the anger that makes her respond.
Unless you have half an ounce of imagination, that is. Saying you cannot understand Halle's fear or anger is like saying you can't understand why Xavier does what he does without seeing a scene of him witnessing mutants being persecuted. I do not understand this thinking. I simply don't. "They didn't tell her motivation to me outright so I can't see where her motivation might exist based on logical thinking". Have you people no imaginations? No ability to extract meaning from dialogue?

It's the portrayal through background and dialogue that was most out of tune - we got no idea as to why she does what she does.
Use your brain, then. Think about what is shown onscreen. If I have to spell it out AGAIN, I will.
If she's there out of duty and a sense of right and wrong, like in the comics, we never knew about it.
Then why the hell does the movie SHOW her fighting for right? Fighting for the ideal of Xavier? For the hell of it, or maybe out of a sense of duty and right and wrong? Why does the dialogue tell us she's CHOSEN her side and continually reinforce it through her actions? Why do we see that she's taken up Xavier's crusade via teaching and becoming an X-Man?
Everyone involved in the movie allowed it to happen.
No they didn't. You, like so many here, apparently cannot think beyond what you are told. Can't process what you are shown, even.

I also feel characterisation was not there for Jean and Cyclops, just in case you leap on me for being selfish about Storm.
In what way was characterization not there? You realize that "background" is not the only kind of characterization, right, and that ensemble nature of the films and the time constraints and story demands means you can't just throw a ton of stuff onscreen that you'd like to, right?

I also disagree with her flying out of the Blackbird to summon the tornadoes for the same reason as has been said before. What, she's supposed to leave cover to summon these tornadoes just to make it look cool? I think that scene looked bad ass enough as it was. Logically, and cinematically, I don't think it makes any sense for her to leave the jet to summon those tornadoes. And no offense or anything, but I feel that "Some of us already can" line would be a bit cheesy.
Exactly.

Storm getting her butt kicked by Toad? Well, how about Wolverine getting his ass handed to him by Mystique.
And Sabertooth. And Deathstrike. And Magneto...twice They forget so easily...
And whether or not Storm is a good hand to hand fighter in the comics, I think you, and I, and general audiences, and everyone else, can agree that Wolverine is a much better hand to hand fighter than Storm. It's called suspense, and it's needed for a quality cinematic experience.
Being a good hand to hand fighter is not going to help you against the Toad that was shown in this movie. This Toad was very capable, very quick, and used his powers to good effect. Being able to kick someone with a thirty foot long tongue that can simply grab your leg and throw you somewhere isn't gonna help.

And it wasn't you, no, but it was grasping for straws when Lightning Strikez had to mention like, 5 blows from the same fight (kicked in the stomach, kicked in the face, knocked over a table, knocked down an elevator shaft) and the fact that they used Storm when Wolverine stabbed Mystique as reasons on how they ****ed up Storm's character.
Exactly.

Besides, Storm is controlling the tornados and flying the jet at the same time. Although Jean can fly the jet as well, Jean can't fly the jet and manuver around about 15 tornados. Storm could TRY to keep them away, but Jean wouldnt really know where they were going. Which is why it makes sense for her to stay in the jet and make sure her tornados don't cause trouble for the x-men.
Bravo.
No problem. It may well be that those ideas for scenes that I mentioned would NOT work. But I can see them in my mind's eye and i feel -- in my opinion --- that they could have worked. I know what you mean about holding back on the flight power until she hovers up from the elevator shaft at the end... this kind of 'holding back' is something that is sometimes done in movies for dramatic impact. It's one way of doing things, for sure. But not the only way. [quote]
But don't you see? Your take on the whole "flying thing" seems to be that because they didn't do it, it was an incorrect portrayal. Therefore you are essentially saying YOURS is the only right way to do things.

[quote]It was a shock for Storm fans to see so things held back in the movies - her background, her motivations, some of her powers too.
If X-Men and Storm fans went into X-MEN expecting to see STORM BEGINS, I don't know what to tell them. I mean, it's just dumb to expect it all to fit into a movie that has to introduce ten other characters and give them all good stuff to do and character moments.
This is because she is such a strong and central character in the comics.
That's the COMICS, where you have ISSUE after ISSUE after ISSUE to develop ALL your characters and give them ALL elaborate backgrounds and rich histories and many, many displays of power. This...is a TWO HOUR MOVIE.
No matter which actress was chosen to say the lines about being scared, or how they delivered them, the lines clearly said this was a woman who was frightened....and who was bullied by Sabretooth and beaten up by Toad.
By your logic, Bruce Wayne is a horribly written, weak character in BATMAN BEGINS, because "fear" and "anger" are the central theme of the movie. Some of you are just hopeless. EVERYONE got their asses kicked and were defeated and "bullied" by the Brotherhood and evil mutants and villains in X-MEN and X2, including Xavier. It wasn't like Storm was being picked on by herself. If anything, she lasted LONGER than anyone else when confronted. She was shown to be able to TAKE MORE and DISH MORE OUT. Do you not see that?
Yes, she hit back.. but the weediness of the character before that didn't feel right to many people.
Weediness?

Non-fan moviegoers might well have wondered who was this unconventional black woman with unusual white hair and why is she there..the hair and accent certainly makes her stand out from the others at Xavier's school... it needed some 'filling in' and we didn't get it.
They might have wondered that. But only if they're idiots and ignored everything we saw onscreen.

[bosef982]

And just to add:

Can anyone imagine a fanboy movie? Here it goes:

OPEN CREDITS

The X-MEN turn, Storm hovers down, the Brotherhood steps up. Logan moves to the fro, Storm jumps into the air, flies a bit, then descends and pushes Logan down and shoots him a glance.

MAGNETO: X-Men, we have come to destroy you. I shall use the plan I used in Uncanny X-Men #448.

STORM: We shall stop you.

MYSTIQUE: (morphing for no reason, just to do so) No you won't.

CYCLOPS: How come?

SABERTOOTH jumps on Logan, pounds him. GROWLS.

SABRETOOTH: Because, in that comic, you can't beat us. We win.

LOGAN: But this is a movi --

XAVIER: Logan..I mean, Wolverine. Stop it. Nonesense.

MAGNETO: Now, I shall destroy you all.

STORM: Why do you do this? Humanity...wait (turns to Xavier)...what did I say in Uncanny #445?

JEAN GREY: I am PHOENIX! PHOENIX! Oh...sorry, you said "Humanity is one, we are part of it, it is simple. I have no nuance as a character. I am a thunderbolt tagline with a cape."

Everyone looks at Jean.

SCOTT: I am the leader. WE shoudl charge them. Right?

XAVIER: Wiat, remember, we must beg pause. Like in Ultimate X-Men 345.

JEAN: PHOENIX! PHOENIX! No, that was 543?

XAVIER: Was it?

STORM: I'm the leader. I need more screentime. I should charge.

CYCLOPS: Why are we all in black? This isn't like the comics --

LOGAN: But this is a movi --

XAVIER: Stop, Wolverine. Stop it. You've said more than three lines. Just...hush. Seriously. Jesus...

JEAN: PHOENIX does not wear BLACK!!!! RED and GOLD!!

BEAST: (shaking head) We should just wrap this up...

Suddenly, teeange ROGUE drops down from the skies.

ROGUE: Hey guys, I learned how to fly and punch holes in walls from a super-powered human who was not a mutant, yet had powers very similiar to a mutant but yet is not a mutant and this is so evidently so due to a clear line that everyone will get, thus explaining why I was able to absorb her powers. Watch.

SHE PUNCHES the ground, it SHATTERS!

X-MEN: OhhhHHHHhhhhh.

ROGUE: Yea, Sugah.

STORM: I can't do an accent, you can't either. No one upstages Halle -- I mean Ororo.

ROGUE: But I can act...

STORM: I can do this....

STORM FLIES for a bit, then lands, swagging her hips.

MAGNETO: Enough! Die X-Men! Die! Kill HUmans! No philosohy here! I'm a mindless mas murder! Depth? Please, I scoff. KILLKILLKILL!

Magneto rises, the metal around him swirling, a god of metal and iron, holding back the steel hurricane whipping about the X-Men.

MAGNETO: And now I will --

CRACK! Lightening. Magneto falls to the ground. STORM steps up, smirking.

STORM: I stopped you.

MAGNETO: But...it's only been...ten minutes...

STORM: I can never be beaten or hurt. I mustn't. Oh wait...

INSERT: Quick, random shots of CYCLOPS realizing his powers. STORM being beaten. Dramatic glances at the screen and...

STORM: Almost forgot...

STORM whips up a wind that drops a SEMI-TRUCK on LOGAN.

STORM: There.

BOOM! Ceiling collapses. A SENTINEL DROPS DOWN! But is destroyed by a a frost blast.

Storm raises her eyebrows, purses her lips, and snaps her fingers three times in Z-formation.

STORM: Beyatch!

CYCLOPS, JEAN, and XAVIER stand watching.

CYCLOPS: We did nothing.

JEAN: Shut up --

Cyclops vaporizes. Xavier turns --

XAVIER: Jean, you can't do that. In the comics --

Xavier falls to the floor, dead. Jean smiles.

JEAN: It was Uncanny 455, you crippled ****! I am a God! PHOENIX!

STORM: I will defeat you.

JEAN: But I'm a god.

STORM: Yes, but Fox wants me back, so...I'll beat you.

STORM blows Jean away. Turns, and walks off the battlefield.

END CREDITS.

COMING NEXT YEAR: STORM!!!!

[RedIsNotBlue]

And just to add:

Can anyone imagine a fanboy movie? Here it goes:

OPEN CREDITS

The X-MEN turn, Storm hovers down, the Brotherhood steps up. Logan moves to the fro, Storm jumps into the air, flies a bit, then descends and pushes Logan down and shoots him a glance.

MAGNETO: X-Men, we have come to destroy you. I shall use the plan I used in Uncanny X-Men #448.

STORM: We shall stop you.

MYSTIQUE: (morphing for no reason, just to do so) No you won't.

CYCLOPS: How come?

SABERTOOTH jumps on Logan, pounds him. GROWLS.

SABRETOOTH: Because, in that comic, you can't beat us. We win.

LOGAN: But this is a movi --

XAVIER: Logan..I mean, Wolverine. Stop it. Nonesense.

MAGNETO: Now, I shall destroy you all.

STORM: Why do you do this? Humanity...wait (turns to Xavier)...what did I say in Uncanny #445?

JEAN GREY: I am PHOENIX! PHOENIX! Oh...sorry, you said "Humanity is one, we are part of it, it is simple. I have no nuance as a character. I am a thunderbolt tagline with a cape."

Everyone looks at Jean.

SCOTT: I am the leader. WE shoudl charge them. Right?

STORM: No, I'm the leader. I need more screentime.

MAGNETO: Enough! Die X-Men! Die! Kill HUmans! No philosohy here! I'm a mindless mas murder! Depth? Please, I scoff. KILLKILLKILL!

Magneto rises, the metal around him swirling, a god of metal and iron, holding back the steel hurricane whipping about the X-Men.

MAGNETO: And now I will --

CRACK! Lightening. Magneto falls to the ground. STORM steps up, smirking.

STORM: I stopped you.

MAGNETO: But...it's only been...ten minutes...

STORM: I can never be beaten or hurt. I mustn't. Oh wait...

INSERT: Quick, random shots of CYCLOPS realizing his powers. STORM being beaten. Dramatic glances at the screen and...

STORM: Almost forgot...

STORM whips up a wind that drops a SEMI-TRUCK on LOGAN.

STORM: There.

END CREDITS.

http://axe.acadiau.ca/~057712y/slap.gif

[The Guard]

You forgot their backstories, Bosef...shame.

[Hotaru]

Think about it, then. Why did Pyro join the Brotherhood, despite beginning with Xavier? Because that's the kind of person he was, at heart. Because Magneto's values appeal to Pyro. Because all Pyro has ever known is hatred, and has not tried to break out of the mold. He has not tried to be tolerant of others and their differences.
Yeah, but we've seen the road Pyro had undergone choosing Magneto's side in the end.
First of all, he didn't really have a family (you can see how jealous and sad he is while looking at Bobby's family on the picture), he was jealous of Bobby's and Rogue's relationship (they competed for her feelings since X1), because of the little reprimend he received from Xavier in the museum, he felt wrongly judged, he saved his teammates from the police and yet nobody even said "thank you for your good intentions" and we've seen Magneto calling him a god. We've seen that on film, we've seen him making these steps down the alley. What we know about Mystique and Storm is that they started from the same point, they have the same feelings, but they are the opposite. No explanation why.
Look at Jean and Scott - they've never said or even shown that they're afraid of humans. That's why you don't feel them being in conflict with Xavier's ideals.
You might be able to envision it, but there'd be no logical reason, and the facts don't back it up. Because Storm clearly rejects Magneto's ideals and is a good person at heart, not someone who gave in to hatred and intolerance.
And your arguments of Storm being righteous is right, of course. But would you be so sure about her motives it it wasn't for the comics? If it wasn't for the early draft of X1 script you have read?
A movie should defend itself as a standalone piece. Script writer can't really assume that every cinema goer will read some comic-books first and that they will make samething obvious, something he didn't manage to portray.
Try imagine Mystique instead of Storm and vice verse, forget her comic-book origin, think just movie-verse. Fit's perfectly, doesn't it?

And this discussion about comic-book readers being... less intellectually involved in what they read may be right to some extent. But what you're doing is using logic and different sources to cover up plot holes the script writer didn't manage to close.
I buy and read about 20 books a year, I read another 12 books a year from libraries, not mentioning all the books I have to read for my university studies. And a fact that I would rather to see Storm "whole" instead of "blurry", doesn't make me a comic-book geek who "don't always get the symbolism and themes and tones presented", as it's exactly the change of Storm symbolism and tone that bothers me.

[Advanced Dark]

Singer's vision of X3 is through his rear view mirror. In front of him is Superman which to me is boring. I'll surely go watch Superman but it's a bit more of a nostalgic emotional feeling then an adrenaline rush. There's only so much you can do with blue and red tights and perfect hair and having eye glasses for a disguise.

[The Sage]

Singer's vision of X3 is through his rear view mirror. In front of him is Superman which to me is boring. I'll surely go watch Superman but it's a bit more of a nostalgic emotional feeling then an adrenaline rush. There's only so much you can do with blue and red tights and perfect hair and having eye glasses for a disguise.

Gee I don't know about that. The guy has lasted almost 70 years hasn't he? :)


Anyway, I'm interested in seeing what will become of X3, but I think Singer would've delivered the goods in his version. Phoenix, Sentinels...would've been great.

Go India!

[bosef982]

You forgot their backstories, Bosef...shame.


MY PARODY MUST SUCK!!!

Well, just insert them anywhere, they're just mindless random expostions.

[Advanced Dark]

Gee I don't know about that. The guy has lasted almost 70 years hasn't he? :)


Anyway, I'm interested in seeing what will become of X3, but I think Singer would've delivered the goods in his version. Phoenix, Sentinels...would've been great.

Go India!

Superman will always be an Icon or a main stay across the world. There's no denying that. It's emotional nostalgia and everyone's wish to be invlunerable and be able to fly. It's different than Marvel which has humanized it's characters more making them more popular and easier to relate too behind the powers. DC has recently started to change their character and humanize them, show weakness, etc...So yeah he'll be around for 70 more years but so will Donald Duck and Snoopy.

[bosef982]

http://axe.acadiau.ca/~057712y/slap.gif


oh, I'm sorry, fanboys can decry and rape Singer's movies, parodying them and mocking them, but God forbid someone mock or parody the cult-like narrowmindedness of a fanboy... :rolleyes:

Of course, you're reaction makes it all worth it.

[The Guard]

Bosef, that was just classic...classic.

Yeah, but we've seen the road Pyro had undergone choosing Magneto's side in the end. First of all, he didn't really have a family (you can see how jealous and sad he is while looking at Bobby's family on the picture)

He might have had a family, just not a good one. Many people don't. They don't all become evil villains.

he was jealous of Bobby's and Rogue's relationship (they competed for her feelings since X1)

This is not a reason to become a supervillain.

because of the little reprimend he received from Xavier in the museum, he felt wrongly judged

What does this have to do with choosing to side with an evil villain?

he saved his teammates from the police and yet nobody even said "thank you for your good intentions"

Good intentions? He wanted to hurt them, and that's how the scene is played. He's not "saving" anyone (no one ends up "saved" until the jet arrives, he's just lashing out in anger and hatred.

and we've seen Magneto calling him a god. We've seen that on film, we've seen him making these steps down the alley. What we know about Mystique and Storm is that they started from the same point, they have the same feelings, but they are the opposite. No explanation why.

Use your damned imagination. Honestly.

Look at Jean and Scott - they've never said or even shown that they're afraid of humans. That's why you don't feel them being in conflict with Xavier's ideals.

Storm isn't in conflict with Xavier's ideals, either.

And your arguments of Storm being righteous is right, of course. But would you be so sure about her motives it it wasn't for the comics? If it wasn't for the early draft of X1 script you have read?

Of course. Know why? Because we SEE Storm as a teacher at Xavier's school. We HEAR that she was one of his first students, and that he taught her, along with Scott and Jean. We see her fighting the good fight. She is portrayed as a hero. Her motives are obvious: essentially, despite being hurt, and having some fear, she fights the good fight because she believes humans and mutants to be equal, and is end the end, a true hero.

A movie should defend itself as a standalone piece. Script writer can't really assume that every cinema goer will read some comic-books first and that they will make samething obvious, something he didn't manage to portray.

It has nothing to do with comic books. It's simple interpretive ability. Do you honestly think people are going around thinking "Storm is just like the villains"? You realize "anger" and "fear" are not evil things, right?

Try imagine Mystique instead of Storm and vice verse, forget her comic-book origin, think just movie-verse. Fit's perfectly, doesn't it?

No. It doesn't. Because Storm doesn't go around hurting people. She doesn't use her hatred and her past as an excuse to hurt people and kill.

And this discussion about comic-book readers being... less intellectually involved in what they read may be right to some extent. But what you're doing is using logic and different sources to cover up plot holes the script writer didn't manage to close.

What plot holes? How the hell is why Storm and Mystique didn't BOTH end up evil a "plot hole"? It's completely irrelevant to the story.

[StevieNicks1988]

Here's a scene I would've loved to see.

WARNING!! WARNING!! SARCASM AHEAD!!

Magneto, floating in the air, witnesses a mutant join the X-Men. That mutant -- GAMBIT -- ignites a deck of cards and launches them at Magneto. Magneto lifts his hand, they backfire. The X-Men turn and look at the mutant with the long dark hair and the trenchcoat... just before a giant piece of metal falls on him, breaking his back.

:o

[RedIsNotBlue]

oh, I'm sorry, fanboys can decry and rape Singer's movies, parodying them and mocking them, but God forbid someone mock or parody the cult-like narrowmindedness of a fanboy... :rolleyes:

Of course, you're reaction makes it all worth it.

Nope. It is just ridiculous that because some people have a problem with some Singer's choices that it means they all think like that. But whatever. :)

[bosef982]

Nope. It is just ridiculous that because some people have a problem with singer choices that it means they all think like that. But whatever. :)


I guess...sarcasm...

[JustABill]

Here's a scene I would've loved to see.

WARNING!! WARNING!! SARCASM AHEAD!!

Magneto, floating in the air, witnesses a mutant join the X-Men. That mutant -- GAMBIT -- ignites a deck of cards and launches them at Magneto. Magneto lifts his hand, they backfire. The X-Men turn and look at the mutant with the long dark hair and the trenchcoat... just before a giant piece of metal falls on him, breaking his back.

:o

Hey, at least it would have been a cameo.:)

[RedIsNotBlue]

I guess...sarcasm...

I don't get how people wanting Cyclops to show the leadership qualities he had in the comics is such a narrowminded thing.

[The Guard]

And you'll never have to.

And he did show the leadership qualities he had in the comics.

[StevieNicks1988]

I don't get how people wanting Cyclops to show the leadership qualities he had in the comics is such a narrowminded thing.

Yeah, but there is a different between showing leadership qualities and going beyond boundaries of realism *cough* JM/Cyke thread *cough*. It's beyond stupid. A mentally disturbed or upset Cyclops is gonna give a eulogy. I can see it now: "We're here today to honor Xavier... WHY DID YOU LEAVE ME!!! WHY WHY WHY!?!?" :down

[RedIsNotBlue]

And you'll never have to.

And he did show the leadership qualities he had in the comics.

Must have missed it the 30 times I watch it. -Waits for Guard's witty and sarcastic essay reply-

[StevieNicks1988]

Everytime I watch X-Men 1, I liked the way they protrayed Cyclops in it. Without exactly saying it or showing it, you get the feel he's the leader. It's just a natural thing protrayed on film. Wolverine's obviously one of the main characters, but you still get the sense Cyclops is the man in charge. Even in the scenes he's in in X2, when Jean's helping Cyke and he asks who Nightcrawler is, you get that demanding and leadership feel off of him like "Out of the way, I'm in charge here!" :up: If Cyke does come back at the final battle of X3, I'm betting money we'll get that same thing again.

[The Sage]

Superman will always be an Icon or a main stay across the world. There's no denying that. It's emotional nostalgia and everyone's wish to be invlunerable and be able to fly. It's different than Marvel which has humanized it's characters more making them more popular and easier to relate too behind the powers. DC has recently started to change their character and humanize them, show weakness, etc...So yeah he'll be around for 70 more years but so will Donald Duck and Snoopy.

And the X-Men, at least in spirit if not in sales.:O

[Advanced Dark]

Nah X-Men will be around forever too. There's a new genration of young boys to fill in the gaps as older generations age. The population is growing and the new ones won't be born hating X-Men. The X-Men will thrive amongst the youth as will Batman, Superman, and any character where enough time and energy is spent developing it in a quality way. There also has to be the franchisability of the character too.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And this discussion about comic-book readers being... less intellectually involved in what they read may be right to some extent. But what you're doing is using logic and different sources to cover up plot holes the script writer didn't manage to close.
I buy and read about 20 books a year, I read another 12 books a year from libraries, not mentioning all the books I have to read for my university studies. And a fact that I would rather to see Storm "whole" instead of "blurry", doesn't make me a comic-book geek who "don't always get the symbolism and themes and tones presented", as it's exactly the change of Storm symbolism and tone that bothers me.

And I never said that about you. I don't believe that anywhere in my remark I said anything about all comic book readers. I made a general statement to answer bosef's question about why comic book readers nitpick over every change to comic book movies when generally speaking, novel readers don't nitpick those same changes in novel adaptations.

Nowhere did I say in there that all comic book readers are less intelligent, or that no comic book reader can appreciate the symbolism, and themes, and tones presented in a comic book.

I'm just saying a large percentage of comic book readers are children or teenagers who aren't yet mentally mature enough to appreciate those types of things, where as a large percentage of people who read novels are educated, and do appreciate those types of things.

Big difference between large percentage and everyone.

Now, time to go play Guardball :)

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well then, it looks like I'm gonna have another go at this Guardball thing :p

I think this is my second go at it.

Then what movies were you watching? You do realize, that when the delegates at the UN conference have their "backs against the wall", she risks her life to take on Magneto and his followers, and uses her powers to save their lives, right? Whose corner is she in at that point? Do you think she's just fighting Magneto for the hell of it? Or for just Rogue? Seems like she's on their side, to me in that situation. In X2, she uses her powers to save humanity when their back is against a wall, right? And when the kids are in a cell with their "backs to the wall", who finds them and rescues them. Storm.

I guess a better way I should have worded it was "emotional support". Of course we see her fighting the good fight, because we know she's an X-Man, and that's what X-Men do. All of these things also have large scale consequences involved if nobody is there to stop them.

