Now what the hell would've been so hard about getting relationships right?

[Morgoth]

I mean, would it have been so hard to have Kitty be with Pioter?!

No they had to screw things up and have her be with Bobby.

I really wanted to see the X-men truly come to life but they've messed up so many things like this, and the accents, the ethnic differences that were so cool, these movies are lacking that X-men feel!:mad:

[Aiden]

Hmmmm...

I think they wanted a love triangle to be set up because it might be another thing that makes Rogue want to take the cure. She dislikes how Kitty can touch Bobby etc

On the ethnic thing, we are getting Kavita Rao, Moira McTaggart and Omega Red maybe so there should be some varied ethnicity(sp?)

[symbspider33]

I like the movies but I do agree w\u some things in the movies shouldn't have changed!

[Mistopurr83]

I mean, would it have been so hard to have Kitty be with Pioter?!

No they had to screw things up and have her be with Bobby.

I really wanted to see the X-men truly come to life but they've messed up so many things like this, and the accents, the ethnic differences that were so cool, these movies are lacking that X-men feel!:mad:

I know how you feel. I for one thing do NOT like to watch an adaptation that doesn't stay faithful but tries to recreate everything that existed in the original universe.:down This is the main problem I had with the x-men movies.

[rjb182]

I think the reason they changed everything was because there was just no TIME to establish it all.

The X-Men have a 40-year history with rich, deep relationships that just can't be all related in three movies. So they cut corners-- omit stuff, combine stuff, mix it around until it works in the time allotted.

Maybe they should make more of an effort to stay closer to the source. OTOH, they're going for the general movie audience here, not the fans-- I'm sure they'd tell you their changes are done out of practicality, not disrespect.

[Morgoth]

I know how you feel. I for one thing do NOT like to watch an adaptation that doesn't stay faithful but tries to recreate everything that existed in the original universe.:down This is the main problem I had with the x-men movies.Sure there's alot that's happened over the years but they could've easily had Kitty and Peter get together. I've thought of so many ways these movies could've been done that would've been more faithful and no problems.

I've seen cartoons where I thought how can they do this in a half hour and then they did it, and I think why can't they do that in a two hour movie.

There are so many excuses for all comic book movies being dumbed down but, it's all lazy filmmakers, directors who don't get it and don't care and cheap idiots, also actors who don't wanna' play thecharacter as he or she is which is bull, if that's the character you play it that way.

Look at the V for Vendetta thread, there's an interview with Alan Moore and he says how Sean Connery didn't want to play Alan Quartermain the way he was and all of the character went out the window etc.

It is bull crap. I've seen faithful comic movies and it makes me sick I sit there watching it and think, why couldn't X-men or FF been done this good.

[Cyclops]

Then... psst.... DON'T WATCH THE MOVIES.

That was easy.

[thegameq]

I think the reason they changed everything was because there was just no TIME to establish it all.

The X-Men have a 40-year history with rich, deep relationships that just can't be all related in three movies. So they cut corners-- omit stuff, combine stuff, mix it around until it works in the time allotted.

Maybe they should make more of an effort to stay closer to the source. OTOH, they're going for the general movie audience here, not the fans-- I'm sure they'd tell you their changes are done out of practicality, not disrespect.

(Channeling Hank McCoy):No truer words may have ever been spoken on these boards. Although, practicality is one of those things that is always stretched (or at least should be) with these kinds of films. (goes back to reading Keats)



Me and my friends have had thoughts and discussions about Marvel's attempts to do an X-Men movie in the past (before the first film) and about trying to convert Marvel Comics to film in general: Marvel Comics have to be done RIGHT. Marvel's characters posess to much depth and require to much special f/x to do thin versions of. That said, when done right with deep respect for the material--letting it stand on its own the way it was meant to, the results can and should be great. If you're not going to do Marvel Comics RIGHT, DON'T DO IT AT ALL. The long standing source material and fans deserve better. I have long believed that the soap operish at times nature of the X-men comics would perhaps be better served with a weekly TV show, where such things as character developement (a huge part of the X-Men) are allowed to grow. Perhaps even a miniseries--an expensive, elaborate miniseries...............yet another risk.