So yes, a better way for me to say it would have been to mention "emotional support". I will have to dig out my comics to find the perfect example of what I am talking about... *grabs box of X-Men comics... searching...............* Ah yes, here it is. Uncanny X-Men #326. At the beginning of this issue, we see Gambit, alone on the rooftop of the mansion, distressed, thinking back on his "crimes" that to this point, are unknown. Storm comes up, and they have a nice heart to heart, in which Gambit is concerned that the true nature of a person can never change, and that he is forever doomed with the truth of who he is. And it is Storm who is there to comfort him emotionally. And I guess we did see a bit of that with Senator Kelly, and with Nightcrawler, but both times she also had the fear and anger asterik along with it, instead of just her unconditional love. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

Now you're just nitpicking, with more of this "they could have had a moment like this in there" stuff. She did, in X-MEN, try to get him to see what was truly important beyond himself. But you don't remember that, do you?

As with the above examples, I see this as a "greater consequence" type action. She tried to get Wolverine to see what was important beyond himself because the X-Men could definatley use his help in the fight against Magneto. Yes, for a worthwhile cause, to save the world leaders, and Rogue. But I didn't view it as a "Logan, I'm here for you" type moment.

So, because it doesn't conform to your particular view of a character, it's all wrong? "I don't like it", fine. "It's wrong"? Wow.

I didn't say it was wrong, I said that it was inaccurate to my interpretation of the character. It's just like Batman Begins. I didn't totally enjoy it as much as most people did, because it was inaccurate to my interpretation of the character of Bruce Wayne and Batman. I never said that it was "wrong" though. Just not what I view the character to be.

And let me just say this. Do I think movie Storm is accurate to comic book Storm? No, I don't.

But also, I do believe that her movie version is developed, and is given motivation. I do see how some can see her mindset as next to that of Magneto's. But obviously it isn't completely if she is fighting against him, instead of with him. I get the character that is there, on screen. I just don't believe that it is an accurate portrayal of what's on comic book pages.

And so, generally speaking, many comic book readers do not fully understand or care about some of the loftier themes and literary devices?

GENERALLY speaking, MANY comic book fans, yes.

But not every comic book fan falls into this category. Reading comic books does not mean you cannot become intellectually attatched to a piece, and understand the symbolism and themes of it.

What is "the rest"?

The stuff that I mentioned above that I felt was lacking from her character; the emotional support.

The mindset of Magneto can't be her mindset. Or she'd be a villain. Storm's mindset is obviously that of someone who was persecuted, but chose to foster understanding and peace instead of wanting to destroy her and mutantkind's tormentors. This mindset, buying into Xavier's "tolerance" and "understanding" aspects, is NOT the mindset of Magneto and his followers. Therefore Storm is clearly very different than they are, and has a markedly different mindset. What she has is similar motivations, but not the same ones by any stretch.

Correct, it obviously isn't her mindset, because she's fighting for Xavier's cause, and not Magneto's.

But she does come off sounding like borderline Magneto.

Senator Kelly: Do you hate humans?

Storm: Sometimes.

Senator Kelly: Why?

Storm: I guess because I am afraid of them.

Senator Kelly: Well I guess there's one less human you'll have to worry about (dies)

That's probably not word for word perfect, but pretty close. That sounds close to something Magneto might say.

From Storm, I would expect something along the lines of "No, I don't hate humans" and maybe explain why she fears them. But even the first time I saw X-Men and I was too stoked to care about perfect interpretations because it was an X-Men movie, I was kind of taken aback by her "sometimes" response. I expected something more "caring" from her, than "sometimes".

Does that make it an invalid take on her character? Can you see how, for a character like Storm, as a mutant, she would likely have these aspects to her character, but overcome them because of who she is?

But the thing is, I never see Storm talking about how she sometimes "hates" humans. Now maybe I just haven't read enough comics. Because, again, I don't claim to be the expert when it comes to the comics. But I just don't see the hatred and anger aspect to her character in the comics and cartoons. I can see how a character like that, who is a mutant, and would suffer from persecution, would think like that. But that line of thinking is not what I expect from Storm. I would expect a character like Storm to realize that these people are just ignorant, uninformed, and "smack them in the head with a frying pan" to make them understand (of course that's in apostrophes because it's metaphorical, not literal)

She has been all business in X-MEN and X2. Very to the point, outspoken, and unwilling to take much crap from anyone. At least through dialogue. Halle's portrayal of her does not scream "confidence"

Where have we really seen an instance of her not willing to take crap from anyone?

So she has some fear and anger. Where in the movies do you see her choose to let her anger and fear outweigh her trust, in her relationships with people (Except for Sabertooth and Toad, even with Magneto she appeals to his humanity)? She doesn't let that happen in these films. Ever. In fact, when she has a chance to let her hatred take over, she chooses to trust Kelly, with her emotions, if nothing else. Then why, out of all the X-Men, does she stay there with Senator Kelly? Why does she not let him die alone? Why does she talk so intimately with him about her feelings on humanity and mutantkind? Why is she the one who bonds with Nightcrawler, who for all they know, is dangerous? She's as trusting as anyone has been in these films, certainly far more so than Jean, Cyclops, and even Xavier, simply by the nature of the conversations she's had with people. She's bared herself emotionally more than any of them, really. The "fear and anger" may not be overt in the comics, but it's not hard to see it being there somewhere, simply because she is a mutant, and sees the results of hatred every day. How does having some fear and anger toward humans hurt her character? I mean, you live in the same world I do, are you honestly telling me that you don't have some fear anf anger over humanity's actions from time to time? Why should Storm be any different?

It may just be my interpretation, but I don't really see her interaction with Senator Kelly as forgiving. Yes, the man here is on his death bed, and won't live long enough to make a difference politically, but she has a perfect oppourtunity here to try to ease an anti-mutant man's mind about the subject of mutants. But instead, when he asks if she hates humans, she says "sometimes". My take on Storm would have had her try to comfort him towards the subject of mutants, and try to make him realize, in his last few moments alive, that mutants don't have to be dangerous and hateful, but rather peaceful, forgiving people. In my opinion, that was a missed oppourtunity to define Storm's character.

First, she never expressly says "anger toward humans". She says "anger". Anger can come from many places. It can come from how humants treat mutants, or how Magneto has treated humans or the whole damned conflict.
You say the Storm you know would not have anger toward humans. I call bull****. Why?
Let's roleplay.
You are a mutant. Because you are a mutant, people think differently of you. They may even shun you. And if they don't shun you, then by your work with Xavier, you are exposed to many situations where mutants ARE hated and shunned. Do you honestly think that wouldn't make someone like Storm angry? The suffering of anyone? I do. If not, what makes her angry then? Attacks on her physical person? The character in the comics and the movies, afterall, is named "Storm"? That name hardly suggests someone devoid of anger and tumultuous emotions.
You can't always choose who or what you become angry at, or what you fear. You can however, choose what you do with that anger and fear, and if you let it control you or make you inactive. Storm doesn't. She has turned it into something positive.
Does Storm go around preaching tolerance to humans and mutants in the movies? No, she's clearly starting with mutants. But it's not hard to see this version of Storm branching out and becoming something more, where she tried to spread the word to mutants. Her character hasn't reached that point yet in this movie. Doesn't mean she won't.

First, she does express anger towards humans, in the exchange that I've quoted about twice already between her and Senator Kelly.

And yes, you say you can't control becoming angry, but it's what you do with that anger, if you let it control you or not.

Well, from her exchange with Nightcrawler, it can be interpreted that she does let it control her. "I gave up on pity a long time ago" "Sometimes anger can help you survive"

That exchange can easily be interpreted as her letting her anger get the best of her. She later seemingly overcomes it, with her "I have faith in you" remark to Nightcrawler, to get him to teleport her inside of Cerebro, and maybe that is the growing point of her character in these films.

I'm not saying her anger isn't a valid motivation for fighting on Xavier's side, it very well could be. All I'm saying is that the anger motivation seems inaccurate for the character of Storm. From my interpretation of the character.

Now, I've played tonight's game of Guardball, I'm sure when I come back tomorrow afternoon, there will be something here for me to reply to, so I look forward to it.

I do find it funny, however, how I went from essentially arguing on your side, to now arguing against you, on the same topic I was previously on your side about... :eek:

[silver_arrow]

I watched 1 and 2, and I don't like them both. However my continuining interest in x-men is mainly due to its theme and conflicts. Thus this change in directing has me excited me.

[Angry Sentinel]

You forgot their backstories, Bosef...shame. As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all? Why Magneto? Why Wolverine? Why Rogue? Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?

[skruloos]

As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all? Why Magneto? Why Wolverine? Why Rogue? Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?
The problem here is that you're not being very practical. We're working on a limited timeframe for each movie.

Also, as a writer, you make choices on what to focus on. You try to avoid exposition as much as possible because exposition stops the forward momentum of the story. The plot stays inert unless you have something in the character's past directly tied to the plot events that occur in the present (which is not the case with most of the X-Men's origin). For a perfect example of this, watch the show Lost. The most interesting flashbacks are the ones that had the most impact on where the characters ended up on the Island. The other flashbacks that just reveal character motivations, while interesting, do not support the ongoing plot of the show. You couldn't add flashbacks for each character because they simply do not impact the plot that was being put forward by Singer. If you can come up with an all-encompassing plot that would require you to show each individuals flashback and make it relevant to the story without changing major details in each character's origin, I'd love to see it. Seriously.

[Angry Sentinel]

^ Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine. That writers only do this "spelling out" of every reasoning and persona because they think their readers are a bunch of 2 year olds; NOT because it is an effective and necessary means of storytelling.

[X-Maniac]

Remember also, guys, that a Storm origin scene WAS storyboarded and scripted for X1 and then moved to X2, but was cut both times. Scenes of Storm flying at the dam were filmed but also cut.

Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'

Discuss!

[Angry Sentinel]

:rolleyes: Right... But it's just the mass audience poor interpretations and fanboy's terrible comic book taste that caused these two WRITERS to make these statements and conclusions about the characterization of storm.

[X-Maniac]

:rolleyes: Right... But it's just the mass audience poor interpretations and fanboy's terrible comic book taste that caused these two WRITERS to make these statements and conclusions about the characterization of storm.

Can you elaborate on 'mass audience poor interpretations'... and on 'fanboys' terrible comic book taste'...? I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

[Angry Sentinel]

Can you elaborate on 'mass audience poor interpretations'... and on 'fanboys' terrible comic book taste'...? I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it. And Bosef has somewhat shared his view by stating that it is out of our own personal comic book fanboy desires that we are requesting certain things. That these things weren't altogether necessary for the film.

But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?

[IcemanX]

Ya know, maybe the X-movies need cartoons like the newer Star Wars movies? I think if done right they could be very helpful in explaining where other characters are and it MIGHT satisfy some of us fanboys/girls, whose fav X-Men are under used or not at all...

Some possibilities could be a Nightcrawler story to explain why he's not in X3. and this could also set up the newer characters that are just cameos or aren't getting alot of screen time...It might be considered a cop out but it could be useful if dne right meaning that they add to the movies and not make them essential to watch to understand the movies. Sorry if someone metioned this already///

[spideyboy_1111]

Ya know, maybe the X-movies need cartoons like the newer Star Wars movies? I think if done right they could be very helpful in explaining where other characters are and it MIGHT satisfy some of us fanboys/girls, whose fav X-Men are under used or not at all...

Some possibilities could be a Nightcrawler story to explain why he's not in X3. and this could also set up the newer characters that are just cameos or aren't getting alot of screen time...It might be considered a cop out but it could be useful if dne right meaning that they add to the movies and not make them essential to watch to understand the movies. Sorry if someone metioned this already///
were getting a video game to do that... much like how the matrix movies had a game to bridge the gap

[The Guard]

Must have missed it the 30 times I watch it. -Waits for Guard's witty and sarcastic essay reply-
I don't need to be sarcastic. I'm through being sarcastic about such obvious aspects of these films. Storm, there's a bit more of a gray area. Cyclops, there is not. I'm just going to state what's onscreen, and let what David Hayter, Michael Doughtery, Dan Harris and Bryan Singer put out there prove my point.
-Who does Xavier send out on important missions? Cyclops and Storm. They are clearly leadership figures. The first time we see Cyclops, he is in what could be termed a very tense situation. Does he panic? Does he rush himself? Hell no. He is cool as a cucumber, and there's not a wasted movement in his actions. Without a word, he steps in front of Storm (this is significant). He takes care of rescuing Rogue and Logan from the camper quickly and efficiently, and also precisely. This is one of the hallmarks of a leader, the ability to be cool in a crisis, to think strategically and efficiently. It is also one of Cyclops' comic book trademarks.
-When Cyclops is introduced to Logan, he politely extends his hand. When Logan doesn't take it, he remains polite, and also humble when Xavier talks about how he saved Logan's life. Politeness is a leadership quality, as pretty much any employer will tell you. When Logan "threatens him" physically, Cyclops doesn't appear the least bit rattled, or intimidated. Another leadership quality.
-Xavier talks about how Cyclops was one of his first students, and how he now helps students at the X-Mansion. Mentoring is a leadership quality. We see Cyclops and Jean practicing, refining their powers. Clearly they want to become more skilled, and keep sharp. This is another leadership quality.
-In the train station, Cyclops is waiting for Storm, and hears breaking glass. The second he does, he turns. He rushes to her aide, taking care not to attract too much attention to himself. This fast reaction? You guessed it. A leadership quality.
-It is Cyclops who figures out why Magneto wants Rogue. Wolverine voices the beginnings of Cyclops' complete thought, but it's clearly Cyclops who comes up with the idea. Thinking outside the box: leadership quality.
-When Xavier is in a coma, what does Cyclops ay to him? "If anything happens, I'll take care of them". Cyclops expresses obvious concern for his mentor and expresses a desire to care for the X-Men and the students of the school. This desire to protect and guide others is also a hallmark of a leader.
-Cyclops attempts to keep Wolverine from going along with the X-Men, and for good reason. Wolverine, to that point, has been reckless and voilatile. A leader has to be on the lookout for these kinds of situations.
-Cyclops plans and explains the strategy for the X-Men's approach to Liberty Island. "We can insert here at the George Washington Bridge. Come around the bank, just off of Manhattan, we land on the far side of Liberty Island...here." He has planned the mission. He is the leader. Cyclops also pilots the jet. Clearly in charge. During the flight, he says "Storm, some cover, please" A strategic order, and one that makes good sense in order to camoflauge their approach. One imagines that the ability to fly a supersonic jet well might be considered a leadership skill.
-On Liberty Island, who leads them up over the wall? Cyclops. Who is the one to spot that the torch houses the machine? Cyclops. Who leads them forward into the statue? Cyclops. Cyclops is also leading when they are inside the statue.-
-When the door closes on the X-Men, Cyclops doesn't take long to decide to blow it open. "All right back up, back up". Another strategic order.
-Cyclops comes across another situation that requires quick thinking when he has to break Jean out of that slime via his visor. He tries to get it off without resorting to using his visor, first. Whhen he has to do so, he stays calm and collected, and is precise with his power usage. As Storm confronts Toad, Cyclops seems to be providing Jean with some kind of medical care.
-Knowing Mystique was in there, Cyclops demands Wolverine prove that he's the real Wolverine. Taking no chances.
-Ascending the stairs of Liberty, it is again Cyclops who takes the lead.
-With his visor gone and Wolverine incapacitated, Cyclops realizes their chances to stop Magneto are now limited. He acts quickly. "Storm. Fry him." Almost no hesitation. A direct order. Was it the right decision? Who knows. Had Storm fried Magneto, while the X-Men might have died or suffered injury, Magneto would not have been able to power the machine, and the day would have been saved, even if the X-Men died. Regardless, Cyclops is again giving orders here.
-After being freed, Cyclops refuses Wolverine's ideas about just shooting the machine because it could kill Rogue. He seeks an alternative plan, readily offering himself. "Storm, can you get me up there?" When Wolverine offers to go and let Cyclops hang back for one last shot, Cyclops takes a grsnd total of about a second and a half to make the call. "All right, do it." An order. He also tells Jean to use her own power to try to steady Wolverine on his way up.
-Despite Jean's urging to wait, It is Cyclops who makes the call on his own to take out Magneto via optic blast. "I have a shot. I'm taking him." The ability to make your own split second decisions in a crisis is another hallmark of leadership.
-That's in X-MEN. In X2, who does Xavier trust to take him to Magneto? Cyclops. Cyclops is clearly his number one guy.
-At the end of X2, "No! We're not leaving! Lower the ramp!" More orders. This is coming from a man accustomed to giving them.
Now, they may not have portrayed him as the particular KIND of leader you wanted to see. But to say he was not clearly established as a leader with leadership qualities is absurd. So, once again, WHY do you think he hasn't been shown as a leader? Specific examples, please. Not "Because that's how I feel". WHY do you feel that way?
Everytime I watch X-Men 1, I liked the way they protrayed Cyclops in it. Without exactly saying it or showing it, you get the feel he's the leader. It's just a natural thing protrayed on film. Wolverine's obviously one of the main characters, but you still get the sense Cyclops is the man in charge. Even in the scenes he's in in X2, when Jean's helping Cyke and he asks who Nightcrawler is, you get that demanding and leadership feel off of him like "Out of the way, I'm in charge here" If Cyke does come back at the final battle of X3, I'm betting money we'll get that same thing again.
Exactly. One of the main reasons I can't wait for X3.
I guess a better way I should have worded it was "emotional support". Of course we see her fighting the good fight, because we know she's an X-Man, and that's what X-Men do. All of these things also have large scale consequences involved if nobody is there to stop them.
Fair enough. There isn't a whole lot of that in X-MEN or X2, but there's not a whole lot of need for it, either, given the story. I mean, there was never really a point where that was needed. Logan, Rogue, where very loner-type characters (though wasn't there a deleted scene with Storm talking to Rogue in X-MEN?). When there was, however, a need for this emotional support, when Senator Kelly was afraid, Storm does provide some emotional support by coming to his side and talking to him as he dies. And you can easily picture this woman giving support to her students, to Jean, Cyclops, even Wolverine. We just don't see those scenes. So no, there wasn't a lot of it, but I don't think the way she was portrayed in the film ever suggests she wouldn't be that type of person.

As with the above examples, I see this as a "greater consequence" type action. She tried to get Wolverine to see what was important beyond himself because the X-Men could definatley use his help in the fight against Magneto. Yes, for a worthwhile cause, to save the world leaders, and Rogue. But I didn't view it as a "Logan, I'm here for you" type moment
And with Kelly? Remember, this is a man who hated mutants, who spearheaded an essentially anti-mutant campaign.I see her actions toward Kelly as very merciful and forgiving, in not letting him believe he's alone in how he feels in terms of "fear". Storm mirrors Kelly's own thoughts, it seems.
And let me just say this. Do I think movie Storm is accurate to comic book Storm? No, I don't.
I don't think she was accurate, either. But would you at least say several important aspects of her comic book character appear in the film in some capacity?

But also, I do believe that her movie version is developed, and is given motivation.
Finally, someone sane.
GENERALLY speaking, MANY comic book fans, yes.
Ok. Just making sure that was what you meant.
The stuff that I mentioned above that I felt was lacking from her character; the emotional support.
I'll agree, to a point, but with so many characters and the story demands, there's just not a whole lot of time to keep on reinforcing this aspect, and I don't think it's omission can be considered a minus. It's just somethng that hasn't been shown. However, from what IS shown, it's not unreasonable to imagine this character doing something like that. I mean, mostly all of the "emotional support" moments in the film come via Storm. The spiritual stuff mostly comes from Xavier, and the romantic/friendship stuff comes from Cyclops and Jean's scenes.
But she does come off sounding like borderline Magneto.

Senator Kelly: Do you hate humans?

Storm: Sometimes.
How does that make her borderline Magneto? Magneto hates humans ALL the time. And wants them dead, or changed to be like him. Storm's lines don't seem that odd to me, I mean, what human being DOESN'T hate or fear his fellow man "sometimes"?

That sounds close to something Magneto might say.
Not really. Here is what Magneto says in regard to his feelings on humans and mutants:
"We are the future, Charles. Not them. They no longer matter."
"There is no tolerance. No peace. Not here, or anywhere else."[/quote]
That's not anything close to what Storm is saying characterwise. Not remotely. It's lightyears away. Storm has never implied humans don't matter, or are lesser beings. She has only admitted that she hates and fears them sometimes. What human being can't say that? But most humans don't want to kill everyone who isn't like them, or make them conform. There's a world of difference. It's not even borderline.

From Storm, I would expect something along the lines of "No, I don't hate humans" and maybe explain why she fears them.
To a complete stranger who is dying? Talk about forced exposition.
But even the first time I saw X-Men and I was too stoked to care about perfect interpretations because it was an X-Men movie, I was kind of taken aback by her "sometimes" response. I expected something more "caring" from her, than "sometimes".
"Sometimes" if nothing else, is honest. "Real". And admitting it, that's caring about him in a way. Because it's allowing Kelly to see that mutants are like him in many ways. They too may have prejudices based on fear.
I can see how a character like that, who is a mutant, and would suffer from persecution, would think like that. But that line of thinking is not what I expect from Storm. I would expect a character like Storm to realize that these people are just ignorant, uninformed, and "smack them in the head with a frying pan" to make them understand (of course that's in apostrophes because it's metaphorical, not literal)
A character as empathic as Storm has been shown to be in the comics, and to some extent, the movies, would almost HAVE to carry anger at the state of the world. It's almost unavoidable for the kind of person she is not to have those things anger her.
Where have we really seen an instance of her not willing to take crap from anyone?
WOLVERINE: "Join the team, be an X-Man? So far you've all done a bang up job."
Does she sit back? Hell no.
STORM: "Then help us. Fight with us!"
When Toad has kicked the crap out of her? What does she do? She calls down the lightning.
When Sabertooth is assaulting her, what does she do? She calls down the lightning.
When Nightcrawler won't come out after being asked, what does she do? She calls down the lightning.
It may just be my interpretation, but I don't really see her interaction with Senator Kelly as forgiving. Yes, the man here is on his death bed, and won't live long enough to make a difference politically, but she has a perfect oppourtunity here to try to ease an anti-mutant man's mind about the subject of mutants.
She does. She shows him that she, and by extension, mutants, are very similar to him in fearing others. This is the last piece of "understanding" he reaches before he dies.
And frankly, easing the man's mind about mutants is something that Charles Xavier has already done/tried to do. So why have two characters use the exact same plot point in the span of about three minutes?
But instead, when he asks if she hates humans, she says "sometimes".
What person who is not "normal" would not reply "sometimes" to that question. Honestly. This is a human truth, really.
My take on Storm would have had her try to comfort him towards the subject of mutants, and try to make him realize, in his last few moments alive, that mutants don't have to be dangerous and hateful, but rather peaceful, forgiving people. In my opinion, that was a missed oppourtunity to define Storm's character.
She seemed pretty peaceful and open, at least there. What's she supposed to do, say "I forgive you, Senator"? That's not her place. But in simply being there with him, and talking to him openly about her hate and fear aspects, she is touching him in a way that no mutants probably have.
First, she does express anger towards humans, in the exchange that I've quoted about twice already between her and Senator Kelly.
But she does it relucantly. And she doesn't get angry with Kelly himself. She is simply open and honest with him. She says what she says in a way that makes it clear that mutants and humans aren't so different in their fear of each other. This is a big deal.

[The Guard]

Well, from her exchange with Nightcrawler, it can be interpreted that she does let it control her. "I gave up on pity a long time ago" "Sometimes anger can help you survive"

It CAN be interpreted that way, but that's one interpretation, and to me, that's reaching, because she says "sometimes anger can help you survive". "Sometimes" does not mean "I always let it control me". "Sometimes" could easily mean "I use it sometimes to survive", as she did in the fight against Toad, for instance, when she needed the voilatile side of her powers and her nature to defeat him.

That exchange can easily be interpreted as her letting her anger get the best of her.
Or her using her anger as a force to drive her. You know, like normal people often do?
She later seemingly overcomes it, with her "I have faith in you" remark to Nightcrawler, to get him to teleport her inside of Cerebro, and maybe that is the growing point of her character in these films.
That's definitely one of them.

I'm not saying her anger isn't a valid motivation for fighting on Xavier's side, it very well could be. All I'm saying is that the anger motivation seems inaccurate for the character of Storm. From my interpretation of the character.
But anger, in the films, is clearly not her only motivation. Neither is fear. These may, and probably are not even her main motivations. It's never stated in a way that indicates it is a motivation, it's just an aspect of her film character. Latching onto this because it's the only duialogue she's had about her emotional state "sometimes" (in both cases) is not a way to define her character as someone who uses anger or fear to motivate herself. Admitting you sometimes fear and sometimes hate does not make anger and fear your main life motivations.
Since we rarely see her angry, and because we see more constructive behavior from her than destructive (or even destructive thoughts, of which we NEVER see any stated, as far as I can recall) I'd be willing to bet her main motivation is what it's always been: seeking an end to the war between humans and mutants, teaching others to deal with the conflict and guiding them as they grow, and preventing innocent casualities in the war.

As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).
I think it's a bad thing when fanboys think it can just be tossed into a story and ignore that it must hold some relevance to the story, and also dismiss concerns about screentime, which are very real problems when it comes to telling the full or even partial or basic origins of fourteen characters.

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all?
Because you obviopusly have to have motivation for your major players. We didn't get much, even from Xavier, in the way of "backstory", just a couple of lines. Ditto Magneto's backstory. It was just a couple of lines and a single scene at the beginning of the franchise to make the villain's motivations seem more real and relevant.
Why Magneto?
Because your villain, if he's going to function as your arch villain in three straight films, needs to have a STRONG motivation as a character that goes beyond "pure evil".
Why Wolverine?
Because Wolverine's backstory is extremely interesting and unique as origins go, and even then, we have only seen bits and pieces of it. Much is still unknown.
Why Rogue?
We didn't see hardly any backstory from Rogue. We saw "story", as it progressed onscreen, because we were viewing the X-Men and the conflict between humans and mutants through and Wolverine's eyes as new members. Again, what backstory we saw from Rogue wasn't very involved or detailed.
Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.
Because it's a major part of their character interaction. But again, only SUBTLE hints at it. No details. No information beyond "When I was young, I discovered I had powers. These are my powers. When I was young, Erik and I were friends, he grew angry and vengeful, and became Magneto".

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?
I am not saying it should never be utilized. I'm saying now is a bad time to start, and so was X2. If it was going to be done, X-MEN was th etime to do it, and even then it might have hurt the flow of the film a bit, having several origin sequences that have little to do with each other and only really give the audience aspects can be assumed about a character from what Xavier says later on anyway.
Why should writers bother? Because if you can do so, can present a backstory, and focus on one or two characters, then good. Go for it. The writers did this with Bruce Wayne and Ra's Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS. Notice, hardly any info on Alfred's past, Lucious's past, Rachel's past, Falcone's past, etc, except the basic tidbits. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has an origin for Superman, but only the basics for Lois, Luthor, etc. If they had been making an origin film featuring the first X-Men, I'd say go for it. But since it wasn't an origin film, and was a story based on an established team of X-Men recruiting new members, it doesn't fit real well.
And in an ensemble film like X-MEN, whether you all like it nor not, there just wasn't room in the story or the time to do "origins" with all the other characters. Even Wolverine only got "flashes". I have no problem with backstories. What I have a problem with is fans somehow believing that EVERY character can receive this treatment, or that one is somehow being "shafted" if one does and another doesn't. It's not possible, and it's not good cinema, that is, it detracts from good cinema if attempted, because it either takes the form of too damn many flashbacks, or far too much exposition, neither of which is very good writing or film.
The problem here is that you're not being very practical. We're working on a limited timeframe for each movie.
Exactly.

Also, as a writer, you make choices on what to focus on. You try to avoid exposition as much as possible because exposition stops the forward momentum of the story.
Exactly.
The plot stays inert unless you have something in the character's past directly tied to the plot events that occur in the present (which is not the case with most of the X-Men's origin). For a perfect example of this, watch the show Lost. The most interesting flashbacks are the ones that had the most impact on where the characters ended up on the Island. The other flashbacks that just reveal character motivations, while interesting, do not support the ongoing plot of the show. You couldn't add flashbacks for each character because they simply do not impact the plot that was being put forward by Singer. If you can come up with an all-encompassing plot that would require you to show each individuals flashback and make it relevant to the story without changing major details in each character's origin, I'd love to see it. Seriously.
So would I. I'm not saing it can't be done, but you end up with a far, far less interesting main story and much shallower villains and supporting characters and such.
Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine.
I have never once insinuated that. Find me proof that I have. Try. I'm all FOR backstories, if you're not making a film about 15 odd characters, and the backstories don't come at the expense of the main story. I have only ever insinuated that trying to give ALL the characters backstories or origins is not possible given the time and story constraints.
Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)
One hopes Simon Kinberg realizes WHY Storm didn't do much beyond what she did, and realizes that there are limitations to what he can do characterwise, and doesn't overcorrect with Storm in X3, depriving us of other characters and development.

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'
One hopes Zak Penn realizes the same thing.

I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

I have never said your concerns with characterization are wrong. Some of them, yes, you're simply offbase, and completely missing half of what's there. The Storm stuff, no. Where many of you are wrong, in Storm's case, is to deny that some of her most important comic book aspects are there in the writing.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it.
Odd that when I state that, I also point out proof that it's there. It's the whole "sky is blue" argument.
But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?
Excuse for what? No one said the characterization was perfect. Or that characters didn't deserve better. But failing to realize the limitations of this format is a fool's errand.

[The Guard]

Well, from her exchange with Nightcrawler, it can be interpreted that she does let it control her. "I gave up on pity a long time ago" "Sometimes anger can help you survive"

It CAN be interpreted that way, but that's one interpretation, and to me, that's reaching, because she says "sometimes anger can help you survive". "Sometimes" does not mean "I always let it control me". "Sometimes" could easily mean "I use it sometimes to survive", as she did in the fight against Toad, for instance, when she needed the voilatile side of her powers and her nature to defeat him.

That exchange can easily be interpreted as her letting her anger get the best of her.
Or her using her anger as a force to drive her. You know, like normal people often do?
She later seemingly overcomes it, with her "I have faith in you" remark to Nightcrawler, to get him to teleport her inside of Cerebro, and maybe that is the growing point of her character in these films.
That's definitely one of them.

I'm not saying her anger isn't a valid motivation for fighting on Xavier's side, it very well could be. All I'm saying is that the anger motivation seems inaccurate for the character of Storm. From my interpretation of the character.
But anger, in the films, is clearly not her only motivation. Neither is fear. These may, and probably are not even her main motivations. It's never stated in a way that indicates it is a motivation, it's just an aspect of her film character. Latching onto this because it's the only duialogue she's had about her emotional state "sometimes" (in both cases) is not a way to define her character as someone who uses anger or fear to motivate herself. Admitting you sometimes fear and sometimes hate does not make anger and fear your main life motivations.
Since we rarely see her angry, and because we see more constructive behavior from her than destructive (or even destructive thoughts, of which we NEVER see any stated, as far as I can recall) I'd be willing to bet her main motivation is what it's always been: seeking an end to the war between humans and mutants, teaching others to deal with the conflict and guiding them as they grow, and preventing innocent casualities in the war.

As much as you supposedly "jest" here... it appears that you think this is a BAD thing (showing/revealing a backstory).
I think it's a bad thing when fanboys think it can just be tossed into a story and ignore that it must hold some relevance to the story, and also dismiss concerns about screentime, which are very real problems when it comes to telling the full or even partial or basic origins of fourteen characters.

If this is true, then why did we get any backstory at all?
Because you obviopusly have to have motivation for your major players. We didn't get much, even from Xavier, in the way of "backstory", just a couple of lines. Ditto Magneto's backstory. It was just a couple of lines and a single scene at the beginning of the franchise to make the villain's motivations seem more real and relevant.
Why Magneto?
Because your villain, if he's going to function as your arch villain in three straight films, needs to have a STRONG motivation as a character that goes beyond "pure evil".
Why Wolverine?
Because Wolverine's backstory is extremely interesting and unique as origins go, and even then, we have only seen bits and pieces of it. Much is still unknown.
Why Rogue?
We didn't see hardly any backstory from Rogue. We saw "story", as it progressed onscreen, because we were viewing the X-Men and the conflict between humans and mutants through and Wolverine's eyes as new members. Again, what backstory we saw from Rogue wasn't very involved or detailed.
Why the subtle hints at Xavier and Magnus' past relationship.
Because it's a major part of their character interaction. But again, only SUBTLE hints at it. No details. No information beyond "When I was young, I discovered I had powers. These are my powers. When I was young, Erik and I were friends, he grew angry and vengeful, and became Magneto".

Why should any writer use flashbacks and backstory to convey a characters motivations? Why bother to establish character persona at all?
I am not saying it should never be utilized. I'm saying now is a bad time to start, and so was X2. If it was going to be done, X-MEN was th etime to do it, and even then it might have hurt the flow of the film a bit, having several origin sequences that have little to do with each other and only really give the audience aspects can be assumed about a character from what Xavier says later on anyway.
Why should writers bother? Because if you can do so, can present a backstory, and focus on one or two characters, then good. Go for it. The writers did this with Bruce Wayne and Ra's Al Ghul in BATMAN BEGINS. Notice, hardly any info on Alfred's past, Lucious's past, Rachel's past, Falcone's past, etc, except the basic tidbits. SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE has an origin for Superman, but only the basics for Lois, Luthor, etc. If they had been making an origin film featuring the first X-Men, I'd say go for it. But since it wasn't an origin film, and was a story based on an established team of X-Men recruiting new members, it doesn't fit real well.
And in an ensemble film like X-MEN, whether you all like it nor not, there just wasn't room in the story or the time to do "origins" with all the other characters. Even Wolverine only got "flashes". I have no problem with backstories. What I have a problem with is fans somehow believing that EVERY character can receive this treatment, or that one is somehow being "shafted" if one does and another doesn't. It's not possible, and it's not good cinema, that is, it detracts from good cinema if attempted, because it either takes the form of too damn many flashbacks, or far too much exposition, neither of which is very good writing or film.
The problem here is that you're not being very practical. We're working on a limited timeframe for each movie.
Exactly.

Also, as a writer, you make choices on what to focus on. You try to avoid exposition as much as possible because exposition stops the forward momentum of the story.
Exactly.
The plot stays inert unless you have something in the character's past directly tied to the plot events that occur in the present (which is not the case with most of the X-Men's origin). For a perfect example of this, watch the show Lost. The most interesting flashbacks are the ones that had the most impact on where the characters ended up on the Island. The other flashbacks that just reveal character motivations, while interesting, do not support the ongoing plot of the show. You couldn't add flashbacks for each character because they simply do not impact the plot that was being put forward by Singer. If you can come up with an all-encompassing plot that would require you to show each individuals flashback and make it relevant to the story without changing major details in each character's origin, I'd love to see it. Seriously.
So would I. I'm not saing it can't be done, but you end up with a far, far less interesting main story and much shallower villains and supporting characters and such.
Actually skruloos I completely understand this particular tool of writing. And I have always understood the problems with the concept of "book to movie" adaptation and the time limitations (not to mention effective plot building and story progression). I was just taking a pot-shot at Guard for his joke, he almost insinuates that all the request for backstories on a story character is completely ridiculous and assinine.
I have never once insinuated that. Find me proof that I have. Try. I'm all FOR backstories, if you're not making a film about 15 odd characters, and the backstories don't come at the expense of the main story. I have only ever insinuated that trying to give ALL the characters backstories or origins is not possible given the time and story constraints.
Simon Kinberg, co-writer of X3, says Storm did little more in X2 except 'exposition and flying the plane'. (Okay, he failed to mention the swarm of tornadoes, and the Cerebro icestorm... but he evidently also perceived gaps in the character depiction)
One hopes Simon Kinberg realizes WHY Storm didn't do much beyond what she did, and realizes that there are limitations to what he can do characterwise, and doesn't overcorrect with Storm in X3, depriving us of other characters and development.

Zak Penn, co-writer of X3 with Kinberg and co-writer of X2 with David Hayter, said Storm had been 'under-utilised and ill-defined.'
One hopes Zak Penn realizes the same thing.

I'm talking about the "reasonings" that Guard, and to a lesser extent Bosef have been stating for the reasons why OUR concerns with characterizations are 'wrong'.

I have never said your concerns with characterization are wrong. Some of them, yes, you're simply offbase, and completely missing half of what's there. The Storm stuff, no. Where many of you are wrong, in Storm's case, is to deny that some of her most important comic book aspects are there in the writing.

The Guard keeps stating that it's like Prego... and It's in there. The only problem is our own perception doesnt allow for us to see it correctly, much less interpret it.
Odd that when I state that, I also point out proof that it's there. It's the whole "sky is blue" argument.
But you post comments and ideas expressed by the writers themselves that seems to support our reasonings and further underline the fact that certain elements werent present(enough), and that they feel that they should be included. So my post was to be sarcastic to their remarks, not your post. I was simply poking back at them, in an attempt to say... OK, the writers themselves are saying it, now what's your excuse?
Excuse for what? No one said the characterization was perfect. Or that characters didn't deserve better. But failing to realize the limitations of this format is a fool's errand.

[Octoberist]

Guard..are you writing a novel?

[Hotaru]

By The Guard:
Of course. Know why? Because we SEE Storm as a teacher at Xavier's school. We HEAR that she was one of his first students, and that he taught her, along with Scott and Jean. We see her fighting the good fight. She is portrayed as a hero. Her motives are obvious: essentially, despite being hurt, and having some fear, she fights the good fight because she believes humans and mutants to be equal, and is end the end, a true hero.
You were not trying hard enough. Now, let me help you.
We leave backgroung of these two characters (Mystique and Storm) the same - one of them was being oppressed at school because of her looks, the other was being thrown rocks at when her had powers manifested. Both grew feelings of anger and fear towards humans, who were doing them wrong.
Now imagine:
Mystique being at Xavier's, teaching young mutants in a school she hated so much as a child (what an irony, and I mean school in general, not Xavier's in particular). Imagine her joining Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean to fight off the villain Magneto.
Now imagine Storm being by Magneto's side. She's angry, she wants to get her revange on humans. Not by just killing them all, that would be too easy - let's turn them all into mutants, that would be like killing two birds with one rock.
Let's proceed to X2.
Imagine Mystique giving lecture about history to her pupils in the museum. Imagine her being sent to get Nightcrawler, getting a bond with him, as they look so similar. Imagine the "because we shouldn't have to" conversation between the two - that would make so much more sense! Mystique being with Xavier 'cos she belives she shouldn't have to be hiding in a school. Imagine her going to young students' rescue.
Now imagine Storm growing more irritated by her another failure in X1. She just wants to kill of humans, they're no even good enough to become mutants, her brothers. Imagine her fight along Magneto to achive that.

Now, in this setting, it makes sense!!! I didn't change their background, neither their present feelings, they've just switched places. And it fits!
Now, of course some changes would have to be made in the script as far as the use of their powers in concerned, but that's really just secondary.
You use an argument, that one can't compare the two 'cos of what their present actions are. If they switched places - Storm would be a villain, Mystique a good guy. Mind you, only present actions would indicate that.
What I would like to see is what made them choose the path they have chosen? Why two similar people decided to go two opposite ways?

[bosef982]

This is becoming moronic. It isn't language barriers, or perception differences, or cinematic variances. It's just getting stupid.

The whole idea of Storm being some what lesser of an individual because she admits to sometimes hating humans is moronic. Such a comment does not contradict her nature as a legitimate movie character. Perhaps, no, she is not completely and utterly like her comic counterpart, but should she have to be?

Perhaps many of you are angered that Singer did not serve X-Men 1 and X2 to you with a spoon full of exposition and contrived plot points. However, if you look at the films, so much is alluded for those who wish to see it:

For example: Watch the X2 DVD features concerning Storm's wardrobe. Note how the costume designer specifically picked out wardrobes that insinuated Storm's pagan/nature/holistic roots. She has Native American purses, Oriental belt buckles, and African motif blouses. This was doen intentionally to demonstrate the tyep of diversity Storm represents.

There's a saying in writing that you don't tell, you show. There is also a school of cinematic thought that feels, building upon this, that a film should be made in the most visually stimulating terms. In that vien, if one were to close their eyes while watching a movie, they'd have no idea -- even if hearing the dialogue -- of what's going on, who people were, and what they represent. Singer follows this to a "T". Things like Storm's attire are represenative of this. Look at the jewelry Jean's wearing, and the clothes Storm wears, or the Men's Clothing type attire of Scott -- it's all indicative of their personalities, their traits, their types. This is just one of many aspects that allude volumes of character history.

The first way not to become a filmmaker is through lengthy exposition, which is what many of you want. If it's done, it has to be done superbly (as it was done in X1 with the Xavier V.O. to Logan), and even then, it's a device. And also note, people said "Why do we get hints of Xavier and Magnetos, or of Logan's history" -- and Guard is right, because their histories playo n the neccessary themes the film is exploring. But notice what you yourselves said -- "hints" -- not long-winded dialogues. Even with the major characters, only hints are acceptable. The rest, is left up to the acting, the direction, etc. Notice how in one single scene -- like the Dark Cerebro scene between Xavier and Magneto -- so much history and emotion comes through, because of the actors. This is the problem with Halle Berry -- she can't emote like this, she can't vitalize a character, she can't make them real or naunced. She is a caricature of Storm at best.

But what people here don't want to admit is this:

You want YOUR favorite character EXPOSITATED THE MOST -- you don't want a great X-Men film of equal ensemble time. You want YOUR FAVORITE'S X-Men film. This is innerently bias and invalid way to approach the film.

But stepping back to this idea of Storm being a flawed, illogical character. It comes down to choice, Hatura.

I am gay. Frequently, I am the subject of what I see as oppression. Yet, I have a wide group of straight friends, both male and female. Now, I consider myself a good person. I have never, nor plan to, go about routinely descreting things I feel are idiosyncratic or symoblic of the "striaght" identity. I in fact work to write papers explaining the current situation, how both sides are erring and making the social issues worse. However, do I hate straight people sometimes? Yes. When I hear about Matthew Shepard, or my friend being strangled to death fro being gay, I get angry and I hate straight people. And I'm afraid of them. Yet, this only provides me with more REASON and more MOTIVATION to educate and to tolerate.

This is what's STorm is doing. Mystique is not capable of it. That is why Mystique is a sad villian who can't see the error or her ways, and Storm is a heroine, because she rise above her hate and fear (which is not an easy thing to do).

Until you can make a progressive point, Hatura and others (refer to my sky is blue model), then I suggest you pack your bags and leave this argument. There comes a point where opinions are no longer educated, but just biased and self-serving. And that point, those opinions need to leave.

[Hotaru]

You're right. This argument is pointless, as we're clearly not convincing one another.
And my nickname in HOTARU (Japanese for firefly), not Hatura (which means "to write' in hittite language, as I have learned).
I'm only a little dissapointed that you generalise - 'cos some fraction of percent of straight guys hate homosexuals and is willing to hurt them, it doesn't mean that we're all like that. But, I'm not gay so I'm in no position to judge, maybe if we switched places I would be the same.
You didn't show much tolerance to other people's points of view in this discussion, did you? That's an interesting way of spreading tolerance...

[Octoberist]

it's crazy around here :p

[Almighty Pejo]

Forgoing the huge discussion, I'll focus in on one point. Hotaru, your example with switching Storm and Mystique had a flaw in it that I think you neglected to see. When you later said that if you were to switch places with a gay man, perhaps you would be the same; that is to say, not be you anymore, but be a different type of you, who makes different choices, faces different obstacles, and becomes a different person. This acknowledges an x factor. You also said you would like to see why these women are the way they are and have chosen to fight on the side they have chosen, but there is one obvious characteristic which defines them that is being overlooked, particularly in the case of Mystique. Mutation manifests at puberty. For 11-13 years, Storm was a beautiful black girl with silvering hair. She was teased for it, harrassed for it, but ultimately, she came through it okay. For 11-13 years, Mystique was a scaly blue lizard with red hair. Since there is no reason to believe that she didin't always look the way she looks, can you even begin to imagine the degree of abuse this little girl must have suffered? This isn't just having an abnormal hair coloring. That detail alone can explain why the blue chameleon would seek a path of vengeance, and the pretty silvertop might choose a more peaceful path. Just an observation to think about.

I'll leave all the heavy stuff to the heavy hitters, but I would very much have liked to see Bryan Singer finish the franchise he started. He had his flaws, as all do, but as far as comic book adaptations go, I felt he captured more of what really mattered, even if he lost something in translation. Hopefully (they've put it off twice now :(), we'll get to see what Bryan Singer would really do with the X-Men, unlimited, in Ultimate X-Men. Whereas film has many limitations, there isn't anything you can't do in a comic book.

[Lightning Strykez!]

You're right. This argument is pointless, as we're clearly not convincing one another.



There's a specific reason why I pulled out of this argument 2 days ago...it's good to see you've finally realized it.

Debates are only truly successful if there is concession of points on both sides when applicable.

[Angry Sentinel]

Well, I'll add my last comments...

Guard: I read your posts, and I still dont agree that I "missed" these fundamental aspects that you claim are vividly there. I think they are... as Xmaniac would say... "Fuzzy" at best(In other words, you seem to read more into it than I do... not that I "need" more illustration, just that I think it was needed for this character in this story). But as long as we agree that it wasnt what it should've/ could've been, I'll let it go with that. And my post actually says that .. you "almost insinuate". I was just checking to be sure that you hadnt totally lost your mind with the little joke you made with Bosef about backstories.

To everyone else: It wasnt a total waste, at least we all know that we disagree...lol

[Canadian-beauty]

Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

[bosef982]

Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

Okay, so, if you didn't like Catwoman, you didn't like it because you were riding on other people's opinions? You couldn't have been say...totally turned of by the bastardization of the character, shoddy plot, incoherent plotline, bad acting, and ridiculous situations?

No, you're just riding the backs of critics.

**shakes head for the 104th time today**

[bosef982]

Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. So...

[bosef982]

Personally, I am glad Halle has a larger role in X3. Because, I have always felt that her character got short changed in both of the X- movies. Also, I can careless about all of the arguements over her acting abilities. I have seen all of Halle's movies except for Monster's Ball ( I did not like the concept of the movie). However, I think Halle's acting ablilites are just as good as any of the other females in the x-men movies. And I happen to disagree with the critics and other peoples opinion when it comes to Catwoman. Meaning I do not form an opinion based on something that I had read or someone else's opinion. I base all of my opinions on the movies that I have seen and not just heard about second hand.

Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her. Which, I am kinda baffled about b/c I had never heard any actors that have acted with her complain about her. The only person I have ever heard or read had any problems with her is Brian Singer. Which leads me to believe that he has or may have an personal problem with her that has nothing to do with her acting skills.

So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. And as far as I know, it wasn't Singer who told Halle to "kiss his big black ass" -- profesionalism all the way there, and class.

So...

[DarthRekal]

So a director couldn't have problems with an actress due TO her acting abilities? No, that'd be preposterous.

**105th shaking of the head***

Oh, btw, apparently, Halle Berry and Alan Cumming did not get along at all. And as far as I know, it wasn't Singer who told Halle to "kiss his big black ass" -- profesionalism all the way there, and class.

So...

actors and directors both have ego's..its the KOBE vs SHAQ argument we really cant prove anything..

and if HALLE told me that..you bet i'd be puckering up a half millisecond afterward:)

[X-Maniac]

All we've managed to achieve here, aside from some stimulating debate, is a loose agreement that some characters were more clearly, obviously defined, some had backstories, some were given 'cause and effect' motivations. Others weren't.

The fact that we have gone through 16 pages of debate - and remember we are all X-Men fans and not general members of the public who were unfamiliar with these characters before - is indicative (to me at least) that some things in the movie are less clearly defined and open to interpretation.

Some see it as Singer-hating (which it certainly is not, in my case), some have an anti-Halle agenda behind their views, but unless and until Singer and the writers spell out what they were intending, what they wanted to show, why they did what they did, there are things that are open to interpretation and that have to be deduced by reading between the lines.