Marvel Comics films require commitment ($$$$$), vision (artistic), respect and confidence in the source material. The problem is, Marvel and Fox want to make a buck first and foremost. Secondly, very few studios are going to be willing to mortgage the farm. WB took a risk with PJ and his LOTR trilogy. But they comitted to and believed in his vision. Fox took a risk with GL and his early SW trology. The rest is the stuff of legends. In truth and reality, films like LOTR and the early SW films (the grandiose epics) are a rare breed and are seldomly done because of the risks involved. But when they do perchance to venture out of the box of conformity and normalcy......Fox and Marvel had a chance to make one of those rare breeds and were simply to scared to do so. IMO, it truely shows how much faith not only Fox had in X-Men, but moreso Marvel's lack of confidence in their own source material. That my friends, is sad.

As for the general audience.....everybody enjoys a great film, whether they appreciate it is another story. Not everyone appreciated LOTR, but they sure as hell enjoyed it.

(Channeling Hank McCoy again): Make it and they will come. Make it well, the best that it can be, to the best of your abilities, and they will come to speak of it as legend.

[Mistopurr83]

It is bull crap. I've seen faithful comic movies and it makes me sick I sit there watching it and think, why couldn't X-men or FF been done this good.

Yes it is bull crap. A "faithful" comic adaptation can be successful as long as there is good writing and directing behind it. So many film franchises that took many steps away from reality managed to be real successful b/c they had good writing, good directing and good visual fx put into them.

I don't think F4 can be compared to x-men b/c they practically had nothing in common. F4 took a more comic oriented approach and stayed much more faithful to the original F4 comics (aside from Doom's portrayal). F4 was successful but the only reasons it wasn't well received was b/c of weak writing and direction. But at least the people behind F4 were confident in making it look like a more comic based adaptation.

Also the 90's x-men cartoon (which ran for 5 years) managed to be really successful in the more comic based direction it went in. It lasted longer than X-Men Evolution did for god sakes! That shows x-men can still be successful as a film adaptation even if it stays close to the comics (take Spider-Man and Sin City for instance). Now what I'm trying to say is, a more comic oriented approach is not gonna stop a comicbook film from being successful.

I don't know if this is true but, I once heard that even Fox admits x-men is better off as a TV show. Perhaps this is why their not meaning to make more than 3 movies and why the Wolverine spin-off will be a prequel. I still think some TV studio out there should try making x-men into a more comic based live action TV show instead of trying to make too many sequels to the films.

[Exploding Boy]

The love triangle imo is kinda useless i would love to see Kitty with Piotr like in the comics.

[The Batman]

C'Mon folks...they've been focusing on jean and logan instead of jean and scott, who's relationship got a helluva lot farther. what makes you think they'd get any other realtionships right?

[Sun_Down]

Then... psst.... DON'T WATCH THE MOVIES.

That was easy.

I just thought this post needed to be read again. If you want the comics, read the comics.

[FieryBalrog]

I just wish Colossus had a Russian accent. I mean how hard is that? Get a muscular Russian dude and youre set!

[.TheNerdess.]

he only had one line in the last movie, maybe with presumably more lines in this film, he will have the accent

[Mistopurr83]

Here's one more thing I forgot to mention. Bobby and Kitty being hooked up is something else they took from Ultimate X-Men. X3 looks like it sticking closer to the Ultimate universe than the 616 universe.:down Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg are not the hardcore x-men fans they claim to be.

[Abaddon]

I think Ultimate took it from the movies actually.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Cartoons = for kids

The movies aren't for kids.

I love how people say the movies are "dumbed down" when quite frankly, they are a lot more believable and intelligent than the comics are...

[Abaddon]

In some ways,yes.In others,not.

[Mistopurr83]

"Cartoons = for kids"

NOT always Nell! Do you think R rated Japanese animes and american cartoons like South Park, Drawn Together and Adult Swim = for kids too??? I certainly wouldn't say so.

"The movies aren't for kids."

And what age group of kids would that be? Grade schoolers, middle schoolers, or high schoolers?

"I love how people say the movies are "dumbed down" when quite frankly, they are a lot more believable and intelligent than the comics are..."