[The Guard]

You were not trying hard enough. Now, let me help you.
Trying hard enough to do what?
We leave background of these two characters (Mystique and Storm) the same - one of them was being oppressed at school because of her looks, the other was being thrown rocks at when her had powers manifested. Both grew feelings of anger and fear towards humans, who were doing them wrong.
At no point in the X-Men movies does anyone say that Mystique's only motivation is being made fun of, or that Storm's motivation is having rocks being thrown at her.
Mystique being at Xavier's, teaching young mutants in a school she hated so much as a child (what an irony, and I mean school in general, not Xavier's in particular). Imagine her joining Cyclops, Wolverine and Jean to fight off the villain Magneto.
Now imagine Storm being by Magneto's side. She's angry, she wants to get her revange on humans. Not by just killing them all, that would be too easy - let's turn them all into mutants, that would be like killing two birds with one rock.
What's your point? That if you completely change a good character into an evil one she becomes evil? Duh. You asked me why that didn't happen, and I told you. Because one chose the good path and chose to follow the peacemaker, and one chose the evil path and chose to follow the warbringer.
Imagine Mystique giving lecture about history to her pupils in the museum. Imagine her being sent to get Nightcrawler, getting a bond with him, as they look so similar. Imagine the "because we shouldn't have to" conversation between the two - that would make so much more sense! Mystique being with Xavier 'cos she belives she shouldn't have to be hiding in a school. Imagine her going to young students' rescue.
So, you want to just...plug Mystique into Storm's role? You realize Mystique, as a character, is not an all around good person, right? And Storm is not a person who enjoys making people suffer for no good reason. This is like going "Hell, if we plug Ghandi's characterization into Hitler, and Hitler's into Ghandi, Hitler becomes a good guy and Ghandi becomes a mass murderer!
Now imagine Storm growing more irritated by her another failure in X1. She just wants to kill of humans, they're no even good enough to become mutants, her brothers. Imagine her fight along Magneto to achive that.
Storm wouldn't want that, though. The fact that we see her making a clear choice to do good in X-MEN and rejecting Magneto's way proves that. I don't want to "imagine" something just for the hell of it. In order for them to switch roles, their characters would have be completely morally rewritten.

Now, in this setting, it makes sense!!!
What in the blue hell is your point?
I didn't change their background, neither their present feelings, they've just switched places.
No, you didn't change their background, nor their feelings. What you did do was CHANGE THEIR ENTIRE MORAL CHARACTERIZATION AND MOTIVATIONS.
And it fits!
Yes, if we FORGET that Storm is clearly desiring to do GOOD while Mystique just wants to lash out at those who harmed her. I mean, if we write a Batman story where he becomes a serial rapist, he and serial rapist characters could switch places. Is that line of logic supposed to impress anyone?
Now, of course some changes would have to be made in the script as far as the use of their powers in concerned, but that's really just secondary.
You have no idea how writing works, do you?

You use an argument, that one can't compare the two 'cos of what their present actions are.
No, if you paid any attention to my actual argument, you would have seen that I said you can't compare the two because of their different MORAL CHOICES.
If they switched places - Storm would be a villain, Mystique a good guy. Mind you, only present actions would indicate that.
Except that they'd also have to switch MORAL BACKGROUNDS and MORAL CHARACTERIZATIONS. See my Batman/Serial Rapist example.

What I would like to see is what made them choose the path they have chosen? Why two similar people decided to go two opposite ways?
I already told you. MORAL CHOICES. Storm chose to heal. Mystique chose to harm. Why? This is what their MENTORS likely taught them.
This is becoming moronic. It isn't language barriers, or perception differences, or cinematic variances. It's just getting stupid.
Agreed. That last post about Storm and Mystique really seems pointless.

The whole idea of Storm being some what lesser of an individual because she admits to sometimes hating humans is moronic. Such a comment does not contradict her nature as a legitimate movie character. Perhaps, no, she is not completely and utterly like her comic counterpart, but should she have to be?
Batman doesn't have to be. Superman doesn't have to be. Neither does Spider-Man. But Storm apparently does. Go figure.

Perhaps many of you are angered that Singer did not serve X-Men 1 and X2 to you with a spoon full of exposition and contrived plot points. However, if you look at the films, so much is alluded for those who wish to see it:
EXACTLY.

However, do I hate straight people sometimes? Yes. When I hear about Matthew Shepard, or my friend being strangled to death fro being gay, I get angry and I hate straight people. And I'm afraid of them. Yet, this only provides me with more REASON and more MOTIVATION to educate and to tolerate.
THERE it is. I don't know a human being on the planet who doesn't get angry and scared over the things that happen to them and in the world sometimes. Some people use it to hurt others. Some people use it to help others. Stormn is clearly the second. Which is why I value the anger/fear shown in her character in these films. She doesn't just happen to be a good person. She's a good person who had to overcome obstacles, and does every day of her life. She has clearly gone through a lot and risen above it to become a true hero.
Guard: I read your posts, and I still dont agree that I "missed" these fundamental aspects that you claim are vividly there.
You know, it shouldn't, but this kind of thing upsets me. I give you a concrete example in response to your query, not something I interpreted, something concrete, and you say "Well, I disagree, because my opinion differs from yours". But these are not matters of opinion. They are literary devices that denote leadership in a character. So could you please be a bit more specific about why you still disagree with me? Because like I said, I listed concrete examples of things he does in the films that indicate both leadership qualities and a leadership role as a character. Care to respond to each concrete example I gave with something that says "This is why this isn't a leadershup quality or characteristic"? I fully acknowledge that some of my examples were interpretations.But some of them weren't. Such as "He leads the X-Men onto Liberty Island, leads them inside, and is first up the stairs inside Liberty. He is the only one giving direct strategic orders". Can you dispute this? No? You can't? One wonders why.
Oh. Because I provided concrete examples of what happens in the film that clearly indicate leadership qualities and a leadership role. And it's hard to argue/dispute concrete examples, isn't it? "Fuzzy", my ass.
I think they are... as Xmaniac would say... "Fuzzy" at best(In other words, you seem to read more into it than I do... not that I "need" more illustration, just that I think it was needed for this character in this story).
My friend, how the bloody hell can someone "read into" seeing a man PLANNING STRATEGY and ACTIVELY AND PHYSICALLY LEADING HIS TEAM INTO BATTLE?
But as long as we agree that it wasnt what it should've/ could've been, I'll let it go with that.
I won't, though. To hell with that. I've had enough of this evasive nonsense to last me a lifetime. You want to cling to your opinions about whether he was done right, fine. But face up to the damn facts: While the X-Men films may not have portrayed Cyclops the exact way you wanted him, they did portray him as a leader. It's RIGHT THERE in concrete on screen. LITERARY DEVICES that make it obvious he's the leader of the X-Men. However, since your answer to that appears to be "no comment".
Futhermore, I think the only reason why so many people choose to complain about her is that they just don't like her.
What a profound statement. That's generally why people complain about things, yes. BTW, I heard that THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD was terrible. Anyone catch it? In closing, I guess we'll see in X3 who was more to blame for Storm's "weak" personality in X-MEN and X2, Halle or Singer. Because if she does the same thing in X3, you can bet it wasn't Singer.

[narrows101]

How about this for gossip? NY Post, Page Six (a gossip column). It's basically about Superman, but X-Men and Bryan are mentioned.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

IT'S a bird, it's a plane — it's superbulge!


"Superman Returns" star Brandon Routh is supposedly giving the suits at Warner Brothers fits because of his prodigious package of masculinity. The 26-year-old beefcake's extra-large endowment is said to be so distracting through his skin-tight costume that producers may have to shrink him during post-production.

"It's a major issue for the studio," a "Superman Returns" production source fretted to the London Sun. "Brandon is extremely well-endowed and they don't want it up on the big screen. We may be forced to erase his package with digital effects."

Routh's overstuffed basket must be steaming up the camera lens of openly gay, boy-crazy director Bryan Singer. The horny helmer — who reportedly pushed for Routh over the studio's choice, Jim Caviezel — has a history of frisky behavior with hunky young actors.

Singer cast unknown hunk Alex Burton as Pyro in "X-Men" after the pair had a hot tub session at a Hollywood party, reports radarmagazine.com. Burton has not appeared in a single movie since "X-Men."

Following the filming of Singer's "Apt Pupil" several years ago, a number of young male extras on the movie filed lawsuits claiming they had been bullied into stripping naked for a shower scene, and that Singer had held private screenings of the soapy footage at his home.

None of the lawsuits ever went anywhere.

Reps for Singer and Warner Bros. declined comment yesterday, but Simon Halls, a publicist for Routh (rhymes with "mouth"), told PAGE SIX the "super package" rumor is "completely without merit" — before adding mischievously, "I suspect that everyone at Warner Bros. is happy with everything Brandon Routh brings to the role."

Halls also said Singer has been "totally professional" with Routh, who has a longtime girlfriend.

"Bryan Singer is one of the best directors out there," Halls said. "People are just creating all kinds of crazy items about a movie that is going to be a huge, huge movie next summer." Huge indeed!

[ljr]

Ok so singer is a pervert.

[weapon-x]

You're right. This argument is pointless, as we're clearly not convincing one another.

the purpose of a debate isn't really to convince someone that you are right, and to make someone see that they are in the wrong. surely it's an exchange of ideas and opinions where maybe a grey area of understanding cab be made, this doesn't mean that everyone ends up agreeing.

[Angry Sentinel]

*shakes head* this is just sad.. you dont even care about expression... your just in it to lambast and conform.

Quote:
Guard: I read your posts, and I still dont agree that I "missed" these fundamental aspects that you claim are vividly there.
You know, it shouldn't, but this kind of thing upsets me. I give you a concrete example in response to your query, not something I interpreted, something concrete, and you say "Well, I disagree, because my opinion differs from yours". But these are not matters of opinion. They are literary devices that denote leadership in a character. So could you please be a bit more specific about why you still disagree with me? Because like I said, I listed concrete examples of things he does in the films that indicate both leadership qualities and a leadership role as a character. Care to respond to each concrete example I gave with something that says "This is why this isn't a leadershup quality or characteristic"? I fully acknowledge that some of my examples were interpretations.But some of them weren't. Such as "He leads the X-Men onto Liberty Island, leads them inside, and is first up the stairs inside Liberty. He is the only one giving direct strategic orders". Can you dispute this? No? You can't? One wonders why.
Oh. Because I provided concrete examples of what happens in the film that clearly indicate leadership qualities and a leadership role. And it's hard to argue/dispute concrete examples, isn't it? "Fuzzy", my ass.
Quote:
I think they are... as Xmaniac would say... "Fuzzy" at best(In other words, you seem to read more into it than I do... not that I "need" more illustration, just that I think it was needed for this character in this story).

My friend, how the bloody hell can someone "read into" seeing a man PLANNING STRATEGY and ACTIVELY AND PHYSICALLY LEADING HIS TEAM INTO BATTLE?

You want to cling to your opinions about whether he was done right, fine. But face up to the damn facts: While the X-Men films may not have portrayed Cyclops the exact way you wanted him, they did portray him as a leader. It's RIGHT THERE in concrete on screen. LITERARY DEVICES that make it obvious he's the leader of the X-Men. However, since your answer to that appears to be "no comment".
You want a fight, fine, you got one!!!

First: RE"GUARD"ING, your first reply about not repsonding to your "Cyclops" posts... THAT WASNT ME YOU NUT!!! I didnt post that "I had missed it 30 times and I was awaiting your sarcastic response"... that was posted by RedIsNotBlue. So before you go blasting off at one poster get your EGO out of your arse and actually pay attention to whom your responding to.

Secondly: Even though I was involved in this conversation mostly to contest the Storm characterization; I wholeheartedly do not agree with your post (about Cyclops) and I will be happy to respond to it point by point (although I know this is all you really want and could care less who responds just as long as someone does, I'll ablige you, this time).

See My RESPONSE on my next post...

[Angry Sentinel]

Here is what you reponded to for 'RedIsNotBlue', but since you called me out for it, I'll be happy to step up (note how I use your name, to avoid confusion and establish that I actually give a rat's arse who I'm talking to).

-Who does Xavier send out on important missions? Cyclops and Storm. They are clearly leadership figures. The first time we see Cyclops, he is in what could be termed a very tense situation. Does he panic? Does he rush himself? Hell no. He is cool as a cucumber, and there's not a wasted movement in his actions. Without a word, he steps in front of Storm (this is significant). He takes care of rescuing Rogue and Logan from the camper quickly and efficiently, and also precisely. This is one of the hallmarks of a leader, the ability to be cool in a crisis, to think strategically and efficiently. It is also one of Cyclops' comic book trademarks.MISSIONS... in the plural??? Why would you use the plural for a word when you only elaborated ONE, and the FIRST one at that?? Mind you, who the hell was he supposed to send, SANTA CLAUSE??? Because he sure as hell had sooo many Xmen to send on missions??!! He sent Storm and Cyclops of THREE XMEN at that time (X1 only revealed 3 characters that were officially Xmen at that moment). This sounds to me more like Xavier picking two of the three Xmen competent field agents, not ESTABLISHED LEADERS, NOR ANY TYPE OF TEAM (And we later know why Jean wasnt there, Xavier explains that Jean was not that type of Xman... that she wasnt the person to step out on her own, so why would he send her to do field work). So to me this is just you grabbing straws and creating something YOU want to see out of it.


-When Cyclops is introduced to Logan, he politely extends his hand. When Logan doesn't take it, he remains polite, and also humble when Xavier talks about how he saved Logan's life. Politeness is a leadership quality, as pretty much any employer will tell you. When Logan "threatens him" physically, Cyclops doesn't appear the least bit rattled, or intimidated. Another leadership quality.
1) Who are you trying to convince.. YOURSELF??? The last time I checked Politeness is an Ummm PEOPLE SKILL!! It's what the human's call a good way of dealing with people... in any situation. That is whether your a leader of a nation, or a street sweeper, or garbage collector. Where I'm from, being polite is just a great way of expressing your a GOOD HUMAN BEING. I know plenty of good leaders that WEREN'T Polite, but they could lead people any day of the week. Nice try though, keep those perception skills on super imaginitive mode. 2)A moment of stoicism I will not argue with you, but this is more towards cyclpos actual character than portrayal of a leader in a story... A leader bends people to his will, whether by force or by charm... he can make ANYONE respect (if nothing else his leadership ability). This would have been a great way to establish Cyke as a leader. :rolleyes:And we all know how well the movie displayed Wolverine's RESPECT for cyke's leadership.

-Xavier talks about how Cyclops was one of his first students, and how he now helps students at the X-Mansion. Mentoring is a leadership quality. We see Cyclops and Jean practicing, refining their powers. Clearly they want to become more skilled, and keep sharp. This is another leadership quality. 1) Finally you post something worthy of being considered leadership quality. But even with Xavier's dialouge, we are distracted with images of STORM, JEAN, BOBBY, and OTHER KIDS. Where is the scene of this great and awesome leader actually doing something? Showing a kid how to fix a bike? Fixing something? ANYTHING??? Nope just a quick blurb and we're supposed to go "YES CYKE IS A GREAT LEADER AND I WANT HIM TO LEAD ME INTO BATTLE"!! :rolleyes:No wonder Wolverine immediately ran off to find him and join up! 2)Dear lord, you certainly are trying hard arent you? Or, we could interpret this as two STUDENTS studying to be good Xmen some day, Kinda like we're gonna see in X3 with all those new students... ARE THEY GREAT LEADERS TOO GUARD, SHOULD WE KNOW THIS JUST FROM THEIR DANGER ROOM SCENES????

-In the train station, Cyclops is waiting for Storm, and hears breaking glass. The second he does, he turns. He rushes to her aide, taking care not to attract too much attention to himself. This fast reaction? You guessed it. A leadership quality.
I really hope others read this so they can tell the difference between a well established character role and someone TRYING their best to read something into a story role. Yes, Guard good leaders react quickly and instinctly... so do good warriors... or is everyone on the battlefield in a story supposed to be interpreted as A GOOD leader. Besides I dont know if you really can determine that he reacted so swiftly considering the bad guy reacted a bit faster by swiping his goggles. And we all know what a great leader TOAD is!

-It is Cyclops who figures out why Magneto wants Rogue. Wolverine voices the beginnings of Cyclops' complete thought, but it's clearly Cyclops who comes up with the idea. Thinking outside the box: leadership quality.
BUZZ, BUZZZ, BUZZZ.. Do I even have to comment on this one? Oh my, this great leader needs the 'Bret Butler' of the story to think for him first, before he can get himself together. What was it you were saying about quick reactions. I suppose I should give him credit for actually finishing his sentence. But are you really telling me this is an effective way to portray a GREAT leader like Cyclops? Having him finish someone else's sentences???? Again... whose arguement are you making here?

-When Xavier is in a coma, what does Cyclops say to him? "If anything happens, I'll take care of them". Cyclops expresses obvious concern for his mentor and expresses a desire to care for the X-Men and the students of the school. This desire to protect and guide others is also a hallmark of a leader.
You even knew your arguement was weak, didnt you. That's why your trying to save the best ones for last. Good tactic, shows you have some strategic and competitive skills... unfortunately that's more than I can say for the Cyclops portrayal. Good point, BUT you're forgetting that the movie did actually manage to establish Cyclops as a SON, and Xavier as his father figure. So couldnt the audience interpret this as a good SON doing the WILL of his FATHER? In fact, wouldnt that be more likely to happen than them actually saying ..."Wow only a good LEADER would go to his daddy and offer to take up the reigns in time of despair"... Yeah, take a poll and see which one is a more vivid and complete thought expressed by this moment.

-Cyclops attempts to keep Wolverine from going along with the X-Men, and for good reason. Wolverine, to that point, has been reckless and voilatile. A leader has to be on the lookout for these kinds of situations. *yawns* BORED NOW!!!
Again Guard, at this point the audience had been baited ...by the storytelling mind you... to believe he was actually just acting as a jealous arse, more than making a sound Leadership decision. One, if I'm not mistaken, was further driven home by having his request IGNORED, by his mentor and teammates. I dont care who you are, as a reader or viewer of a story, THAT does not bode well. Keep going, though, your actually making my arguement easy for me!

-Cyclops plans and explains the strategy for the X-Men's approach to Liberty Island. "We can insert here at the George Washington Bridge. Come around the bank, just off of Manhattan, we land on the far side of Liberty Island...here." He has planned the mission. He is the leader. Cyclops also pilots the jet. Clearly in charge. During the flight, he says "Storm, some cover, please" A strategic order, and one that makes good sense in order to camoflauge their approach. One imagines that the ability to fly a supersonic jet well might be considered a leadership skill.
Yup, I wont dispute this one, It is a clear moment in the movie where Cyclops can finally stand out as the guy in charge. The guy that everyone repects and will follow on this dangerous mission. The person responsible for mission failure or completion. The guy that... BELLY FLOPS THE PLANE!!! UGGGGHHH, and who is right there to smirk at him once again(I thought Wolverine hated to fly, why is he up front)? CONSTANT UNDERMINING A CHARACTER WITH HUMOR OFTENS SENDS A DIRECT MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE! Want to know what that message is Guard? You guessed it... clown, noob, joke, jester, side-kick!! This is also an affective tool in storytelling and it usually works like a charm. But one still wonders why EVERYONE got the perception sooooo lopsidedly wrong, except for super perceptory Guard of course.

-On Liberty Island, who leads them up over the wall? Cyclops. Who is the one to spot that the torch houses the machine? Cyclops. Who leads them forward into the statue? Cyclops. Cyclops is also leading when they are inside the statue.-
Exerpts from one LOOKING to find what one wants to see. I could do this same thing with a Nike commercial and effectively argue that SPike Lee was the star of the 'Mars Blackmon' Nike run instead of MICHAEL JORDAN. But instead... WOLVERINE fights the ...UUUUM TWO decisive battles. Wolverine resolves the danger by neutralizing the two most powerful threats to the TEAM. WOLVERINE clearly Leads the team in the right direction after ALL three of them struggle to beat ONE foe. Cyclops is too pre-occupied being blind, Cyclops is too pre-occupied with his 'girlfriend's welfare. And who is it that finally defeats Toad??? STORM!!!... We could do this all day. But most importantly, these scenes in the movie are EASILY open for ANY audience to interpret and cast Cyke as just another member of the team.

-When the door closes on the X-Men, Cyclops doesn't take long to decide to blow it open. "All right back up, back up". Another strategic order.
Right, cause Jean at that point, could...ooh wait she hadnt decided to be Phoenix yet. Storm...well Storm cant "control it like that". And Wolverine could just... as Magneto would say... "scratch it with his claws". Again really effective usage of powers in a superhero movie. But to just insto-taneously get the impression (remember that most of the audience doesnt know who the Xmen are) that this character is the leader because he uses his CONCUSSION BLAST ABILITY to blast a door open... keep reaching, digging, grasping, maybe you'll get those straws one day :up:

-Cyclops comes across another situation that requires quick thinking when he has to break Jean out of that slime via his visor. He tries to get it off without resorting to using his visor, first. Whhen he has to do so, he stays calm and collected, and is precise with his power usage. As Storm confronts Toad, Cyclops seems to be providing Jean with some kind of medical care.
:confused: OR, "Mr. Spin Doctor", any NORMAL audience might have seen the "Boyfriend" coming to his girlfriend's aide, completely ignoring the fact that an immediate threat needed to be nuetralized. Yeah, that's the guy I want next to me in battle...the one that will take care of his SPASTIC Girlfriend who is wigging out cuase she's been disoriented, not hurt, disoriented! Meanwhile I'm getting my arse blown off... YOU DA BEST CYCLOPS :(

-Knowing Mystique was in there, Cyclops demands Wolverine prove that he's the real Wolverine. Taking no chances.

-Ascending the stairs of Liberty, it is again Cyclops who takes the lead.
OR!! (I'm getting so tired of this) He could just not be A MORON! and be actually thinking in battle, unlike that last scene you were just describing... when he made an emotional decision instead of a tactical one.... Maybe he would know who Wolverine was if he was paying better attention.

-With his visor gone and Wolverine incapacitated, Cyclops realizes their chances to stop Magneto are now limited. He acts quickly. "Storm. Fry him." Almost no hesitation. A direct order. Was it the right decision? Who knows. Had Storm fried Magneto, while the X-Men might have died or suffered injury, Magneto would not have been able to power the machine, and the day would have been saved, even if the X-Men died. Regardless, Cyclops is again giving orders here.

-After being freed, Cyclops refuses Wolverine's ideas about just shooting the machine because it could kill Rogue. He seeks an alternative plan, readily offering himself. "Storm, can you get me up there?" When Wolverine offers to go and let Cyclops hang back for one last shot, Cyclops takes a grsnd total of about a second and a half to make the call. "All right, do it." An order. He also tells Jean to use her own power to try to steady Wolverine on his way up.
Good for you.. you finally get to the point where Cyclops actually makes team decisions, gives orders, and commands this team and mission. And it only took you 13 useless points. He didnt refuse anything, he just realized it was a bad plan... great mind and best single leadership portrayal in the WHOLE MOVIE:eek: (this actually saddens me, but I tried to write-it off as as the story and character progression)! But again you're "spin doctoring". We cant let good ole Cyke have his moment alone can we... cause our focal point character would have been useless then wouldnt he! So ultimately, Wolverine comes up with the final plan doesnt he. And it is a good one. TOO bad poor Cyke hadnt figured that all out on his own, but at least he was in on the decision making. I LOVE
DEMOCRACY! Face it Guard, this did more in the way of portraying good teamwork, than it did elevating Cyclops to great leadership status.

-Despite Jean's urging to wait, It is Cyclops who makes the call on his own to take out Magneto via optic blast. "I have a shot. I'm taking him." The ability to make your own split second decisions in a crisis is another hallmark of leadership.

-That's in X-MEN. In X2, who does Xavier trust to take him to Magneto? Cyclops. Cyclops is clearly his number one guy.
1) OR!!! we could see the good soldier following the plan as laid out. Wasnt that the plan Guard? Take the shot if I dont get it done in time? I'm not saying it wasnt a good decision but at that point it was already established that he was the failsafe. It would have been really sad had he not come through as the secondary role. 2)By X2, we definitely get more of this "progression" feeling. But again, considering Wolverine opted NOT to join the team cause he had personal issues, isnt the question still left in the audiences minds? Was Scotty the choice? Did Xavier really even choose, or was it a default situation? Not to even mention the whole Father/Son thing that was probably even more underlined by these scenes.