They say "dumbed down" b/c of the way the characters are portrayed in the films is an insult to the original 616 characters. So the way their made to look on screen makes them look dumb compared to their comic personas. Besides, saying "more intelligent and believable" is just a matter of opinion.

[usagicassidy]

I honestly don't see a problem with it.

Have Kitty and Pitor been together throughout their entire comics run? No. It's not they're having Cyclops and Storm together or something completely out of the ordinary. I actually like the idea of Bobby and Kitty. Never really liked Bobby and Rogue, but I was okay with it.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

"Cartoons = for kids"

NOT always Nell! Do you think R rated Japanese animes and american cartoons like South Park, Drawn Together and Adult Swim = for kids too??? I certainly wouldn't say so.

"The movies aren't for kids."

And what age group of kids would that be? Grade schoolers, middle schoolers, or high schoolers?

"I love how people say the movies are "dumbed down" when quite frankly, they are a lot more believable and intelligent than the comics are..."

They say "dumbed down" b/c of the way the characters are portrayed in the films is an insult to the original 616 characters. So the way their made to look on screen makes them look dumb compared to their comic personas. Besides, saying "more intelligent and believable" is just a matter of opinion.

Yes, but the X-Men cartoon was on Fox KIDS...

And no, the movie didn't dumb the characters down. It made the characters, and the universe, something to be taken seriously. It's not just some entertaining popcorn flick, which it was it would have been had they followed the comics more, as you say. There would have been much more unbelievably costumes, and powers, and dialogue, that it would have been nothing more than a Power Rangers quality movie.

But Bryan Singer took these characters seriously, and turned them into something more than just this summer's superheroes (i.e. Fantastic 4 or even The Hulk)

So no, he didn't "dumb" them down. He smarted them up. They can be taken seriously now. The comics couldn't. And this is coming from someone who enjoys the comics and the cartoons greatly.

[Abaddon]

The Hulk was barely a superhero action flick,so that doesnt help your argument.

[rjb182]

So no, he didn't "dumb" them down. He smarted them up. They can be taken seriously now. The comics couldn't. And this is coming from someone who enjoys the comics and the cartoons greatly.

Until recently, when I was a fan of the movies who wasn't reading many of the comics, I would have agreed with this. But the more I read, the less I think this is so.

The intelligent core of the X-Men... the characters, the anti-discrimination themes... are still there, especially in the earlier, Claremont stuff. What changes, though, are the conventions: They're similar people doing similar kinds of things, but in the movies, the X-Men act less like super-heroes and more like characters in a sci-fi action movie.

Which is probably what they had to do, for the sake of those people who-- and I know several-- would say of a faithful adaptation, "Sure, that's cool, but it's a COMIC BOOK. So it's all just silly, right?"

It depends on what kinds of disbelief you're willing to spend. I don't think the movies smartened them up. I don't think they dumbed them down any more than they had to do to make them fit in 2 hours.

I do think they made them more generally accessible, which people will tell you is a bad thing but it isn't really.

[Mistopurr83]

Yes, but the X-Men cartoon was on Fox KIDS...

And no, the movie didn't dumb the characters down. It made the characters, and the universe, something to be taken seriously. It's not just some entertaining popcorn flick, which it was it would have been had they followed the comics more, as you say. There would have been much more unbelievably costumes, and powers, and dialogue, that it would have been nothing more than a Power Rangers quality movie.

But Bryan Singer took these characters seriously, and turned them into something more than just this summer's superheroes (i.e. Fantastic 4 or even The Hulk)

So no, he didn't "dumb" them down. He smarted them up. They can be taken seriously now. The comics couldn't. And this is coming from someone who enjoys the comics and the cartoons greatly.

Dude I don't know what your talking about and your argument doesn't prove anything. Once again, it's nothing but a matter of your opinion. Enough said.

[EndlesIn]

It is bull crap. I've seen faithful comic movies and it makes me sick I sit there watching it and think, why couldn't X-men or FF been done this good. What movies are those? Please share. your not thinking realistic. I love Brain Singers Vision of X-Men because he made the Characters believeable to this world. Nothing over the top just perfect. Most of the X characters would look so stupid if they kept it to the T and if they follow the Comics fully the Movies would interest people besides the Fans.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

^ As a fan, I don't even think I would be interested in it if they followed the comics exactly now that I am over the age of 10.