-At the end of X2, "No! We're not leaving! Lower the ramp!" More orders. This is coming from a man accustomed to giving them.
Now, they may not have portrayed him as the particular KIND of leader you wanted to see. But to say he was not clearly established as a leader with leadership qualities is absurd. So, once again, WHY do you think he hasn't been shown as a leader? Specific examples, please. Not "Because that's how I feel". WHY do you feel that way?
I'm not really going to go into X2 since, Cyclops just got a good cameo in that one. That just wouldnt be fair to you...

But since you brought this up, I think we covered this around point 8, or 9... Open the doors, flood the plane, killing us all, and get my DEAD GIRLFRIEND. Because I would rather die and sacrifice ALL of you rather than be a good leader and make sure the team is safe first of all and secondly honoring her decision.

Did you really post this as a great decision by a great leader in a great story or are you secretly trying to knock these movies.

You may be right after all... I think they did establish somethings about movie cyclops leadership skills... THAT NO ONE SHOULD WANT HIM TO LEAD THEM!... Especially if his WOMAN is involved, he just cant seem to keep 'him' head on straight in that matter can he?

[bosef982]

Damn, you don't piss a Sentinel off.

[Angry Sentinel]

^ he he... You saw what he did, although I do really think it may have been intentional.

[The Guard]

First: RE"GUARD"ING, your first reply about not repsonding to your "Cyclops" posts... THAT WASNT ME YOU NUT!!! I didnt post that "I had missed it 30 times and I was awaiting your sarcastic response"... that was posted by RedIsNotBlue. So before you go blasting off at one poster get your EGO out of your arse and actually pay attention to whom your responding to.

Sorry. Really, though, it doesn't matter if it was you or not. Because I believe you did, in the end, refer to all my examples as "fuzzy", a point I disagree highly with, whether your or RedIsBlue says it. You were generalizing, but still, there are examples in there that are anything but fuzzy, and clearly designed by the writers and director to show who was the leader in X-MEN, and who Xavier trusted the most with his own safety.

MISSIONS... in the plural??? Why would you use the plural for a word when you only elaborated ONE, and the FIRST one at that??

Because Cyclops goes on three missions in X-Men. And I didn't only elaborate on one, I elaborated on all three. I only elaborated heavily on the final mission because A, it was longer than the other two, giving us a better idea of his leadership qualities, and because he only leads the entire team in one mission in the films. Since leading a group of people denotes leadership...I'll let you figure it out.

Mind you, who the hell was he supposed to send, SANTA CLAUSE??? Because he sure as hell had sooo many Xmen to send on missions??!!

He has a woman who can control the weather and call down lightning almost at a whim. He has a fairly powerful telepath. He sent Storm and Jean, not Cyclops, when he needed to retrieve a mutant assassin. Obviously he believes they're capable enough. None of the X-Men were portrayed as incapable. All of them were shown to be capable, but out of the three, Cyclops is clearly the one who is best at strategy and thinking quickly in these films.

How is your wonderful new argument point even relevant to the discussion, which was about whether or not Cyclops was the leader? "Cyclops is only the leader because he was the best of the three"? We're not arguing about WHY he was the leader, we're arguing if he was or not. If we're going to argue about WHY he's the leader, that's a seperate argument. But you won't defeat my argument that he WAS the leader by submitting a completely seperate one that calls the reasons he is into doubt. George Bush is our President. The reasons for it suck, and I do not feel he deserves the position. But he is still, undoubtedly, our President.

He sent Storm and Cyclops of THREE XMEN at that time (X1 only revealed 3 characters that were officially Xmen at that moment).

So? Whether he's the leader of three, or the leader out of a hundred, he's still the leader. It's still Cyclops showing the leadership qualities. Calling the shots. Leading them into battle. I don't care how many people one leads. That does not decide whether or not they ARE a leader in the first place.

This sounds to me more like Xavier picking two of the three Xmen competent field agents, not ESTABLISHED LEADERS, NOR ANY TYPE OF TEAM.

Odd that he always picks the same two, isn't it? And that it is Cyclops who ends up making all those important decisions and moves.

It only takes two people to make a team. This isn't sports (where you can also have a two person team in certain sports). Anywhere teamwork is happening, you have a team. And we teamwork between Cyclops and Storm, therefore, they are indeed a team.

(And we later know why Jean wasnt there, Xavier explains that Jean was not that type of Xman... that she wasnt the person to step out on her own, so why would he send her to do field work).

He doesn't send her to do field work because Cyclops and Storm are his heavy hitters, and Jean is not so much into the battling side of things. Her powers, at least in X-MEN and X2, don't lend themselves to offensive work.

So to me this is just you grabbing straws and creating something YOU want to see out of it.

And you completely ignoring the original argument to begin with in your response and seeking out subarguments that are completely out of context.

Regardless of why you think he should or shouldn't have been...Cyclops was portrayed as the field leader in X-MEN.

1) Who are you trying to convince.. YOURSELF??? The last time I checked Politeness is an Ummm PEOPLE SKILL!! It's what the human's call a good way of dealing with people... in any situation.

That's the company line. That is NOT reflected throughout most of humanity. Generally people cannot just stand there and be polite when attacked. And politeness is hardly my best example. It's just one trait of many that indicate Scott is a good leader.

That is whether your a leader of a nation, or a street sweeper, or garbage collector.

I didn't say politeness denoted leadership in the film. I said it was a leadership QUALITY. And it is. Ask the average store manager if "people skills" as you call it is a leadership quality.

Where I'm from, being polite is just a great way of expressing your a GOOD HUMAN BEING. I know plenty of good leaders that WEREN'T Polite, but they could lead people any day of the week.

It's still a leadership quality.

2)A moment of stoicism I will not argue with you, but this is more towards cyclpos actual character than portrayal of a leader in a story...

I never said it was. These are leadership traits. Which a leader character MUST have in order to be a leader, correct? And this is one of the things they got right about Cyclops, isn't it? Again, this is hardly my best example of Cyclops as a leader in the story, and I said that when I originally posted it. It can easily be interpreted as a leadership quality for the X-Men, though.

A leader bends people to his will, whether by force or by charm... he can make ANYONE respect (if nothing else his leadership ability). This would have been a great way.

What? Force? No, it wouldn't have been a great way. Not in this particular scene, especially since they have just met. There'd be no weight to the sequence. Something like that makes both Wolverine and Cyclops just a TAD too childish. And cinematically, it destroys the pacing of the scene to have them suddenly scrap.

to establish Cyke as a leader. No wonder Wolverine immediately ran off to find him and join up! 2)Dear lord, you certainly are trying hard arent you? Or, we could interpret this as two STUDENTS studying to be good Xmen some day, Kinda like we're gonna see in X3 with all those new students... ARE THEY GREAT LEADERS TOO GUARD, SHOULD WE KNOW THIS JUST FROM THEIR DANGER ROOM SCENES????

The X-Men, even the younger ones, have always been shown to have leadership qualities. If we see them LEAD people, then YES, they will be leaders, too. We saw hints of this in Colossus's actions in X2. And in some ways, in some of Bobby and Rouge's actions.

Yes, Guard good leaders react quickly and instinctly... so do good warriors... or is everyone on the battlefield in a story supposed to be interpreted as A GOOD leader. Besides I dont know if you really can determine that he reacted so swiftly considering the bad guy reacted a bit faster by swiping his goggles. And we all know what a great leader TOAD is!

How does the speed of Cyclops' reaction to Sabertooth's assault intersect with Toad *****slapping him? You seem to think I'm hinging my argument on one thing Cyclops does in this film. I'm simply saying, these are all qualities a good leader can have. These are all things that add up. And can easily be interpreted as the man being quite capable and quick thinking.

BUZZ, BUZZZ, BUZZZ.. Do I even have to comment on this one? Oh my, this great leader needs the 'Bret Butler' of the story to think for him first, before he can get himself together.

Cyclops wouldn't have said "Wait a minute" the way he did if he hadn't figured it out. The reason they all have a piece of the reveleation is so they all have a part in that scene, so it feels less like forced exposition.

What was it you were saying about quick reactions. I suppose I should give him credit for actually finishing his sentence. But are you really telling me this is an effective way to portray a GREAT leader like Cyclops? Having him finish someone else's sentences???? Again... whose arguement are you making here?

It's all the little things that add up to show who the man is and what he's capable of. Is it the best way to portray a great leader? No, probably not. But he may not be a great leader, especially not yet. The scene in question is an effective way to reveal a villain's plot by giving all four of those characters a bit of the "revelation". And I never said he was a great leader. I just said he was the leader.

You even knew your arguement was weak, didnt you.

It's not weak. I knew you'd try to hammer the hell out of my first few points, yes. And attempt to undermine my original point with subarguments that are completely unrelated to my own point.

That's why your trying to save the best ones for last. Good tactic, shows you have some strategic and competitive skills... unfortunately that's more than I can say for the Cyclops portrayal.

Except that his strategic skills were shown in the film. Several times.

Good point, BUT you're forgetting that the movie did actually manage to establish Cyclops as a SON, and Xavier as his father figure. So couldnt the audience interpret this as a good SON doing the WILL of his FATHER?

The audience can interpret it however they want. It can clearly be both (which doesn't negate the one aspect I pointed out). It's also in character for Cyclops. So hey, one more thing they got right.

Honestly, by your logic, apparently we can now say that since Batman helps Gotham City, a task his father began, that he's not saving Gotham because he's a good man on any level, but because it's his father's will? And it's only one thing? God forbid it's both.

In fact, wouldnt that be more likely to happen than them actually saying ..."Wow only a good LEADER would go to his daddy and offer to take up the reigns in time of despair"... Yeah, take a poll and see which one is a more vivid and complete thought expressed by this moment.

Cyclops says "if anything happens", not "I'm going to do it right now". And hey, shall we take a poll on whether it's one, the other, or both? Because it being "both" certainly doesn't negate one or the other, does it?

Again Guard, at this point the audience had been baited ...by the storytelling mind you... to believe he was actually just acting as a jealous arse, more than making a sound Leadership decision.

Question. Where, in X-MEN, do we actually see Cyclops "jealous"? Concerned about Wolverine being around Jean, maybe. "Jealous", no.

One, if I'm not mistaken, was further driven home by having his request IGNORED, by his mentor and teammates.

It was Xavier's call. Xavier is Cyclop's superior. So natually Xavier is going to have the final say. This is not a weak character moment, it's simply showing who really calls the shots about who is an X-Man: Xavier. Which is also in character, as it has been in the comics.

I dont care who you are, as a reader or viewer of a story, THAT does not bode well.

Doesn't bode well for what? Being the field leader of the X-Men? He's still the field leader, he's just not choosing his personnell (when has he ever had say over Xavier?) Are we pretending now that Xavier has never circumvented
Cyclops' authority before?

Yup, I wont dispute this one, It is a clear moment in the movie where Cyclops can finally stand out as the guy in charge.

Interesting. So you say he's clearly portrayed as the man in charge here, then?

The guy that everyone repects and will follow on this dangerous mission. The person responsible for mission failure or completion. The guy that... BELLY FLOPS THE PLANE!!!

Apparently you missed the part before he has a bit of a rough landing, where he flies a supersonic jet pretty expertly and efficiently, and strategically. The results of an action do not omit the meaning of the previous actions in context. It's not like he crashed. He's doing an almost purely vertical water landing. They're not easy. Look at how much trouble Rogue had landing it in X2, and that was on land, not water.

It's a supersonic jet, and he's landing it, much faster than usual landings occur and on the water. I think he can be forgiven for not landing it perfectly. It's just a humorous moment, and a way to show that he's not perfect. It also serves to relieve tension before the X-Man march into battle. A writing tool.

and who is right there to smirk at him once again(I thought Wolverine hated to fly, why is he up front)? CONSTANT UNDERMINING A CHARACTER WITH HUMOR OFTENS SENDS A DIRECT MESSAGE TO THE AUDIENCE! Want to know what that message is Guard? You guessed it... clown, noob, joke, jester, side-kick!!

No, that is generally the message sent when a character does something really comical and stupid. Cyclops doesn't do any of these things in X-MEN, and definitely not any more than other characters do

"Hey look kid, I don't need advice on auto safety from-CRASHHH! HEY LOOK, KIDS! WOLVERINE'S A JESTER FIGURE! LAUGH AT THE FUNNY WOLVERINE!

I find it odd that you think Cyclops was portrayed as a clown, and yet he doesn't have too many of these "clown moments". And apparently his "non-clown" moments have no bearing on your decisions about how he was portrayed, or how people will view him.

Two, if you're so allfired concerned about the Wolverine/Cyclops stuff in regard to characterization and meaning, read an X-Men comic. Wolverine has almost ALWAYS ribbed Cyclops in this way. This is their relationship. It's almost spot-on how Wolverine treats Cyclops, and always has been this way. Early on, Wolverine always tried to make Cyke look bad, and Cyclops almost always let his actions do his talking for him. So, hey, look, ANOTHER thing the movies got right about Cyclops, AND Wolverine.

If audiences want to assume Cyclops is the movie's "jester", they're making an awful and uninformed interpretation. Because that's not how he's written, and that's not how he's played. And I don't think anyone with a shred of intelligence thought that was the intention in X-MEN. It's just a "character moment" between Cyclops and Wolverine.

This is also an affective tool in storytelling and it usually works like a charm. But one still wonders why EVERYONE got the perception sooooo lopsidedly wrong, except for super perceptory Guard of course.

Why did so many (it's not many, it's actually a relatively small number)?Because half the people on this board can't interpret films for ****, or think intelligently about concepts such as characterization and tone. Many people here are peons.

[The Guard]

Exerpts from one LOOKING to find what one wants to see.

Without looking, the average idiot can see Cyclops leading the X-Men. Because he's, you know, displaying the qualities onscreen one associates with someone leading people into battle, giving orders, etc.

I could do this same thing with a Nike commercial and effectively argue that SPike Lee was the star of the 'Mars Blackmon' Nike run instead of MICHAEL JORDAN.

What does that have to do with whether or not Cyclops was the leader in X-MEN or not?

But instead... WOLVERINE fights the ...UUUUM TWO decisive battles.

That's because Wolverine is the star of the film. I won't dispute that.
Wolverine is also clearly the cinematic "muscle" for the X-Men. He gets the hand-to-hand fights, at least so far. I won't deny that, either. However, he's not leading the X-Men. He helps them succeed, he shows some leadership qualities, but he does not ever come across as the leader.

"Decisive battles"? How do you figure? The only thing Wolverine's "battles" decide is that Wolverine does not die.

He's off on his own, fighting solo battles for his own sake. And in the end, he is not the one giving orders. He defers to Cyclops and lets Cyclops make the call. Granted, they essentially save the day together, which was nice to see.

Wolverine resolves the danger by neutralizing the two most powerful threats to the TEAM.

Uh huh. Except they never threaten the team, and he doesn't neutralize them both all by himself, does he?

Mystique never even threatens the X-Men, just Wolverine. He doesn't have a thing to do with Toad. Wolverine fights Mystique simply because he is singled out and attacked and she is a threat to him, not because she threatens the team particularly.

And frankly, he doesn't even defeat Sabertooth or Magneto's machine with any finality by himself, he needs Cyclops' assist for that both times.

WOLVERINE clearly Leads the team in the right direction after ALL three of them struggle to beat ONE foe..

Explain. I see Wolverine fighting Mystique solo. When the conflict between the X-Men and Toad and Mystique is over, I see Storm telling them "Hey" to show them where to go, and then Cyclops then going back into the lead, with everyone else following him and taking his orders. Wolverine obviously impacts the situation, and I won't deny it. But he is not the field leader in X-
MEN. Cyclops is.

Cyclops is too pre-occupied being blind, Cyclops is too pre-occupied with his 'girlfriend's welfare.

Cyclops not having his visor is a big deal. It's not a character weakness when a character like Toad sneak attacks you from across the room, where Cyclops can't possibly sense him, since he is heading toward Storm and Sabertooth. And you will recall, Wolverine doesn't do much in the train scene to help the X-Men but get his ass handed to him by Magneto. The whole point of that scene is that ALL the fighting capable X-Men (including Logan) are out of action for one reason or another, which is why the Xavier/Magneto confrontation works.

And Cyclops aiding Jean, who needed saved because she was effectively suffocating, and is then "injured", is hardly a character weakness, and is, once again, in character for Cyclops.

And who is it that finally defeats Toad??? STORM!!!...

So Storm defeats Toad. Whereas Cyclops only saves Wolverine's and Rogue's lives and defeats Sabertooth and Magneto. Wow. Look at the scales tip in Storm's favor.

We could do this all day. But most importantly, these scenes in the movie are EASILY open for ANY audience to interpret and cast Cyke as just another member of the team.

So he's just another member of the team and not the star of the movie. Except that it's Cyclops who comes up with the strategy for Liberty Island. Cyclops who flies them into battle. Cyclops who leads them into battle. Cyclops who makes all the important decisions that end up saving the day. He is not "just another member of the team" (none of them are, and even many of the camera shots chosen teamwise favor Cyclops, Singer knew he was the team leader), he's a central one. He is the leader.

Right, cause Jean at that point, could...ooh wait she hadnt decided to be Phoenix yet. Storm...well Storm cant "control it like that". And Wolverine could just... as Magneto would say... "scratch it with his claws". Again really effective usage of powers in a superhero movie.

My point is, it's another moment where he gives an order. Thinks quickly. It's a "leadership quality" moment.

But to just insto-taneously get the impression (remember that most of the audience doesnt know who the Xmen are) that this character is the leader because he uses his CONCUSSION BLAST ABILITY to blast a door open... keep reaching, digging.

I'm pretty sure most of the audience figured out Cyclops was the leader when he came up with the strategy for Liberty Island, flew the team into battle, led the team into battle, made all the important decisions, etc. Unless the audience was populated with idiots.

Keep grasping, maybe you'll get those straws one day OR, "Mr. Spin Doctor", any NORMAL audience might have seen the "Boyfriend" coming to his girlfriend's aide, completely ignoring the fact that an immediate threat needed to be nuetralized.

So, one should ignore fallen team members and loved ones in order to neutralize a threat that does not, in fact, pose an immediate threat?

Yeah, that's the guy I want next to me in battle...the one that will take care of his SPASTIC Girlfriend who is wigging out cuase she's been disoriented, not hurt, disoriented!

Cyclops choosing to aid Jean is in character.

Meanwhile I'm getting my arse blown off... YOU DA BEST CYCLOPS (this actually saddens me, but I tried to write-it off as as the story and character progression)! But again you're "spin doctoring".

How am I spin doctoring?

So ultimately, Wolverine comes up with the final plan doesnt he.

No. Actually he doesn't. It is Cyclops' plan to get someone up there. Wolverine only comes up with "I'll go instead of you".

Face it Guard, this did more in the way of portraying good teamwork, than it did elevating Cyclops to great leadership status.

Yes, it is a good teamwork moment, which is important. At what point did "leadership" become something you must do solo. And it is still, regardless of how many people had a hand in the plan, CYCLOPS' DECISION, by what we are shown onscreen. It is Cyclops who gives the ok, which would tend to mean that they (including Wolverine, who waits for Cyclops to decide, and doesn't say "Storm, do it.") respect his opinion above theirs, which would tend to mean he is, drumroll...their leader.

And again, I have never once implied "great leadership status".

1) OR!!! we could see the good soldier following the plan as laid out.

Except that he alters the plan and shoots Magneto instead of the machine.

Wasnt that the plan Guard? Take the shot if I dont get it done in time?

Yes. But Cyclops doesn't follow the plan. Wolverine's idea of the plan was to blast the machine if Wolverine failed. Cyclops alters it and hits Magneto instead. And how is following the plan they both came up with a bad thing or indicative of any lack of leadership on any level?

I'm not saying it wasnt a good decision but at that point it was already established that he was the failsafe. It would have been really sad had he not come through as the secondary role.

Whether he's the fail safe or not is irrelevant. It is Cyclops's decision that Wolverine be sent up, period. He makes the call. And his shot becomes far more than a failsafe. His shot allows Wolverine to act to stop the machine. They both end up being integral to saving the day, as it should be. Wolverine's idea is for Cyclops to "blast the damn thing" if he fails, indicating the MACHINE. Cyclops ends up blasting MAGNETO, not the machine, a move which allows the machine to be taken out without hurting Rogue. So he's not following Wolverine's thoughts at all.

2)By X2, we definitely get more of this "progression" feeling.

That Wolverine is becoming more of a leader? Or that Wolverine is overtaking Cyclops as the team leader?

But again, considering Wolverine opted NOT to join the team cause he had personal issues, isnt the question still left in the audiences minds?

What question? "Who is the true leader?" I doubt it. They have all displayed leadershp qualities over the course of this franchise. But I only see one actually giving orders that other people follow.

Was Scotty the choice?

Was he what choice? Xavier's choice for field leader?

Did Xavier really even choose, or was it a default situation? Not to even mention the whole Father/Son thing that was probably even more underlined by these scenes.

Undermined how? Xavier has many "surrogate children" characters. He's a mentor figure to many, not just Cyclops.

I'm not really going to go into X2 since, Cyclops just got a good cameo in that one. That just wouldnt be fair to you...

Nor would I attempt to say X2 nailed Cyclops status as team leader. It didn't. However, pretty much everyting we saw from him in that film was in character.

But since you brought this up, I think we covered this around point 8, or 9... Open the doors, flood the plane, killing us all, and get my DEAD GIRLFRIEND. Because I would rather die and sacrifice ALL of you rather than be a good leader and make sure the team is safe first of all and secondly honoring her decision.

I didn't realize opening the doors of a plane not surrounded by water would flood it. Odd.

I never said he was a perfect leader (no one in these films has been portrayed as nearly perfect, even Xavier). His actions at the end of X2 are extremely reckless. It's also in character for Cyclops to think of Jean above all else.

[Lightning Strykez!]

How about this for gossip? NY Post, Page Six (a gossip column). It's basically about Superman, but X-Men and Bryan are mentioned.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

IT'S a bird, it's a plane — it's superbulge!


"Superman Returns" star Brandon Routh is supposedly giving the suits at Warner Brothers fits because of his prodigious package of masculinity. The 26-year-old beefcake's extra-large endowment is said to be so distracting through his skin-tight costume that producers may have to shrink him during post-production.

"It's a major issue for the studio," a "Superman Returns" production source fretted to the London Sun. "Brandon is extremely well-endowed and they don't want it up on the big screen. We may be forced to erase his package with digital effects."

Routh's overstuffed basket must be steaming up the camera lens of openly gay, boy-crazy director Bryan Singer. The horny helmer — who reportedly pushed for Routh over the studio's choice, Jim Caviezel — has a history of frisky behavior with hunky young actors.

Singer cast unknown hunk Alex Burton as Pyro in "X-Men" after the pair had a hot tub session at a Hollywood party, reports radarmagazine.com. Burton has not appeared in a single movie since "X-Men."

Following the filming of Singer's "Apt Pupil" several years ago, a number of young male extras on the movie filed lawsuits claiming they had been bullied into stripping naked for a shower scene, and that Singer had held private screenings of the soapy footage at his home.

None of the lawsuits ever went anywhere.

Reps for Singer and Warner Bros. declined comment yesterday, but Simon Halls, a publicist for Routh (rhymes with "mouth"), told PAGE SIX the "super package" rumor is "completely without merit" — before adding mischievously, "I suspect that everyone at Warner Bros. is happy with everything Brandon Routh brings to the role."

Halls also said Singer has been "totally professional" with Routh, who has a longtime girlfriend.

"Bryan Singer is one of the best directors out there," Halls said. "People are just creating all kinds of crazy items about a movie that is going to be a huge, huge movie next summer." Huge indeed!

Excuse me...while I heave. :rolleyes:

[Pickle-El]

Excuse me...while I heave. :rolleyes:

Trolls on the SR board kept posting this as a disguise to 'uncover' what Singer was really up to. :rolleyes:

Trolls, much like cockroaches, they adapt to any condition and continue to thrive.

[Angry Sentinel]

Sorry. Really, though, it doesn't matter if it was you or not. Because I believe you did, in the end, refer to all my examples as "fuzzy", a point I disagree highly with, whether your or RedIsBlue says it. You were generalizing, but still, there are examples in there that are anything but fuzzy, and clearly designed by the writers and director to show who was the leader in X-MEN, and who Xavier trusted the most with his own safety.WORST. APOLOGY. EVER. But I expected no less.

Conveying who Xavier trusts is irrelevant to this discussion, Xavier trusts all his Xmen with his safety. And the one he trusts the most (and secretly loves) is JEAN GREY. This may not be the case in the movieverse but it is what it is.

Of course I was generalizing, which is my right since you didnt direct your post to me, and now I have elaborated. And my elaboration still stands (when you dont split it into little meaningless lines) as an effective counterview to what you so insistantly claim to be a well established leadership role. Your examples are full of swiss cheese holes, and I posted examples of exactly how a lot of people could interpret those same scenes without ever equating Cyclops as being a well established leader in the movie. That was the point of each rebutle since you seem to have forgotten that and went off on tangents about why he does what he does... We dont care! The fact is that they are "fuzzy" examples because they left too much room for other (and I think more logical) interpretations.


Because Cyclops goes on three missions in X-Men. And I didn't only elaborate on one, I elaborated on all three. I only elaborated heavily on the final mission because A, it was longer than the other two, giving us a better idea of his leadership qualities, and because he only leads the entire team in one mission in the films. Since leading a group of people denotes leadership...I'll let you figure it out.

He has a woman who can control the weather and call down lightning almost at a whim. He has a fairly powerful telepath. He sent Storm and Jean, not Cyclops, when he needed to retrieve a mutant assassin. Obviously he believes they're capable enough. None of the X-Men were portrayed as incapable. All of them were shown to be capable, but out of the three, Cyclops is clearly the one who is best at strategy and thinking quickly in these films.

How is your wonderful new argument point even relevant to the discussion, which was about whether or not Cyclops was the leader? "Cyclops is only the leader because he was the best of the three"? We're not arguing about WHY he was the leader, we're arguing if he was or not. If we're going to argue about WHY he's the leader, that's a seperate argument. But you won't defeat my argument that he WAS the leader by submitting a completely seperate one that calls the reasons he is into doubt. George Bush is our President. The reasons for it suck, and I do not feel he deserves the position. But he is still, undoubtedly, our President.
You later elaborated on all of them, But I was refering to your initial elaboration about the first mission when he sends TWO of THREE Xmen. But let's be clear, Xavier sends just about ALL his Xmen on any of these given 'Missions'. And none of them, except the last, have any real moments that even come close to attempting to establish Cyke as the Leader.

Actually you're either dense at understanding, or you are intentionally missing my real point. I wasnt saying he was the leader because he was the best of the the three. I was pointing out that your original point of "Who does Xavier send on the missions" as a way of the story illustrating Cyke as a leaders is kind of irrelevant considering he only has three Xmen to send and chooses two of them... two capable Xmen! Using this scenarios does not lend itself to supporting the reason you ask your question. And the reason you ask it, to me, implied that Xavier sending Cyclops, HELPS to illustrate that Cyclops is the LEADER... HOW??? How is this a good illustration of how well the movie conveyed Cyclops as the Leader of the Xmen, when there are only three and he sends TWO??!! As I stated before, it seems more apparent that the story was simply showing that he sends his two most competent field agents ... this is the most likely reasoning and you can ignore it all you want but it is what it is....GET IT???



So? Whether he's the leader of three, or the leader out of a hundred, he's still the leader. It's still Cyclops showing the leadership qualities. Calling the shots. Leading them into battle. I don't care how many people one leads. That does not decide whether or not they ARE a leader in the first place.
Odd that he always picks the same two, isn't it? And that it is Cyclops who ends up making all those important decisions and moves.
It only takes two people to make a team. This isn't sports (where you can also have a two person team in certain sports). Anywhere teamwork is happening, you have a team. And we teamwork between Cyclops and Storm, therefore, they are indeed a team.
He doesn't send her to do field work because Cyclops and Storm are his heavy hitters, and Jean is not so much into the battling side of things. Her powers, at least in X-MEN and X2, don't lend themselves to offensive work.
And you completely ignoring the original argument to begin with in your response and seeking out subarguments that are completely out of context.
No I'm not completely ignoring the original discussion. You misunderstood my real arguement and have gone off on this tangent on your own, rebutting a point I never tried to make. Check above, maybe you will see it now and respond to it.


That's the company line. That is NOT reflected throughout most of humanity. Generally people cannot just stand there and be polite when attacked. And politeness is hardly my best example. It's just one trait of many that indicate Scott is a good leader.

I didn't say politeness denoted leadership in the film. I said it was a leadership QUALITY. And it is. Ask the average store manager if "people skills" as you call it is a leadership quality.

It's still a leadership quality.

I never said it was. These are leadership traits. Which a leader character MUST have in order to be a leader, correct? And this is one of the things they got right about Cyclops, isn't it? Again, this is hardly my best example of Cyclops as a leader in the story, and I said that when I originally posted it. It can easily be interpreted as a leadership quality for the X-Men, though. Yup it's a leadership Quality.. much like all the other LEADERSHIP qualities expressed quite often in the movies by SEVERAL characters other than Cyke(I point out that Wolverine was quite hostile and rude to several other characters and they were just as polite as Cyke was... so the audience should use interpret this as what?). So how do these traits, which other members portray, help the audience/reader distinguish Cyke as the CLEAR leader in this movie again?... Riiiigggghhht!!!

:rolleyes: Well at least it seems you got my reply here... Yes it may easily be interpreted as a leadership quality, but the POINT is that it does very little for the viewer as far as CLEARLY establishing Cyke as THE leader in the movie. Those straws... do they feel good when you grab bunches of them?

What? Force? No, it wouldn't have been a great way. Not in this particular scene, especially since they have just met. There'd be no weight to the sequence. Something like that makes both Wolverine and Cyclops just a TAD too childish. And cinematically, it destroys the pacing of the scene to have them suddenly scrap.
The X-Men, even the younger ones, have always been shown to have leadership qualities. If we see them LEAD people, then YES, they will be leaders, too. We saw hints of this in Colossus's actions in X2. And in some ways, in some of Bobby and Rouge's actions.
For the record I said Force or Charm... which is what Charley used and it worked like a ... CHARM!

Uum.. so, how did that ONE scene of training actually portray/ exhibit Scott leading anything. He and Jean were TRAINING, that's it, that's all(Damn those straws). You posted this trying to READ more into it than was there. I agree with you... "If we see them Lead people"... If the training session "scene" actually showed Scott leading people, strategizing, and intructing them to achieve there objective, then yes I agree. Otherwise your just posting this 'moment' as banter and proving my point even further. I guess anyone would think Cyke was well established as the leader, if you decide to use any and every scene and try to find something to see characterization. Which is probably more due to the fact that you KNOW Cyke is the leader. But what about the people who dont KNOW this Guard? Will they really see all that from this scene, a training scen(not even a comicbook fan should)? NEXT!



How does the speed of Cyclops' reaction to Sabertooth's assault intersect with Toad *****slapping him? You seem to think I'm hinging my argument on one thing Cyclops does in this film. I'm simply saying, these are all qualities a good leader can have. These are all things that add up. And can easily be interpreted as the man being quite capable and quick thinking.
So Doing Battle = Leader? All of them were in battle, and my point of Toad was that they all had their moment. No-one was CLEARLY shown in this scene to be the one true quick reacting general? As you said, these elements were very prevelant in the other X characters as well. So why, how, in what reality, does this 'example' (or all the other little glimpses you've expressed) help Cyke to stand out to the audience as the defined 'leader'?

I mean, isnt it altogether logically possible that NONE of what you posted to this point would help the audience very much in coming to this conclusion? Yes, they COULD have veiwed it this way if they are looking to deeply into it, but none of these things actually add up solely for Cyclops in the movie and distinguish him as the leader of the team.


Cyclops wouldn't have said "Wait a minute" the way he did if he hadn't figured it out. The reason they all have a piece of the reveleation is so they all have a part in that scene, so it feels less like forced exposition.

It's all the little things that add up to show who the man is and what he's capable of. Is it the best way to portray a great leader? No, probably not. But he may not be a great leader, especially not yet. The scene in question is an effective way to reveal a villain's plot by giving all four of those characters a bit of the "revelation". And I never said he was a great leader. I just said he was the leader.

It's not weak. I knew you'd try to hammer the hell out of my first few points, yes. And attempt to undermine my original point with subarguments that are completely unrelated to my own point.


The audience can interpret it however they want. It can clearly be both (which doesn't negate the one aspect I pointed out). It's also in character for Cyclops. So hey, one more thing they got right.

Honestly, by your logic, apparently we can now say that since Batman helps Gotham City, a task his father began, that he's not saving Gotham because he's a good man on any level, but because it's his father's will? And it's only one thing? God forbid it's both.
I'm not arguing that the guy couldnt have expressed the plan on his own.. I'm just illustrating that the movie didnt do much to really convey it to the audience... not with this scene... not having him finish "Mr Dashings" sentences. This does not leave a character looking very much like he's in charge to me (remembers Jar-Jar Binks).

Your right, this does effectively illustrate a team collaboration. So how does that help your arguement that it helps Cyke look like he's the leader?

For all the kiddies at home keeping score, I've been adding this all up as I go and I still got....0... how about you?

Sure guy, it certainly can be both :up: , But which sounds like a more reasonable and likely reason for this scene in the movie?

:confused: Now who's attempting to counter argue with an irrelevant sub-point. I'm not trying to say ANYONE wasnt a good man or a hero. I'm just pointing out that this interpretation is probably a more accurate translation of Cyclops going to be the responsible one. Which does effectively undermine this example of establishing Cyclops in the movie as the LEADER! Remember that Mr Guard, I'm rebutting you to show that there are other really good interpretations of these MANY scenes that you are SOOO convinced were good portrayals of Cyclops' leadership.

Question. Where, in X-MEN, do we actually see Cyclops "jealous"? Concerned about Wolverine being around Jean, maybe. "Jealous", no.
Hahahaha.. Yeah, pick a different fight, cause your going down for the 7th time in this one. We'll come back to this once you've cried uncle.

It was Xavier's call. Xavier is Cyclop's superior. So natually Xavier is going to have the final say. This is not a weak character moment, it's simply showing who really calls the shots about who is an X-Man: Xavier. Which is also in character, as it has been in the comics.

Doesn't bode well for what? Being the field leader of the X-Men? He's still the field leader, he's just not choosing his personnell (when has he ever had say over Xavier?) Are we pretending now that Xavier has never circumvented
Cyclops' authority before?
Why are you explaining motivation? I know what happened in this scene, and I understand WHYand who Xavier is! What I dont get is how you can use this scene and say that it helps Cyke to be portrayed as the leader... he looked more like a (since you insist) "concerned" member of the team than the leader. As you said, if anything, Xavier bodes well in this scene as the leader (which he should, I'm not arguing with that). I just want to know how this really helps your arguement? I think that just about anyone with eyes can see that these things are too small to even begin to try to string them together to ascertain Cyclops as the leader (field commander, whatever) of this team.


Interesting. So you say he's clearly portrayed as the man in charge here, then?
WOW... you are seriously reading impaired! I can clearly see why your perceptions skills have allowed you such a great, meaningful, and deep understanding of these films. What I said was...
"Yup, I wont dispute this one, It is a clear moment in the movie where Cyclops can finally stand out as the guy in charge." :rolleyes:


Apparently you missed the part before he has a bit of a rough landing, where he flies a supersonic jet pretty expertly and efficiently, and strategically. The results of an action do not omit the meaning of the previous actions in context. It's not like he crashed. He's doing an almost purely vertical water landing. They're not easy. Look at how much trouble Rogue had landing it in X2, and that was on land, not water.

It's a supersonic jet, and he's landing it, much faster than usual landings occur and on the water. I think he can be forgiven for not landing it perfectly. It's just a humorous moment, and a way to show that he's not perfect. It also serves to relieve tension before the X-Man march into battle. A writing tool.

No, that is generally the message sent when a character does something really comical and stupid. Cyclops doesn't do any of these things in X-MEN, and definitely not any more than other characters do

"Hey look kid, I don't need advice on auto safety from-CRASHHH! HEY LOOK, KIDS! WOLVERINE'S A JESTER FIGURE! LAUGH AT THE FUNNY WOLVERINE!

I find it odd that you think Cyclops was portrayed as a clown, and yet he doesn't have too many of these "clown moments". And apparently his "non-clown" moments have no bearing on your decisions about how he was portrayed, or how people will view him. Nope, didnt miss it! I saw all those things and then I saw them undermined with the pie to the face. Doesnt make Tom Hanks any less of an actor, but his character sure looks like the arse when it happens to him too.

Again Guard, whose arguement are you making here. Your Wolverine example is a wonderful one. It clearly puts our swash buckling hero into "Donkey" mode and illustrates that he was being a DUMBA**! And he got exactly what he deserved for it. It effectively used him as the butt of the joke and let us know he was clearly in the wrong. So, yes, they work the same for both characters, just like the scenes with Cyclops makes him look like the over eager, young pup trying his best to LOOK the part. One does not need to try to LOOK like something that he already is. If the story had meant to convey Cyke as the clear leader... welll you do the math. HINT HINT CLUE CLUE... Xavier's protrayal never came across as him trying to look the part(he was also never the butt of the joke during a scene that established his role)... WONDER WHY??

So once again:
Cyclops = Leader = NOT
Cyclops = just another team member trying to look like a leader = Maybe


Two, if you're so allfired concerned about the Wolverine/Cyclops stuff in regard to characterization and meaning, read an X-Men comic. Wolverine has almost ALWAYS ribbed Cyclops in this way. This is their relationship. It's almost spot-on how Wolverine treats Cyclops, and always has been this way. Early on, Wolverine always tried to make Cyke look bad, and Cyclops almost always let his actions do his talking for him. So, hey, look, ANOTHER thing the movies got right about Cyclops, AND Wolverine.

If audiences want to assume Cyclops is the movie's "jester", they're making an awful and uninformed interpretation. Because that's not how he's written, and that's not how he's played. And I don't think anyone with a shred of intelligence thought that was the intention in X-MEN. It's just a "character moment" between Cyclops and Wolverine.

Why did so many (it's not many, it's actually a relatively small number)?Because half the people on this board can't interpret films for ****, or think intelligently about concepts such as characterization and tone. Many people here are peons.
They took a stab at it, And I'm starting to see that this is all you need. You dont actually need an accurate illustration, just the inclusion of one... and then you will deem it accurate... good for you.

There has always been some "tussling" between Cyke and Wolverine in the comics. But how you say the comics portray this "sparring", and what I think other silly fanboys like myself would say, will differ from what was attempted on screen in subtlety. First of all, Wolvie in the comics isnt a heartthrob, so there is no way that there is any real chance for the "reader" to "like" him that way. This is very important in character building and plays a HUGE part of how someone is viewed especially in this kind of character interaction...

but you're baiting me again to a different discussion because you're running low in this one so I will stop. For another time!

... And the last enboldened statment... good job on illustrating your own characterization. You don't look like an elitist boob at all (l always got the impression that many of the posters here are kids... way to go, Joe blo:down)

[SilentType]

http://www.siouxland.net/dynaimg/content/sports/dodgeball_hit.jpg
Guardball

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still believe that it's Sentinel, and not Guard, who's grasping for straws here, considering the Cyclops situation.

The only problem with Cyclops' portrayal was screentime, in X2...

In X-Men, he was there just as much as anyone else, he was portrayed as the man in charge, and he was accurate to his comic self.

The whole "Cyclops is portrayed as weak because he bellyflopped the jet and listens to Backstreet Boys" I really think is a totally bogus arguement. I'm not going to respond to every point, cuz I don't have the time to do it right now, and The Guard has said it all already anyways. But I really do feel that it's trying to see something that's not there, while ignoring what is, just so you have something to complain about.

[TNC9852002]

AHHHHH!!!!!!!!...

TOO MANY QUOTES!!!

-TNC

[Sean Madrox]

AHHHHH!!!!!!!!...

TOO MANY QUOTES!!!

-TNC

My head hurts...

[Dark Beast]

You know.. talking about Cyclops incapability as a leader... that´s actually very true too the comics:

- Cyclops failure to communicate with Magneto on Asteroid M, so Storm´s team had to come pick him up.
- Cyclops horrible marriage with Madelyne Pryor...*shiver* Man, just think: you're wife turns into a GOBLIN-QUEEN and wants to SACRIFICE YOUR ONLY SON because your lack of attention? That's some ****ed-up relationship!
- Cyclops being butt-kicked by a Storm without ANY mutant power. She just had to nick his visor.

[The Guard]

Conveying who Xavier trusts is irrelevant to this discussion, Xavier trusts all his Xmen with his safety. And the one he trusts the most (and secretly loves) is JEAN GREY. This may not be the case in the movieverse but it is what it is.

One would imagine that Xavier would need to trust the man he chose to be the leader of the X-Men. He clearly trusts Cyclops. There is obviously some kind of a personal bond there. Hardly an irrelevant point when discussing the leadership of the X-Men.

Of course I was generalizing, which is my right since you didnt direct your post to me, and now I have elaborated. And my elaboration still stands (when you dont split it into little meaningless lines)

So hang on, what you're telling me here...is that when I address each point of your argument, as in, actually look at your argument point by point, that your argument suddenly has no meaning? So essentially what you're saying...is that the points you make in your own argument have no meaning.
Don't be so hard on yourself, man.[/quote]

I don't split arguments into "meaningless lines". I split them into TALKING POINTS. I address each point someone makes that I differ with, which, last I checked, was what one does in a debate.

If you would like me to simply hammer at you with enormous, unbroken blocks of text, we can do it that way, too. It gets a little hard on the eyes, though, so I try to be more effective via "talking points".

as an effective counterview to what you so insistantly claim to be a well established leadership role.

It's a hell of a counterview. I applaud you for it. I also agree with you. The problem with that is, I never disagreed that this was the case to begin with. In fact, as I have repeatedly stated, I have never said Cyclops' leader role was "well established", or "perfect", or "well developed", or any of those wonderful phrases. Just that it was, in fact, shown in the film.

Your examples are full of swiss cheese holes, and I posted examples of exactly how a lot of people could interpret those same scenes without ever equating Cyclops as being a well established leader in the movie.

Swiss cheese holes, well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that you are just poking holes where you can, even if they didn't exist before. It's a two way street. If something can be interpreted your way, then it can also be interpreted my way, not just yours or others. I have never once said that the elements found in X-MEN have to be interpreted one way, just that his actions certainly fit those elements of a leader character when interpreted as such. Now, I won't deny that it can be interpreted your way. In fact, I can also easily see how it could be both. And if it's both, it's not possible for me to be wrong, now, is it? So why are you disagreeing with me?

That was the point of each rebutle since you seem to have forgotten that and went off on tangents about why he does what he does... We dont care!

I certainly do. Because why he does what he does is what writers like to call "motivation", I believe. And a good character, and a good leader character, needs to have this established, does he not?

The fact is that they are "fuzzy" examples because they left too much room for other (and I think more logical) interpretations.

What ISN'T fuzzy on some level in life? I mean honestly, damn near anything can be interpreted pretty much ANY way we want if we so choose to do so. Should we all just throw up our hands because nothing fits ONE interpretation?

But wait, something's occurring to me...see, as a culture, we have set boundaries about what certain things mean. We ascribe meaning based on context, and especially in our film culture, "leader characters" posess certain literary attributes. Cyclops displays several of them in X-MEN. Things he does that if you saw somene do them in real life, you might well say "Hells bells, that boy must be a leader".

You later elaborated on all of them, But I was refering to your initial elaboration about the first mission when he sends TWO of THREE Xmen.

I wasn't referring to him being the leader in talking about the first mission, I was only pointing out leadership skills that Cyclops possessed by what we see onscreen. "Hallmark of a leader", reference to "leadership qualities", I'm talking about his characterization here, not his character role. And I seperated my argument between all the little things that add up to make his characterization that of a leader, and the actual things that point out he is via his role in the film.

But let's be clear, Xavier sends just about ALL his Xmen on any of these given 'Missions'. And none of them, except the last, have any real moments that even come close to attempting to establish Cyke as the Leader.

I never said they did establish him as a leader. These scenes do, however, have aspects that show that the man does posess leadership qualities. And when writing a character to be a leader, one has to write him with leadership qualities, right?

Actually you're either dense at understanding, or you are intentionally missing my real point.

Your real point seems to be "You can't use these to show he was the leader".

Fair enough. I agree. But once again, I never tried to use those examples to show he was the leader. I only used these examples to show that he did, in fact, possess leadership qualities, which, when added up, often become condusive to a character being a leadership figure.

The only scene in X-MEN that actually shows us that Scott is likely the accepted field leader of the X-Men (since Jean and Storm and Wolverine defer to him) are the final ones in the "war room", in the jet and the Liberty Island stuff.

I wasnt saying he was the leader because he was the best of the the three. I was pointing out that your original point of "Who does Xavier send on the missions" as a way of the story illustrating Cyke as a leaders is kind of irrelevant considering he only has three Xmen to send and chooses two of them... two capable Xmen!

But I didn't use that example to show that Cyclops was the leader. I used examples of what Cyclops did in those scenes to show he possessed leadership qualities. I never even got into "He's a leader" until I got to the end, with the strategizing, the jet, Liberty Island, etc.

Using this scenarios does not lend itself to supporting the reason you ask your question. And the reason you ask it, to me, implied that Xavier sending Cyclops, HELPS to illustrate that Cyclops is the LEADER... HOW???

How is this a good illustration of how well the movie conveyed Cyclops as the Leader of the Xmen, when there are only three and he sends TWO??!! As I stated before, it seems more apparent that the story was simply showing that he sends his two most competent field agents ... this is the most likely reasoning and you can ignore it all you want but it is what it is....GET IT???

At what point did I say "Xavier sending Cyclops on missions means he's the leader"? I didn't. I only talked about what Cyclops did ON those missions that indicated that he possessed leadership qualities.

Do I GET IT? I get that you completely and totally misinterpreted my argument to begin with, yes. Because it seems to me that it's you who didn't get what I was doing with my argument to begin with. Why I approached it the way I did.

You thought I was just using my weak points first and my strong points last, when in fact I was only doing what the writers did, showing how, with limited screentime and a need to show many characters and not just a ****load of "sequences where Cyclops leads the X-Men" they first built Cyclops as a character with certain characteristics, with the payoff being the audience buying hin in a leadership role at the end of X-MEN (because they saw the man displaying leadership qualties throughout the rest of the film).

No I'm not completely ignoring the original discussion. You misunderstood my real arguement and have gone off on this tangent on your own, rebutting a point I never tried to make. Check above, maybe you will see it now and respond to it.

Already have. Never used those scenes to show that he was portrayed as a leader, just that he possessed leadership qualities. Which is why, till it got to the last few sequences, every single one of my points ends with the phrase "leadership qualities" or "hallmark of a leader".

Yup it's a leadership Quality.. much like all the other LEADERSHIP qualities expressed quite often in the movies by SEVERAL characters other than Cyke(I point out that Wolverine was quite hostile and rude to several other characters and they were just as polite as Cyke was... so the audience should use interpret this as what?).

That's irrelevant. I was discussing how Cyclops leadership qualties indicated that he was, in fact, a good candidate for leadership. Not whether other characters possessed them and could be defined as such, too. They could. In fact, I'd wager that all of the X-Men could be team leaders, if we saw them leading the team. Because they all possess leadership qualities. However, I'd say Cyclops possessed more, in comparison to Storm and Jean Grey, and even Wolverine, really, when one considers Wolverine's "loner" aspects in X-MEN and his inherent recklessness.

However, while all of those characters could potentially lead the team, none of the other characters are seen doing much leading of the team now, are they? In fact, seems to me the other characters all actually take orders from Cyclops.

So how do these traits, which other members portray, help the audience/reader distinguish Cyke as the CLEAR leader in this movie again?... Riiiigggghhht!!!