[Abaddon]

They'd have to cut corners nomatter what,so itd never be exact.

[Mistopurr83]

^ As a fan, I don't even think I would be interested in it if they followed the comics exactly now that I am over the age of 10.

I never said anything about them following the comics exactly. I said I'd rather see them follow the comics accurately and "accurately" does NOT = exactly! Nell you just can't comprehend.

[Mistopurr83]

What movies are those? Please share. your not thinking realistic. I love Brain Singers Vision of X-Men because he made the Characters believeable to this world. Nothing over the top just perfect. Most of the X characters would look so stupid if they kept it to the T and if they follow the Comics fully the Movies would interest people besides the Fans.

No one here cares if you love reality. I also think your wrong about what you say. Have you not seen any comic adaptations that were faithful? What you said indicates you haven't.

[Sun_Down]

The things that matter were faithfully adapted. Some of the details were changed, but not so much that you could call the X-Men films "unfaithful", not by a long shot. Who really gives a damn if Kitty and Bobby get together instead of Kitty and Piotr? Honestly, who cares? It doesn't take away from the story, it didn't alter the themes of prejudice and alienation, it's just a different interpretation. An interpretation, might I add, of a very minor facet of the films.

You people say that you "just want a faithful movie" and act like you've somehow been wronged. But you're really just complaining for the sake of complaining.

[Abaddon]

So the characters of Storm,Cyclops,and Rogue were all faithfully adapted in your opinion?

[rjb182]

Well, Storm was just powered-down some and largely ignored, not really changed in my opinion.

Cyke was also ignored quite a bit and I'm not thrilled with the actor, but in terms of character, I think he's the same...

Rogue is, obviously, quite different.

[Sun_Down]

So the characters of Storm,Cyclops,and Rogue were all faithfully adapted in your opinion?

Yes. Take Cyke, the character who everyone seems to ***** about. In the movies, he was an uptight control freak who constantly sits on his hands and waits for Xavier's approval. That sounds quite a bit like Scott Summers to me. And I'll say it again : these are not comics! You can't slowly flesh out a character every month for 40 years. There would be no way to go into every detail of each character's histories the way you seem to want. Details were changed to fit the medium, but the characters were, at the core, the same. In the grand scheme of things, all you're doing is nitpicking and you know it. If you don't like the movies...

Deal.

With.

It.

[FieryBalrog]

Well Cyke is also a no-nonsense leader, and he DOESNT hang on Xavier's word to do his job. In the comics when Logan and Cyke first meet and Cyke forms the new team Logan acts up, and Cyke immediately lays down the law. I would have really liked to see that. But no, Cyke is made to look dumb to make Logan look cool. In fact there's dialogue devoted to that exact purpose- like when Cyke messes up the jet landing and Logan jumps on him, there was no purpose for that scene except to hype up Singer's Mary Sue Logan. I really like the movies, but I didnt like that.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well Cyke is also a no-nonsense leader, and he DOESNT hang on Xavier's word to do his job. In the comics when Logan and Cyke first meet and Cyke forms the new team Logan acts up, and Cyke immediately lays down the law. I would have really liked to see that. But no, Cyke is made to look dumb to make Logan look cool. In fact there's dialogue devoted to that exact purpose- like when Cyke messes up the jet landing and Logan jumps on him, there was no purpose for that scene except to hype up Singer's Mary Sue Logan. I really like the movies, but I didnt like that.

...except for the fact that Wolverine goes at Cyclops all the time in the comics, cartoons, and every other form of medium the X-Men have appeared in as well... in fact, Cyclops goes back at Wolverine quite well. In the scene in Xavier's office, when Wolverine lashes out towards Cyclops, he's ready to blast Wolverine through the walls... in the scene in Wolverine's room, Cyclops goes at Wolverine "Better be careful, I might not be there next time" What they did between Cyclops and Wolverine was perfect. Wolverine definatley came out as the *******.

And yes they got Cyclops and Rogue correct. I will agree that Storm's portrayal wasn't accurate. But Cyclops is very much like his comic book self, and I think is one of the most accuratley represented characters. Quantity of screentime does not equal quality of screentime.