They don't. Never said they did. I just said they were leadership qualities.

Well at least it seems you got my reply here... Yes it may easily be interpreted as a leadership quality, but the POINT is that it does very little for the viewer as far as CLEARLY establishing Cyke as THE leader in the movie. Those straws... do they feel good when you grab bunches of them?

I wasn't grabbing at straws. You've misinterpreted my argument.

For the record I said Force or Charm... which is what Charley used and it worked like a ... CHARM!

You said this originally


A leader bends people to his will, whether by force or by charm... he can make ANYONE respect (if nothing else his leadership ability). This would have been a great way.


Now, you're either making a random point about leadership, or saying Cyclops could have been shown to be more of a leader had he used force or charm to "bend Wolverine to his will" in their first "encounter". That would have been out of character for Wolverine, and out of character for Cyclops. And it would have destroyed any conflict between them. Constant sparring is what makes their dislike of each other interesting in their early encounters.

Uum.. so, how did that ONE scene of training actually portray/ exhibit Scott leading anything. He and Jean were TRAINING, that's it, that's all(Damn those straws).

It doesn't portray him leading anything. Never said. Problem is, once again, I was only pointing out that Cyclops kept himself sharp. And that this is a good sign. Never said it implied leadership.

You posted this trying to READ more into it than was there.

No I didn't. I made a simple statement. Keeping your skills and powers sharp is a good leadership quality, especially if one is the leader of say, a team of superpowered mutants. Right? Didn't say a thing about whether this scene says he is the leader or not.

I agree with you... "If we see them Lead people"...

We do see him lead people. At the end of the film.

[The Guard]

If the training session "scene" actually showed Scott leading people, strategizing, and intructing them to achieve there objective, then yes I agree. Otherwise your just posting this 'moment' as banter and proving my point even further. I guess anyone would think Cyke was well established as the leader, if you decide to use any and every scene and try to find something to see characterization.

Why exactly do you think they put this scene in the movie, and made Cyclops the focal point of it? ****s and giggles? For the amazing visuals of it? It's there to show that Cyclops is serious about his job. And good at it.

Which is probably more due to the fact that you KNOW Cyke is the leader.

Not really. It's because I saw him kicking ass on the practice field. And kicking ass and staying sharp is a leadership skill where I come from.

But what about the people who dont KNOW this Guard? Will they really see all that from this scene, a training scen(not even a comicbook fan should)? NEXT!

No, but if they're of average intelligence, then they'll begin to glean some things about Cyclops from the scenes they have already seen, this one, and the ones to follow. That he's professional, polished, mostly fearless, and that he has the presence of a leader.

So Doing Battle = Leader? All of them were in battle, and my point of Toad was that they all had their moment. No-one was CLEARLY shown in this scene to be the one true quick reacting general?

At what point did I say "doing battle" equals "leader"? LEADING your team into battle certainly indicates it, though.

Interestingly enough, Cyclops is the only one who gives orders during the whole Toad/Mystique encounter sequence. He's the only one who really keeps fairly calm in the heat of the moment.

And it doesn't matter if he literally "leads" the X-Men in every single scene or not. He can also lead by example. Which he does. Also, the previous scenes indicated that Cyclops was the leader. So do the scenes that follow this one. He doesn't have to lead the team in every single scene for this to remain the case.

As you said, these elements were very prevelant in the other X characters as well. So why, how, in what reality, does this 'example' (or all the other little glimpses you've expressed) help Cyke to stand out to the audience as the defined 'leader'?

As I've said, in these particular scenes, Cyclops is the only one who gives orders here, and in previous and subsequent scenes.

I mean, isnt it altogether logically possible that NONE of what you posted to this point would help the audience very much in coming to this conclusion?

Not especially. Audiences aren't stupid. Generally when they see a character giving orders and other characters following them, they ten to assume that the first character is the leader.

Yes, they COULD have veiwed it this way if they are looking to deeply into it

I can't believe you think that an audience needs to look DEEPLY to see that a character who gives orders that others follow is the leader.

but none of these things actually add up solely for Cyclops in the movie and distinguish him as the leader of the team.

I would say the fact that he flies the jet, leads them into battle, and then gives orders that others follow while taking no orders himself is pretty indicative of his leadership status. Of course, it's all subjective (rolls eyes)

I'm not arguing that the guy couldnt have expressed the plan on his own.. I'm just illustrating that the movie didnt do much to really convey it to the audience... not with this scene... not having him finish "Mr Dashings" sentences. This does not leave a character looking very much like he's in charge to me (remembers Jar-Jar Binks).

Never said that him coming up with what Magneto's plan was indicated that he was in charge. I just said that that moment indicated that he was obviously a strategic thinker. What shows that he's in charge is him basically telling the X-Men the plan to reach Liberty Island, flying them there, then leading them into battle and making all the important "calls" once faced with them. And having other characters follow his orders, even wait for him to make them, and having him take no orders himself.

Your right, this does effectively illustrate a team collaboration. So how does that help your arguement that it helps Cyke look like he's the leader?

I didn't say it did.

Sure guy, it certainly can be both Now who's attempting to counter argue with an irrelevant sub-point. I'm not trying to say ANYONE wasnt a good man or a hero. I'm just pointing out that this interpretation is probably a more accurate translation of Cyclops going to be the responsible one.

Which does effectively undermine this example of establishing Cyclops in the movie as the LEADER! Remember that Mr Guard, I'm rebutting you to show that there are other really good interpretations of these MANY scenes that you are SOOO convinced were good portrayals of Cyclops' leadership.

Actually I'm only convinced that those scenes can be interpreted as him posessing leadership qualities. The last few scenes however, are pretty concrete examples of him being a leader. The screenwriters clearly intended to have those sequences about him leading the X-Men into battle and making the decisions.

Hahahaha.. Yeah, pick a different fight, cause your going down for the 7th time in this one. We'll come back to this once you've cried uncle.

You implied that Cyclops is jealous at some point. You introduced this tangent to the argument, not me. So hey, prove it. Where does it show him as a jealous character?

Why are you explaining motivation? I know what happened in this scene, and I understand WHYand who Xavier is! What I dont get is how you can use this scene and say that it helps Cyke to be portrayed as the leader... he looked more like a (since you insist) "concerned" member of the team than the leader.

I didn't say this scene portrayed Cyclops as the leader. I just said questioning questionable aspects is an important part of being a leader.

As you said, if anything, Xavier bodes well in this scene as the leader (which he should, I'm not arguing with that). I just want to know how this really helps your arguement? I think that just about anyone with eyes can see that these things are too small to even begin to try to string them together to ascertain Cyclops as the leader (field commander, whatever) of this team.

I'm only stringing them together to show that he possesses leadership qualities. And yes, the examples don't provide concrete proof that he's the leader...until he physically strategizes their plan, flies them into battle, leads them into battle, gives orders, makes the important calls which other characters defer to, etc. At which point the eyes can clearly see that he's the leader.

WOW... you are seriously reading impaired!

The entirety of the message that you "won't dispute" was this:

Cyclops plans and explains the strategy for the X-Men's approach to Liberty Island. "We can insert here at the George Washington Bridge. Come around the bank, just off of Manhattan, we land on the far side of Liberty Island...here." He has planned the mission. He is the leader. Cyclops also pilots the jet. Clearly in charge. During the flight, he says "Storm, some cover, please" A strategic order, and one that makes good sense in order to camoflauge their approach. One imagines that the ability to fly a supersonic jet well might be considered a leadership skill.

In that post, I say the following things, to be specific: "He is the leader", "clearly in charge".

Since you don't dispute that, it implies that you agree with my entire point. So you also agree that he is the leader. And is clearly in charge. Is this the case?

I can clearly see why your perceptions skills have allowed you such a great, meaningful, and deep understanding of these films. What I said was...
"Yup, I wont dispute this one, It is a clear moment in the movie where Cyclops can finally stand out as the guy in charge."

Except that you said "I won't dispute this one" to my entire point. Implying that you agreed with the whole thing. So is that the case?

Nope, didnt miss it! I saw all those things and then I saw them undermined with the pie to the face. Doesnt make Tom Hanks any less of an actor, but his character sure looks like the arse when it happens to him too.

Yes, Cyclops looks a bit silly. For all of two seconds. He then easily redeems himself for (oh no, not landing the plane perfectly) what he did.

Again Guard, whose arguement are you making here.

Mine. Because there are actually several examples where Wolverine looks like a buffoon that far outweight the situations Cyclops finds himself in.

Your Wolverine example is a wonderful one. It clearly puts our swash buckling hero into "Donkey" mode and illustrates that he was being a DUMBA**! And he got exactly what he deserved for it. It effectively used him as the butt of the joke and let us know he was clearly in the wrong. So, yes, they work the same for both characters, just like the scenes with Cyclops makes him look like the over eager, young pup trying his best to LOOK the part. One does not need to try to LOOK like something that he already is. If the story had meant to convey Cyke as the clear leader... welll you do the math. HINT HINT CLUE CLUE... Xavier's protrayal never came across as him trying to look the part(he was also never the butt of the joke during a scene that established his role)... WONDER WHY??

You're sort of waffling here. First it's "People will interpret Cyclops as the jester", not it's "Cyclops has moments where he's a bit overconfident". There is a difference. You also seem to be confusing "clear leader" and "perfect leader". None of these "buffoon" moments remotely affect whether or not he IS the leader, but rather what type of leader he is. So Cyclops isn't perfect, but wants people to think he is. Your point?

So once again:
Cyclops = Leader = NOT

Except for all that leading he does in the final scenes. Which you're apparently reluctant to comment on.

Cyclops = just another team member trying to look like a leader = Maybe

If that was the case, why do Storm, Jean AND Wolverine defer to him in key moments?

They took a stab at it, And I'm starting to see that this is all you need. You dont actually need an accurate illustration, just the inclusion of one... and then you will deem it accurate... good for you.

A stab at it. Right. As if there is one way to show the tension between Wolverine and Cyclops, and not several valid methods to do so.

There has always been some "tussling" between Cyke and Wolverine in the comics. But how you say the comics portray this "sparring", and what I think other silly fanboys like myself would say, will differ from what was attempted on screen in subtlety. First of all, Wolvie in the comics isnt a heartthrob, so there is no way that there is any real chance for the "reader" to "like" him that way.

Cyclops and Wolverine's disagreements have little to do with Wolverine being a heartthrob. They have more to do with Wolverine being an *******. So their interactions are still pretty much spot-on. Wolverine and Jean's interactions have changed a bit, though. But Wolverine and Jean aren't Wolverine and Cyclops.


but you're baiting me again to a different discussion because you're running low in this one so I will stop. For another time!

I dunno. You're easily baited...

[Joey23]

Guard and others...

I don't mean to be personally offensive, but you are typing way too much......I am a big fan of X-Men, but with all the ****e happening in the world right now, Singer's vision and Ratner's vision aren't really that important are they??

I enjoyed reading this particular thread but after 17 pages its just the same old crap. And it does get a bit boring.....

You all have your opinions and on some things you are never going to agree.....so can't you PM each other with the quotes, or go out and get drunk?

Still, no offense, I am a total newb when it comes to posting on here so I shouldn't really say anything...but its getting a bit too much.

[The Guard]

If it bores you or bothers you, stop reading it. It's fairly simple. If "the same old crap" bothers you that much, you won't hang around here long.

There's also an "ignore" function where you won't have to see our posts at all.

[SilentType]

Guard and others...

I don't mean to be personally offensive, but you are typing way too much......I am a big fan of X-Men, but with all the ****e happening in the world right now, Singer's vision and Ratner's vision aren't really that important are they??

I enjoyed reading this particular thread but after 17 pages its just the same old crap. And it does get a bit boring.....

You all have your opinions and on some things you are never going to agree.....so can't you PM each other with the quotes, or go out and get drunk?

Still, no offense, I am a total newb when it comes to posting on here so I shouldn't really say anything...but its getting a bit too much.

There is a term for that kind of back and forth, which I am doggedly trying to get to catch on: Guardball.
It’s a kind of game.
The nitty gritty post by post read-through is entirely dull, and rarely read by players outside the game, but it’s quite entertaining to periodically check the score and read some highlights.



Guardball n.- A hybrid of Dodgeball and a political talkback show, mainly played on SHH message boards. The rules are very simple. Two or more players take turns quoting the other player(s) and responding to their comments.

Players are encouraged to quote the entire opposing players post, but they must break it up into the smallest pieces possible and respond to every paragraph, sentence, or (for more advanced players) every word. The goal is to achieve the largest possible word count for each page of a board.

There are no winners in Guardball. Nothing is solved, nothing is resolved, and nobody agrees on anything. Ever. Players must simply get as many words in before the topic dies. There are many ways to keep the game going to achieve maximum word count.

1) Opponents- A player needs opponents, and the more people you respond to the longer your posts will be. It’s easy to draw in opponents. You begin by quoting each sentence of their short initial post with a paragraph of your own. They will most likely follow your example and respond to each of your paragraphs with a paragraph of their own. You have now reeled them in. Good Job.

2) Condescension and Insults- Keep the other players angry and they will keep posting. People tend to respond when they are insulted or talked down to. If you can’t find an intelligent response, a sarcastic sentence characterizing your opponent as an idiot will work just as well. Make sure you are characterizing your opponents as fools and sheep; blindly following the crowd (even if the argument is split 50/50 you can act as if you are a lone voice of reason, and they are the voice of the brainwashed masses.) If they do happen to be the one speaking against the popular opinion, make sure they know that everyone agrees that they are wrong. The point is that if you make them feel insufficient, they will try to stick up for themselves, and the game continues.

3) With a little luck, nothing new or interesting will come up on the board you are playing on, as this might stall game play, causing you to have to restart from a small, more digestable post.
If done properly, there will be huge rambling, circular essays that take minutes to scroll through, yet go absolutely nowhere.
Now that you know how to play, have fun with GUARDBALL!

Trivia: Guardball, a play on the word Hardball, was named after one of the founders and the all around champion of Guardball, “THE GUARD”

[Emma718]

Hi guys, i am new here and i was wondering if there is a newbie theard around here? sorry about going off topic

[Electrix]

There is a sticky at the top of the forum.

[Emma718]

^ thanks...

[X-Maniac]

What I'm about to say probably belongs in another X-forum, but nevertheless it is related to Singer's vision.

In X1, we hear Xavier telling Wolverine of Sabretooth and Magneto, we see an underground base and an X-jet and uniforms that probably implies the team is established. We hear Xavier saying that Scott and Jean and Ororo were some of his first students (then a shot of Scott and Jean practising their powers outside, looking the same age as in the movie). In X2, we hear that Jason Stryker had once been a student and Xavier had tried to help him. In X3, we will see Beast (supposedly a past member of the X-Men) and Moira McTaggert (which could then imply Muir Island and Banshee elements, but most certainly implies a history with Xavier and the X-Men).
The Wolverine and Magneto spin-offs could fill in further backstory.

So, I wonder how long the X-Men team had been established, how many missions they had been on before the events of X1, whether they had met and fought Magneto before, which other villains they had could have tackled previously, what Magneto had been up to before the events of X1.

I'm wondering what Singer and the writers intended here - to show a very young and inexperienced team, or not? They'd obviously used the X-jet before, the students didn't seem that fazed to see it emerge from the basketball court.

Of course, the movie timeline must be different, as Iceman is a student and not an adult member of the team. In one sense, it would have been nice if it somehow reflected comicbook continuity, but the Iceman situation changes that.

I wonder what people think, and what we can glean that the filmmakers wanted to imply or show.

DISCUSS!!

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

What I'm about to say probably belongs in another X-forum, but nevertheless it is related to Singer's vision.

In X1, we hear Xavier telling Wolverine of Sabretooth and Magneto, we see an underground base and an X-jet and uniforms that probably implies the team is established. We hear Xavier saying that Scott and Jean and Ororo were some of his first students (then a shot of Scott and Jean practising their powers outside, looking the same age as in the movie). In X2, we hear that Jason Stryker had once been a student and Xavier had tried to help him. In X3, we will see Beast (supposedly a past member of the X-Men) and Moira McTaggert (which could then imply Muir Island and Banshee elements, but most certainly implies a history with Xavier and the X-Men).
The Wolverine and Magneto spin-offs could fill in further backstory.

So, I wonder how long the X-Men team had been established, how many missions they had been on before the events of X1, whether they had met and fought Magneto before, which other villains they had could have tackled previously, what Magneto had been up to before the events of X1.

I'm wondering what Singer and the writers intended here - to show a very young and inexperienced team, or not? They'd obviously used the X-jet before, the students didn't seem that fazed to see it emerge from the basketball court.

Of course, the movie timeline must be different, as Iceman is a student and not an adult member of the team. In one sense, it would have been nice if it somehow reflected comicbook continuity, but the Iceman situation changes that.

I wonder what people think, and what we can glean that the filmmakers wanted to imply or show.

DISCUSS!!

Well, I do think it's obvious that the Liberty Island mission wasn't the first. And (to connect this with the Guardball match going on right now), I think this is more fuel to the fire of the "Cyclops is portrayed as a leader" arguement.

The mention that Cyclops, Storm, and Jean were some of Xavier's first students, implying they've been around the longest, so they are probably Xavier's most trusted students, and with that comes leadership responsibilities.

Well, we see early on that Jean is the "voice" of the X-Men, so to speak, speaking on behalf of Xavier, the X-Men, and mutants everywhere at the Senate hearings. So that would leave Cyclops and Storm, Xavier's remaining "original students", to be his field leaders. And we all know that Cyclops and Storm are both leaders. We see that Cyclops has more of this responsibility in X-Men, and in X2, when Cyclops is taken out of commission, Storm steps up and takes on these responsibilities.

Cyclops and Storm are the field leaders, while Jean Grey is the voice of the X-Men, an ambassador of sorts (also the one who goes with Storm to get Nightcrawler)

I think it's heavily implied that they have crossed paths with Magneto before. I mean, maybe the Liberty Island incident is the first major threat that Magneto has ever presented, but all of the X-Men seem a bit familiar with Magneto, so I don't think Liberty Island would be the first time.

The Brotherhood also knew about the mansion, the X-Men, and Cerebro, as Mystique was able to sneak onto the mansion grounds, and knew where to go to get to Cerebro to sabotage it.

In my mind, this definatley isn't the first encounter between the X-Men and the Brotherhood. Just perhaps, all of their other previous encounters were small incidents that didn't have global implications, that wouldn't leave Magneto locked up in a special prison, etc...

The X-Men, in X-Men, don't seem inexperienced, as much as just The Brotherhood has taken their time on this particular project, and has caught the X-Men off guard and thrown them for a loop.

[Dark Beast]

Well, actually... I think X1 was the actual first big clash.

In X1, Xavier had not seen Magneto for a long time. Probably not since he left the mansion. (It'll be interesting if Beast knows anything about Magnus) Magneto could easily tell Mystique where the Mansion is.

The X-men looked to me pretty inexperienced. Off course have they trained to do this kind of stuff, but in X3 everyone is so much more powerful! Much more confident, they have much more battle experience. Storm is a well teacher in X1.. but she gets her ass almost kicked by Toad. Jean isn't that powerful at all. Don't let me start on Cyclops...

They're trained, but have no real battle experience.

[Joey23]

If it bores you or bothers you, stop reading it. It's fairly simple. If "the same old crap" bothers you that much, you won't hang around here long.

There's also an "ignore" function where you won't have to see our posts at all.

I think that you totally misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

I was just kind of calling an end to a very long winded debate that seems to be going absolutely nowhere. Anything that you might have taken as an insult was meant purely in jest.

I enjoy this forum, I have been visiting it regularly for a long time, I just haven't really found the need to post much in here. Your statement about me not hanging around here long was kind of obnoxious....all I was saying is that there are far more important things to write about. Yes this is an X-Men forum, I understand that, but this particular thread has turned into a two way game of quote and answer, quote and answer, quote and answer. Surely there is only so much that one can write about a subject?

[The Guard]

I think that you totally misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

Nope.

I was just kind of calling an end to a very long winded debate that seems to be going absolutely nowhere. Anything that you might have taken as an insult was meant purely in jest.

Oh I'm not insulted. But my friend, it is not your place to "call an end" to our debate. Whether it's meant in jest, or in annoyance, the comment means the same thing: "Your debate is boring me/other people". That's unfortunate. Judging by the thread count, and the fact that the debate continued, it's not boring everyone. SHH is an arena of free speech. Some of us like to actually talk issues out. If people don't want to read our debates, they are not required to. Again, I refer you to the "ignore" function, or simply not entering the topic.

I enjoy this forum, I have been visiting it regularly for a long time, I just haven't really found the need to post much in here. Your statement about me not hanging around here long was kind of obnoxious....all I was saying is that there are far more important things to write about.

Not in this particular thread, there aren't. The thread had already essentially run it's course, because it already revolved around tired, talked-to-death topics. If it hadn't, we would have stayed on topic and kept discussing "Singer's X3". So what we did instead, we expanded the debate.

Yes this is an X-Men forum, I understand that, but this particular thread has turned into a two way game of quote and answer, quote and answer, quote and answer.

That's what a debate is.

Surely there is only so much that one can write about a subject?

Nope.

That said, re: the X-Men's experience levels in X-MEN, I believe they had been trained, and had battle experience, but not neccessarily with Toad, because he mopped the floor with them. Sabertooth seemed sort of familiar with what Cyclops could do, because he leapt to evade Cyclops visor beam in the beginning. However, I do think Magneto is portrayed as a bit of a recluse in X-MEN. While there's nothing to suggest they haven't faced him before, they get caught by surprise, they don't seem to know how to play him, etc, so I think this is the first time they've encountered Magneto physically. I'm sure Xavier has told them about him.

[Joey23]

See, now I feel as though you are partronising me. :)

I hope you were being tongue in cheek when you split my post up into about 6 different quotes. You could have addressed each part of my post without quoting it. I would have been able to grasp what you were saying without the quotes you know...or perhaps you just feel compelled to do so, I don't know you so I have no idea!

[GreatWhiteWhale]

The Guard's just like that.

He's... well, I guess I don't know why he does what he does.


I think he has a typing fetish. :p

[skruloos]

See, now I feel as though you are partronising me. :)

I hope you were being tongue in cheek when you split my post up into about 6 different quotes. You could have addressed each part of my post without quoting it. I would have been able to grasp what you were saying without the quotes you know...or perhaps you just feel compelled to do so, I don't know you so I have no idea!
I know I'm not The Guard but I post in a similar manner to him. Breaking up your quote makes it easier to read as well as for us to type. We can respond to every individual point and, in the process, break up large chunks of text to make it easier to read.

[The Guard]

Eh...that time I was mostly being tongue in cheek.

[boywonder13]

Just Thought I should bring this thread back after such along time since X3 is being released soon and we can only think what ifs on Singer's X3 - this all the info I gathere and can be found on the first page of this thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

- X-Men 3 would have come out in 2005, followed by the Fourth movie (in the same year) since they were filmed back to back.

- An Early Story was this: The film will likely be centered more on Wolverine's story and Jean Grey's transformation, while Storm may be completely absent or only appear in a cameo performance.

-New Characters in the treatment included Angel, Beast, Gambit, Emma Frost, Dazzler, and Psylocke. Lady Death Strike may have also appeared again.

- This was what the new treatment was about:
According to one source, the current treatment focuses on Cyclops, and as a result Marsden has apparently already signed on the dotted line. Director Bryan Singer is rumoured to have wanted to bring in a bunch of new characters, but was told "no" for budgetary reasons, though they may end up with cameos in the film. Emma Frost was apparently one such character considered, but ultimately dropped. As to the film being about Dark Phoenix, as the end of X2 has led many to believe, rumours have it that Jean Grey isn't in the current treatment until the very end, so Phoenix may be left until X4

-Here's a description of what Beast would have looked like if Singer did it :
The challenge with Beast is that most of the time in the comics he's blue and has a very similar hairstyle to Wolverine's. This meant that we needed to set him apart by accentuating his most Beast like characteristics. We tried to do this by giving him more of a blue-grey tint, covering him with a layer of fine hair and by making him extremely muscular. Our concept for Beast was never tested on an actor, but we could already see that he is going to be a great cinematic presence! We've made every effort to be as faithful as possible to the comics.