Rogue is spot on too. In the comics, Rogue is very uncomfortable about her powers, and thinks of them as a curse, and wants to be cured of them. And her being unconfident as she is in the movies is a very common thing for her. Sure, when she's all sassed up like in the 90's, she's really confident. But I've also seen many times, outside of the 90's era, where she breaks down and cries over her powers. And her reaction to Iceman over not wanting to hurt him is exactly how she reacted towards Gambit in the comics.

For those who think the movies were inaccurate to the comics, I think you need to go back and actually *read* the comics, not just flipping through all the pretty pictures.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I never said anything about them following the comics exactly. I said I'd rather see them follow the comics accurately and "accurately" does NOT = exactly! Nell you just can't comprehend.

They were accurate.

[thegameq]

They were accurate.

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

[Mistopurr83]

They were accurate.

NO THEY WEREN'T!!! That's nothing but your MO. You don't even know the meaning of the word, "accurate." God Nell, your quite the critic!:o

[Mistopurr83]

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

Your absolutely right about what you say. You made a lot of good points there thegameq. Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

Another thing is when you make characters like Pyro, Mystique, Deathstrike, Rogue, Ice Man and others into something they NEVER were in the comics... That is NOT what I call staying faithful or accurate! A faithful or accurate adaptation would've been something more like this. The X-Men films starting out the same way the comics did, not wearing uniforms/outfits they never had on, getting romantic relationships right, not screwing up the ages of the characters and telling story arcs in a similar way. That is accuracy! The x-men films turing out so unfaithful lies on the fault of one man who didn't do his homework here.:down All he decides to do is watch some episodes of the 90's cartoon (the only faithful x-men adaptation made so far) and then decides to do just this and that from there. So don't bother saying the x-movies are faithful/accurate b/c if you do, that is total retardation.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

mistopurr, never make assumptions about my X-Men fandom ever again. I have been a fan of the X-Men since long, LONG before the movies ever came out. I've been wanting X-Men movies my entire life. But I "get" the X-Men, and I realize that there is more to the X-Men than just being a bunch of superheroes with super powers. There is a true meaning there, to not only each character, but to the mythos as a whole. X-Men in general (no matter the form) suffers when it strays from it's themes of oppression, and the political commentary. When they go into space, and alternate realities, and all of that kind of stuff, it suffers. And I feel that way about the comics, cartoons, video games, and if the movies end up taking that direction in future movies.

Don't you ever question my love of these characters again.

Do you think these X-films are all they could have been? Are you a fan of the comics? Make no mistake, I'm not ignorant to the myriad difficulties of bringing a complicated CB like the X-Men to the big screen, but there could have been more and it could've been better.....again, it's like it's more like someone's..... attempt at an X-Men movie.

The other thing you have to understand is that everybody knows by now---especially the fans--that you can make a CB movie faithful to the source material and have it be successful. No, it won't appeal to everyone, the scifi/fantasy genre never does. There's really no excuse anymore other than the so many that have already been mentioned--and that's just what they are, EXCUSES. As much as I enjoy the X-films, I can't consider them X-men movies because they don't come across as such. Again, they come off as someone's best try at making an X-Men movie. Almost like some kind of...quasi-scifi flick with one foot in fantasy and the other in reality.

Come on man, I'm not trying to force my opinion on you or anyone else on this board, but you must understand the fustration the fans feel. Especially knowing X-Men could've been done properly. But it just wasn't.

AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! STOP USING THE POWER RANGERS AS A COMPARISON TO AN CB X-MEN FILM!! SUPERMAN AND SPIDERMAN DID NOT COME OUT LIKE THE POWER RANGERS AND NEITHER WOULD AN X-MEN FILM!! (not aimed at you Nell) COME UP WITH A BETTER EXCUSE!

Now to this:

First off, yes, I am a fan of the comics. I am by no means an expert on the comics, but I am a fan of the comics. And yes, I do feel that the X-Men movies were all that they could have been.

Because as a fan, I take it as a sign of respect towards the fans, and towards the mythos, that someone like Bryan Singer came along and saw these characters as *more* than just comic book characters. He saw these guys as something to be taken seriously. And yes, it would have looked like Power Rangers if it was taken out of the comics. People always bring up Spiderman as a comparrison as to why the costumes could have worked, but there is a difference here; the character of Spiderman was done in all CGI, it wasn't a guy in a bright red spider costume. There is also the fact that Spiderman isn't as serious of a superhero as the X-Men are. Spiderman is a superhero who's purpose more is towards the bright colors and fancy powers, whereas the purpose of the X-Men is more of a social commentary, with superheroes to make it more interesting. Bryan Singer even said that he tried costumes more accurate to the comics, and they just didn't work.

Someone coming in and taking these characters seriously, and portraying them in a way that can be taken seriously by everyone is a sign of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's a director understanding that these characters aren't just comic book characters, and that these movies aren't just comic book movies. These are stories with a true message fueling them, not just "super hero has to fight super villian to save cty"... no, it's something that everyone can relate to on some level. And it's something that is very real in our world, something that has happened, something that is still happening.

The X-Men is about things like the Holocaust, the Jim Crow Laws of the south, genocide, segregation, the camps that Japanese Americans were placed in during World War 2, the destruction of the Native Americans... it is abot every kind of prejudice that this world has ever faced. And that is something that is much deeper than "Spiderman gets bit by a spider and gets super powers, and Norman Oswell's company goes bankrupt, he's exposed to a toxin, his company gets stolen from him, and he goes crazy"

No, the X-Men is about a man who survived one of the greatest horrors this world has ever faced, the Holocaust. A man who has seen first hand the destruction that can be caused through human intolerance. And a man who is a double minority; he is not just Jewish, but he is also a mutant. And the world looks dubiously towards mutants because of the potential threat they can cause. And this is a man who knows first hand what can happen because of those dubious views upon a group of people, and will not sit idly by while his people gradually lose all of their rights, and become oppressed yet again.

X-Men is also about another man, a pacifist, who believes that through hard work, patience, peace, and diplomacy, that mankind can come to accept mutants as equals, and that the 2 forms of humanity can live together in prosperity.

X-Men is about a group of young men and women who go to an institution to learn how to best utilize their powers, not just for themselves, but also for the benefit of all of mankind. It is also about another group of young men and women who are going to take action, and stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their acceptance and equality, even if their actions are a bit radical, they aren't going to sit around and accept their fate.

And Bryan Singer got that. He saw that, and that's what he made them about in the movies. Exactly what they should have been about. Unlike characters like Spiderman, the X-Men aren't about super powers and colorful costumes. They are about something much deeper than that, with special powers and colorful costumes to make it a bit interesting.

Being more "accurate", as you say, towards the comics (which, by more accurate, you just mean the stuff like powers and costumes, not the things that the X-Men is truly about, the things that truly are accurate) would mean sacrificing the emotion and heart of the storyline, sacrificing the substance, for the flash. And that is not what the X-Men is about. That would have turned X-Men into a typical summer action film, just like Fantastic 4 or Daredevil, that you all seem to despise so much. But instead we got someone who, despite not being a fan initially, saw deeper than Cyclops blasting a hole through a mountain, saw deeper than Rogue flying around throwing tanks at Sentinels, and dug deep to find out just what X-Men was truly about. And he saw it. And he got it. And he brought it to life, just the way it should have been brought to life.

I honestly feel that people who think these movies weren't accurate don't truly comprehend the true meaning behind the mythos, and the true essence that ever character possesses, beyond a costume and a power. Yes, there were some inaccuracies, such as the characterization of Storm, Iceman, and Lady Deathstrike, but other than that, everything these movies have portrayed has been spot on to what the comic books are all about.

Too bad we never see Cyclops blast a hole through a mountain and bark out orders like a madman. He is still portrayed as a leader. He is still portrayed as someone who looks towards Xavier like a father, and someone who will step up and take Xavier's role should anything ever happen to him. He is portrayed as someone with an undying love towards Jean Grey, and just because some of you can't see beyond Wolverine's screentime doesn't mean that's not how he's portrayed. He is shown as somebody who is loyal to his teammates, or rather, his family.