The Sentinels:
The Sentinels are something that Bryan and I were already designing even before the start of pre-production on X2. We wanted to have a specific Sentinel design in mind so as to better help Bryan and the writers incorporate them into the story. For inspiration I mostly looked at Alex Ross' designs of the Sentinels because they are simultaneously beautiful, industrial and eerie. I then made a visual chart of every robot ever portrayed on film so as to influence myself to come up with a brand new design, in the hopes of creating something truly original. Without sounding pretentious I just wanted to design something never seen before on film for the Sentinels! Currently my sketches are locked away and are waiting to hopefully be used in a future film...
View Pics of the Sentinels here: http://www.xmenfilms.net/exclusive/sentinel1.html

-Sigourney Weaver would have played Emma Frost.

- The general premise of X-3 will be both humans and mutants battling evolution itself.

-Early X3 Summary:Jean Grey is dead...or at least that's what everyone assumes. Everyone, but Professor Charles Xavier. He believes that somehow, his student survived the fatal events that took place at Stryker's base in Canada.

The Mutant Registration Act is close to being established. The passing of this act, introduces the SENTINELS program. Powerful and massive, these select mutant hunting machines, have the uncanny ability to hover above ground and capture unregistered mutants...but a threat behind the program, causes another frightening problem.

With the Sentinels introduced, the full X-Men team must ban together to battle against the government, deal with a fallen member, and even deal with a bigger threat!

The third (and possible final) film, could see the introduction of rumored mutants: Dr. Hank McCoy, Angel, Emma Frost, Gambit, and others. Film plot and character info are only considered RUMORS and could easily change...remember that!

- Nightcrawler would have returned

In Singer's vision, Emma Frost was an Empath, meaning she could manipulate peoples emotions rather than thoughts, I believe this is how he intended for Jean to to 'lose control' and I also believe that Emma was to be involved with the Hellfire Club.

-

[Super Flight]

i would have enjoyed 2 movies................*burts into tears!!*

[boywonder13]

X3 and X4 Back to Back!!! IMAGGGGINEEEEEEE!!:) :(

[DarknessOfDeath]

Would have worked... but sadly...it never happened. Oh well. Maybe next time. :rolleyes:

[Warhammer]

Without being spoiled, I just wish that Cyclops not having screen time is just a rumor. I hope that the writers are keeping him under wraps until people see the movie.

I doubt it though. :rolleyes:

[Warhammer]

Bryan Singer's vision sounds kinda crappy to me.

Why?
I don't even know.

[spideyboy_1111]

ya his X3 sounds bad... and not much progress... but sentinels... and then all the new characters are saved for X4? lol like that would have happened.. thats why we only got 2 or 3 in X2... and his emma would have made me cry in dissapointment.

i like the X3 were getting, a million times better. I also feel it makes more sense

[BobJM]

Singer's X3 sounds like it would simply be a transition movie, setting everything up for X4.

[boywonder13]

Whats wrong with a little quiet before the storm!! They should have at least one movie without Jean, because it will really make it seem like she is dead and gone, and than her arrival in the Fourth movie will shock the audience.

People wouldnt have even missed Jean after less than one movie of not seeing! Her return will feel more profound if we really see how the X-Men are wihtout her and different they are....

[spideyboy_1111]

no jean isnt the issue... his X3 doesnt have any new characters other then sentinels... and the return of nighcrawler.. hell its basically what they didnt have time to do in X2.. plus he takes out storm, X4 was going to be the return of jean, and additions of gambit, emma, angel, beast

[Fanticon]

I also remember hearing about Singer's Beast being gray haired...and to add more...around the same time I heard this news I also remember reading that Angel was going to be female...those were two things I vividly remember reading and not very fond of...ofcourse the only thing I can back up is the Beast bit...also the design of the Sentinels...still not a fan of those images shown in X2 artwork special features...but I did remember them saying that the Danger Room was being saved for the next movie after being scrapped for time and cost in X2...so I'm glad to see that some things have still come together from many ideas Singer had.

[boywonder13]

Yah that Angel being a girl thing was a rumor, and i think a rumor still after singer left i think. It was also debunked. Singer would not do that. Singer's Danger Room woul dhave been more like the Danger Room of the comics, if you know what I mean. I dont like the Danger room from what I have seen in the trailers and what people ahve said. There is onlyone scene with it I think. Im sure Singer;s would ahve been alot cooler!!

Remember alot of those rumors you heard were false!!

[pt_photo_inc]

All this infromation comes from news/rumors that came while Singer was on. He had written a treatment that only a few people have read. Reportdley Singer's treatmen went missing meaning he must have taken it with him or it is literally missing.

----------------


- X-Men 3 would have come out in 2005, followed by the Fourth movie (in the same year) since they were filmed back to back.

- An Early Story was this: The film will likely be centered more on Wolverine's story and Jean Grey's transformation, while Storm may be completely absent or only appear in a cameo performance.

-New Characters in the treatment included Angel, Beast, Gambit, Emma Frost, Dazzler, and Psylocke. Lady Death Strike may have also appeared again.

- This was what the new treatment was about:
According to one source, the current treatment focuses on Cyclops, and as a result Marsden has apparently already signed on the dotted line. Director Bryan Singer is rumoured to have wanted to bring in a bunch of new characters, but was told "no" for budgetary reasons, though they may end up with cameos in the film. Emma Frost was apparently one such character considered, but ultimately dropped. As to the film being about Dark Phoenix, as the end of X2 has led many to believe, rumours have it that Jean Grey isn't in the current treatment until the very end, so Phoenix may be left until X4

-Here's a description of what Beast would have looked like if Singer did it :
The challenge with Beast is that most of the time in the comics he's blue and has a very similar hairstyle to Wolverine's. This meant that we needed to set him apart by accentuating his most Beast like characteristics. We tried to do this by giving him more of a blue-grey tint, covering him with a layer of fine hair and by making him extremely muscular. Our concept for Beast was never tested on an actor, but we could already see that he is going to be a great cinematic presence! We've made every effort to be as faithful as possible to the comics.
The Sentinels:
The Sentinels are something that Bryan and I were already designing even before the start of pre-production on X2. We wanted to have a specific Sentinel design in mind so as to better help Bryan and the writers incorporate them into the story. For inspiration I mostly looked at Alex Ross' designs of the Sentinels because they are simultaneously beautiful, industrial and eerie. I then made a visual chart of every robot ever portrayed on film so as to influence myself to come up with a brand new design, in the hopes of creating something truly original. Without sounding pretentious I just wanted to design something never seen before on film for the Sentinels! Currently my sketches are locked away and are waiting to hopefully be used in a future film...
View Pics of the Sentinels here: http://www.xmenfilms.net/exclusive/sentinel1.html
-Sigourney Weaver would have played Emma Frost.

- The general premise of X-3 will be both humans and mutants battling evolution itself.

-Early X3 Summary:Jean Grey is dead...or at least that's what everyone assumes. Everyone, but Professor Charles Xavier. He believes that somehow, his student survived the fatal events that took place at Stryker's base in Canada.

The Mutant Registration Act is close to being established. The passing of this act, introduces the SENTINELS program. Powerful and massive, these select mutant hunting machines, have the uncanny ability to hover above ground and capture unregistered mutants...but a threat behind the program, causes another frightening problem.

With the Sentinels introduced, the full X-Men team must ban together to battle against the government, deal with a fallen member, and even deal with a bigger threat!

The third (and possible final) film, could see the introduction of rumored mutants: Dr. Hank McCoy, Angel, Emma Frost, Gambit, and others. Film plot and character info are only considered RUMORS and could easily change...remember that!

----------------

Anybody have anymore things about Singers X-Men 3.

I wonder what Singer meant by Humans and Mutants against evoloution. I bet they meant to use Apocalpse. I don't know.

I guess we will never know... (I pray the treatment is released or at least released)


:marv: :up: :)




- Nightcrawler would be back as an active member.


I love you singer!!!!! I miss you!!!!! I am sorry for what happened between us!!!! Please come back for further movies!!!! We promise not to sell out anymore!!!! We will be faithful to you!!!!

We....we....we... need you SINGER! LIFE IS HELL WITH OUT YOU!!!!!

[spideyboy_1111]

blah singers a prick... you guys do know he never picked up a comic before shooting X1...

[BMM]

blah singers a prick... you guys do know he never picked up a comic before shooting X1...

Yeah, but then again half of the people on these boards haven't either . . . they've only seen the cartoon and base half of their misguided assumptions about the first two movies being innacurate to falsities popularized by the cartoon . . .

. . . and Singer was made to watch the cartoon, and that at the least puts him on par with a large number of posters on these boards (if not above par, as a number of them have simply been informed and inspired by the first two movies).

Also, Ratner may have been a comic book fan, but it has been noted that he wasn't an X-Men comic book reader (which can also be supported by the fact that he had to have the writers show him panels from the comics from which they received their inspiration--which I still don't really see too much of in X3).

[spideyboy_1111]

meh singers still an ass.. from what ive heard alot of from people who met him in hollywood... he lies about his comic enjoyment.. as a front.. hes in to young 18-23 year old guys... thinks hes god when his only movies has 3 movies under his belt.. (4 with supes). Halle, Rebecca, Alan, and Ian have all expressed there distaste for him, and how he puts himself first before the actors, Ian directly said

"You say the right words of encouragement. You introduce people to them. Brett is brilliant, absolutely brilliant, but Bryan's not very good at it. I've never been to a party of Bryan's, but I dread to think what it would be like. Bryan is much more internal and self-obsessed and neurotic. That comes out in the films he makes. "

and i'd agree with him. theres alot of reports of Bryan being very much a drama queen and very unprofessional

[pt_photo_inc]

you mean singer wasnt a complete nerd? and that he had a good grounding in movies and what the "Non-Fan" would put up with... then he caught up on what the rest of us wanted to see as well? You mean the guy that did good enough job that AOL TIME WARNER/ WARNER BROTHERS paid him more then he has been paid to take on thier biggest summer project!

You mean the guy that made X2.... man, spidey.... wake up.

[spideyboy_1111]

X2 was great... but X3 has a much much much more of a true "x-men" feel to it.

listen.. just because ive liked his x-men movies does not mean i have to like him. hes not a good person.

and supes look like bantha fodder soo im holding my judgement for that

[BMM]

X2 was great... but X3 has a much much much more of a true "x-men" feel to it.

listen.. just because ive liked his x-men movies does not mean i have to like him. hes not a good person.

and supes look like bantha fodder soo im holding my judgement for that

I agree with that. Just because you like someone's product, doesn't mean you have to like them personally. I imagine that's true for a lot of people as well. Okay, I'm going to post a reply to your other post as well. I'm not picking on you to try and be a jackass. I just find this to be an interesting thread, and your post brings up a lot of points.

no jean isnt the issue... his X3 doesnt have any new characters other then sentinels... and the return of nighcrawler.. hell its basically what they didnt have time to do in X2.. plus he takes out storm, X4 was going to be the return of jean, and additions of gambit, emma, angel, beast

To be honest, Singer has never really gone into detail about what would have been partioned for either his X3 or X4 . . . in so far as his X3 basically being what they didn't have time to do in X2, that's pretty much what's happening in the current X3. They're tossing in the previous design of a Danger Room, with a sentinel as a nod, adding a bit more to Colossus' role, adding Beast who was planned to be in the other two movies, and Angel who appears to hardly have a role in X3, and the Dark Phoenix storyline as more of a subplot . . . kind of.

Also the current X3 is only touching upon stories set up in the previous film, like all movies have to, whether it be a Singer or Ratner film--such as the Iceman v. Pyro arc.

Apparently Singer's future film[s] would have, at the least, included Angel, Beast, Gambit, Sentinels, the White Queen (Hellfire Club?), as well as increased roles for Colossus, Iceman, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, Pyro and all of the other remaining cast, among others . . . two movies simply allows for more time to bring characters into the fold.

The truth is we'll never know--and we might as well concentrate and be happey with the X-Men film at hand.

[BMM]

This is in response to the Storm issue as noted in the list of Singer's X3, which seems to have been misinterpreted.

The Storm rumor is a falsity according to producers--it has been stated by the producers (notably Donner) that Storm, Halle Berry, would have to be back for an X3, that they couldn't picture it without her, and that they would have only written a bigger role for her. Storm was always wanted back and producers planned on her being back.


"I can't imagine doing it without him or Patrick [Stewart] or any of the main cast...and Halle [Berry]. We have to make sure that she's used well and we have a great great storyline for her, or maybe we do a Storm movie...who knows."

Source: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/031216e.php (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news03/031216e.php)

"She also is encouraged by the fact that despite originally saying she was "X'd" out, Halle Berry is reconsidering resuming her role as Storm." (and this was only in November of '03, long before Catwoman took a bite out of Berry)

Source: http://www.superherohype.com/x-men/index.php?id=396 (http://www.superherohype.com/x-men/index.php?id=396)

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

meh singers still an ass.. from what ive heard alot of from people who met him in hollywood... he lies about his comic enjoyment.. as a front.. hes in to young 18-23 year old guys... thinks hes god when his only movies has 3 movies under his belt.. (4 with supes). Halle, Rebecca, Alan, and Ian have all expressed there distaste for him, and how he puts himself first before the actors, Ian directly said

"You say the right words of encouragement. You introduce people to them. Brett is brilliant, absolutely brilliant, but Bryan's not very good at it. I've never been to a party of Bryan's, but I dread to think what it would be like. Bryan is much more internal and self-obsessed and neurotic. That comes out in the films he makes. "

and i'd agree with him. theres alot of reports of Bryan being very much a drama queen and very unprofessional

Bryan has a couple more than 3 movies...

*Usual Suspects
*Apt Pupil
*X-Men
*X-Men 2
*Superman Returns

There's also a low budget indie film that he did before even Usual Suspects, I forgot what it was called though.

From everything that I've heard of Singer's treatment for X-Men 3, and everything that I've seen from what we're getting, it seems to me that the movie was gonna be screwed one way or another anyways.

In what we're getting, we're going to have Cyclops very likely killed off, and non-existent in the Phoenix Saga, and Wolverine likely taking his role as Jean Grey's savior.

In Bryan Singer's version, we would have had a larger role for Cyclops, which is great, but he would have cut out Storm altogether, which isn't great.

People really need to get off of the Cyclops, or Storm, or Wolverine biases. The fact of the matter is, NONE of these characters should just be eliminated. They don't die in the comic books, and they shouldn't die in the movies. Wolverine isn't a leader, and his love for Jean isn't strong enough to save her. And Storm doesn't just up and disappear. Character biases aside, likes or dislikes of the actors or actresses, none of it matters. These characters shouldn't be treated like this.

With Singer, we would have had Emma Frost and Gambit. Well, a lot of people are already upset with how Singer would have handled Emma Frost, since she would have been an empath. And with Ratner, we're getting an inaccurate rendition, at least powers and appearance wise, of Callisto.

We are getting a Sentinel, even if it is just a Danger Room hologram.

So what do I prefer? The one we're getting, or Singer's?

Well, it's really hard to say, because we've only heard rumblings of what Singer might have wanted to do, where we actually have Ratner's vision coming out in 2 weeks.

But I will say this. I absolutley love Bryan Singer's 'X-Men' movies. I believe they were very loyal adaptations of the X-Men source material, even though there are many people who will argue that. In my mind, there are a few inaccuracies, but overall, they were handled very well.

But I will admit this; Singer was a little light on the action. I mean, we got some great action sequences; the train station in X-Men, Nightcrawler's White House attack in X2, the X-Jet / Tornado sequence in X2, Pyro's ambush on the police outside the Drake home in X2, and my personal favorite scene thus far in the franchise, Magneto's escape from prison in X2...

But he did hold back on the action. The final battle that we are getting in Ratner's X-Men 3 is something I imagine we never would have gotten with Singer. I mean, the destruction of the Golden Gate Bridge, the huge mutant battle on Alcatraz... and I don't give a flying **** about Phoenix flames or not, or the fact that it's Wolverine looking back at Jean and not Cyclops... that shot of Wolverine looking back at Jean as the Phoenix, and all those flames and ****... it makes it look like the Devil himself is rising out of the pits of Hell. That is a classic shot that in the theatres, is gonna send chills down my spine.

We were gonna lose a character either way. It was either gonna be Storm or Cyclops by the looks of it. At least this way, we get some awesome action. The cast remains consistant through the entire trilogy.

And hopefully, just hopefully, things aren't 100% as they seem on the Cyclops front.

[spideyboy_1111]

blah.. we might get emma but whats the point if shes sigourni weaver and nothing like the emma we know? didnt singer change enough that ratner seems to be fixing? plus the "droideka" sentinel designs look horrible.. hell from the small clip ive seen as is id take the sentinel head and "headlights" we got over that

[BMM]

blah.. we might get emma but whats the point if shes sigourni weaver and nothing like the emma we know? didnt singer change enough that ratner seems to be fixing? plus the "droideka" sentinel designs look horrible.. hell from the small clip ive seen as is id take the sentinel head and "headlights" we got over that

It depends on who you ask. I think a lot of newer fans are used to this mysteriouly de-aged kind of twenty year old version of her popularized by recent comics, whereas the other versions fit Weaver well. She's supposed to be a school teacher on par with Xavier, was old enough to work with Magneto in the Hellfire Club, and be old enough and experienced enough to manipulate someone as powerful as the Phoenix played by someone at least as old as Janssen--and Weaver can play smart and seductive--she's even looked good as a blonde . . . So, again, it's all in what you're used to.

As far as the sentinel, I actually like X2's sentinel concept fine. A lot of people say it looks like an overgrown slinky, but if you look at it, it's just as solid (wires, etc.) on the inside as any other concept drawings. It's outer-shell is just detailed via the segments, which may have looked better on screen.

I think the head is actually more faithful to the comics than the one in X3 . . . it's the face, the eyes . . . It even has the eerie search light in the center of its chest. I especially point out the head, because apparently that's all we see in X3 anyway, depending on what report we receive any given day.

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/437/sentinelcomparison2hd0vr.jpg

Again, it's all in what you like, I guess.

[BMM]

In Bryan Singer's version, we would have had a larger role for Cyclops, which is great, but he would have cut out Storm altogether, which isn't great . . .

As posted above, I don't think the producers would have let Halle get away that easy, especially since it seems she was at a turning point in her decision . . . but it's all rumor and conjecture on both sides.


. . . But he did hold back on the action.

I always hoped this would have been explored more in future films, as I really enjoyed the pieces we started to get in X2 from X-Men (Nightcrawler, etc.). If this would not have been further developed in something like the Dark Phoenix Saga, or whatever, I would have been unhappy . . . can't have someone who calls herself the chaos bringer, without bringing any chaos.

[Rac]

Man I would'v loved Singers X3 (and X4!!). Now we get one rushed movie which's nickname is crapfest. C'mon! More Cyclops! Hellfire Club! Gambit! Two movies!

God I hate Warner Bros. (for seducing Singer), Bryan Singer (for taking the Superman gig) and Fox (for not waiting until Bryan has done Supes. He said he would done it afterewards. He could also say to WB that he does X3 first.).

"You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!" -George Taylor

[J.Howlett]

Singer was building to larger action set pieces. It's clear if you look at the progression from X-Men to X2. What makes people think there wouldn't have been a progression in action from X2 to X3 with Singer?

He would've done it. That's not the issue.

The issue is the handling of characters, the storyline, and the subtext which Singer handled very, very well in his films. With this cure plotline, Singer would've asked the ethical and philosophical questions from every angle dealing with this cure. It would not have been just a plot to get to the action that the "fans want."

He would've explored it and the action would've progressed naturally.

Everyone, take a look at this review of X-Men The Last Stand. It says it all. It comes from filmfocus.co.uk.

In Brief: A mutant cure has been discovered in the mutation of a young boy (Cameron Bright) and a way to harness its power has been developed; much to the chagrin of Magneto who sets about to destroy the cure, and the one who carries it, once and for all. As the X-Men make their last stand, all will be at stake.

In Full: Plucking the most interesting of its ideas from Joss Whedon's special run on the X-Men comic books, X-Men: The Last Stand had the potential to be the greatest of all three films. Building on the massive success of X2, perhaps one of the finest superhero films to date, and combining it with one of the X-Men's most exciting and challenging storylines - that of a mutant cure - was a recipe for success that was ever so nearly impossible to get wrong.

So, that X-Men: The Last Stand is no better or worse than the entertaining first outing in the X-Men franchise is, in fact, a dire disappointment, for the film wastes no time in abandoning the brilliance of its concept - a concept which might have given us the best superhero film ever. The mutant cure is, here, an excuse for yet another stand-off with Magneto, the ethical implications of its conception only coming to play when Rogue decides her boyfriend is losing interest.

For, like most in Hollywood, The Last Stand finds the black and white without ever finding the grey; Magneto is a bad guy, the X-Men are the good guys and audiences want to see the good guys win. But the mutant cure concept is so much more complex than that, hinting at serious ethical and personal conflict that is never explored. As the humans develop guns with which to shoot mutants with the cure the audience is left wondering if we shouldn't be rooting for Magneto's alliance. No cure at all is, after all, far preferable to one forced on those who don't want it.

And, once again, the ensemble nature of the X-Men universe proves difficult to translate; only Kelsey Grammer's Beast gets adequate exposure and even he could quite easily be left at home in favour of the established cast. The other new additions are thrown a line or two here and there and used as nobody's-safe fodder in the climactic Last Stand. Of course, by that point we've been given neither motive nor means to care for them and so the ultimate battle between good and evil is only as fraught with peril as any other battle in the franchise.

Which is not to say that X-Men: The Last Stand isn't entertaining on those base levels a superhero film should be entertaining - it's beyond even Brett Ratner to make the X-Men boring - but it's not a patch on the film it could and should have been. Indeed, the only ramification it leaves for the franchise is in the characters that don't survive, and only one of those deaths feels anything less than unjustified.

In the hands of genuine storytellers, X-Men: The Last Stand might have achieved real greatness. In the hands of Brett Ratner, Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn - who seem merely puppets to the studio's desire to milk fans of the franchise for all they're worth - it's never anything more than average.

[X-Maniac]

The Last Stand had the potential to be the greatest of all three films. Building on the massive success of X2, perhaps one of the finest superhero films to date, and combining it with one of the X-Men's most exciting and challenging storylines - that of a mutant cure - was a recipe for success that was ever so nearly impossible to get wrong.

So, that X-Men: The Last Stand is no better or worse than the entertaining first outing in the X-Men franchise is, in fact, a dire disappointment, for the film wastes no time in abandoning the brilliance of its concept - a concept which might have given us the best superhero film ever. The mutant cure is, here, an excuse for yet another stand-off with Magneto, the ethical implications of its conception only coming to play when Rogue decides her boyfriend is losing interest.

For, like most in Hollywood, The Last Stand finds the black and white without ever finding the grey; Magneto is a bad guy, the X-Men are the good guys and audiences want to see the good guys win. But the mutant cure concept is so much more complex than that, hinting at serious ethical and personal conflict that is never explored. As the humans develop guns with which to shoot mutants with the cure the audience is left wondering if we shouldn't be rooting for Magneto's alliance. No cure at all is, after all, far preferable to one forced on those who don't want it.

This review seems odd. We've seen Storm and Beast discussing the cure with Xavier... so there is a moral debate within the movie.. In such an ensemble movie, it's never going to be as deep as in a social documentary, but it's there. Did the reviewer miss all that?

[J.Howlett]

Yeah, it's in there but they don't go deep enough. I think that's what the reviewer was talking about. It's not enough to just put it in there and move along. They don't dig deeper with it. And that was my fear from the get go.

Essentially, there should've been a scene where Xavier sat the entire school down and had an open debate with everyone about their feelings on it and where he stood. It would've been an interesting scene.

With Rogue, I think they got it partially right. She's the one we most identify with because of the nature of her power and what she wants.

Again, we have to see how it plays out in the film but they may not go deep enough....or they do but it's so quick that he doesn't leave it's mark.

[boywonder13]

I tihnk Singer would have done the Danger Room right!!