Too bad we don't see Rogue flying around throwing tanks. She is portrayed as someone who is very scared because of her powers, something very accurate to the comics. She is portrayed as someone afraid to hurt the ones she loves because of her powers, and as such, she is afraid to get close, just like in the comics. And this next movie seems to have her questioning herself, and whether or not she should "cure" herself... just like the comics.

If you think these movies weren't accurate, then you can't see the forest for the trees. You don't know these characters beyond their costumes and their powers. And you don't comprehend that X-Men is more than a superhero story, but a story about true to our world realities, with a message deeper than "the good guy always stops the bad guy".

[Mistopurr83]

Nell what are you trying to do write a novel? I'm not even gonna bother reading that. The longer you make your posts the more boring they get so quit trying to overanalyze your MO. Also, no matter what you say your not gonna change minds like mine.

[Sun_Down]

Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

I've never read a comic before the movies because I disagree with you? Then I wonder where those hundreds of X-Men comics in my basement came from. I wonder where that autographed copy of X-Men #1 that I got when I was five came from. I wonder what happened to every cent I ever got in allowance as a kid or why I still spend $20 a week in my local comic book store. I always thought I was a comic book fan of nearly 15 years, but I guess because I'm grateful for the X-Men film franchise, I'm not. I guess because I don't ***** and moan like a child, I am just a bandwagoner. Thank you Mistopurr for opening my eyes.

I wash my hands of this thread. If you want to continue your pointless complaining, go right ahead without me. I'm sure the FOX execs will be listening intently.


And Nell, great post. :up:

[Mistopurr83]

I've never read a comic before the movies because I disagree with you? Then I wonder where those hundreds of X-Men comics in my basement came from. I wonder where that autographed copy of X-Men #1 that I got when I was five came from. I wonder what happened to every cent I ever got in allowance as a kid or why I still spend $20 a week in my local comic book store. I always thought I was a comic book fan of nearly 15 years, but I guess because I'm grateful for the X-Men film franchise, I'm not. I guess because I don't ***** and moan like a child, I am just a bandwagoner. Thank you Mistopurr for opening my eyes.

I wash my hands of this thread. If you want to continue your pointless complaining, go right ahead without me. I'm sure the FOX execs will be listening intently.

I said that about you b/c of the way you defend the films. I don't know you in real life so I don't know if I should believe you. I could care less about Fox listening to this thread or not anyway. For god sakes all they'd rather do is ignore everyone on the forums.:down

[rjb182]

Nell2ThaIzzay, I just wanted to say, awesome post. You've summed up the whole heart and soul of the X-Men. Well done.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Nell2ThaIzzay, I just wanted to say, awesome post. You've summed up the whole heart and soul of the X-Men. Well done.

Thanks.

It's just a shame that people like mistopurr won't read it, and will remain ignorant on the topic, and assume that I'm some bandwagon fan based on the movies just because I agree with how they were done, and my fandom of these characters I have loved my entire life will be continued to be questioned because of his ignorance...

[thegameq]

Your absolutely right about what you say. You made a lot of good points there thegameq. Besides, users like Nell and Sundown are just saying the things they say in order to make excuses for something they like. I don't even think users like them read an x-men comic before the movies. I bet they just saw the movie first and than did research on the comic characters on sites like uncannyxmen.net.

Another thing is when you make characters like Pyro, Mystique, Deathstrike, Rogue, Ice Man and others into something they NEVER were in the comics... That is NOT what I call staying faithful or accurate! A faithful or accurate adaptation would've been something more like this. The X-Men films starting out the same way the comics did, not wearing uniforms/outfits they never had on, getting romantic relationships right, not screwing up the ages of the characters and telling story arcs in a similar way. That is accuracy! The x-men films turing out so unfaithful lies on the fault of one man who didn't do his homework here.:down All he decides to do is watch some episodes of the 90's cartoon (the only faithful x-men adaptation made so far) and then decides to do just this and that from there. So don't bother saying the x-movies are faithful/accurate b/c if you do, that is total retardation.

I think what you see on these boards alot is clearly people own preference when it comes to these types of films. Scifi/fantasy is not meant to be realistic. Which kind of begs the question, why watch if you don't enjoy the fantastic or the inplausible? You can portray the universe or the events in which the movie takes place as simple "matter of fact" ala Star Trek and comics in general. Remember, in the comics, the superhero world/aspect isn't portrayed as golly-gee-whiz-bang-wow! It's portrayed as a matter of fact--these people and the things they can do exist. They are a part of everyday life. It kind of makes sense that Marvel would choose to "ground" it's universe in real-life as opposed to other comics during its infancy. This is where the characterisations are so important. Rather than portray the characters as "up, up and away" superhero types, the characters are portrayed as real people with the same issues as ordinary people. Now you are probably saying, "that's what Singer was attempting", and I'll give him credit for it. But both he, the studio and Marvel were clearly afraid to let the source material stand for itself. The same way Raimi let Spider-man stand on the support of the source material (characterisation; Pete's dual life and the obvious real world mortality of being Spider-man), is the same way Singer could have done his film. The Spiderman films, IMO, never came across as gawdy or campy. Funny and humorous at times (like the comics), but not gawdy or campy. Just like the comics, Pete's life clashed with his role as Spiderman.

In X-Men you have Superheros who are feared. Do they save the world or say to hell with it? Factor in the close nit family scenario, and the rich characters in X-men. Give a huge dose of why people are afraid of them (their often strange and unconventional powers and those who chose to use their gift for personal gain) and voila! Don't run from the CB heritage, embrace it. Tell the story the with the same respect for the material the writers had when they wrote it. Take the Potter franchise. It's obvious that when JK Rowlings wrote her books, they weren't written as some "tongue-in-cheek", not to be taken seriously, peace of literature. She wrote the magical world in which Potter and co. inhabit as a "matter of fact". Magic does exist, albeit hidden from muggles. Fantastic to those who don't see or experience it every day (muggles, the students and the audience). But just another day around magic for the magical inhabitants.

That is the approach, that should've/could've been taken with the X-films. Let the material stand the way it was meant to. And if you don't, the only reason you won't is because you either don't know how for lack of vision or don't want to, for lack of faith in the source material.

What I find interesting, is that there a few CB films that would've been much better had the director/studio let their own movies run their true course. Daredevil and the Hulk come to mine. Two films I really liked, but were hampered by...interference. The Hulk didn't need to fight his father--much less the absorbing man. Ditch the whole convoluted absorbing man, abusive dad thing and the Hulk is easily back on track. I did appreciate Ang Lees attempt to put as Jekyll and Hyde spin on the Hulk though. But the absorbing man gimmick........? The same thing with Daredevil. Take away the "Batman scenario" and just let the films story run its course; Daredevil tries to take down King Pin and has to balance that with his real world job and the legalities that come with it and life. End of story. A violent crime story. You get the feeling with some of these films that the director was reeled in somewhat by the studios.

Again, would such films appeal to everyone? Surprise! No. They never do. And if you find yourself watching a movie you really don't like? The movie and its like are not for you.

[thegameq]

mistopurr, never make assumptions about my X-Men fandom ever again. I have been a fan of the X-Men since long, LONG before the movies ever came out. I've been wanting X-Men movies my entire life. But I "get" the X-Men, and I realize that there is more to the X-Men than just being a bunch of superheroes with super powers. There is a true meaning there, to not only each character, but to the mythos as a whole. X-Men in general (no matter the form) suffers when it strays from it's themes of oppression, and the political commentary. When they go into space, and alternate realities, and all of that kind of stuff, it suffers. And I feel that way about the comics, cartoons, video games, and if the movies end up taking that direction in future movies.

Don't you ever question my love of these characters again.



Now to this:

First off, yes, I am a fan of the comics. I am by no means an expert on the comics, but I am a fan of the comics. And yes, I do feel that the X-Men movies were all that they could have been.

Because as a fan, I take it as a sign of respect towards the fans, and towards the mythos, that someone like Bryan Singer came along and saw these characters as *more* than just comic book characters. He saw these guys as something to be taken seriously. And yes, it would have looked like Power Rangers if it was taken out of the comics. People always bring up Spiderman as a comparrison as to why the costumes could have worked, but there is a difference here; the character of Spiderman was done in all CGI, it wasn't a guy in a bright red spider costume. There is also the fact that Spiderman isn't as serious of a superhero as the X-Men are. Spiderman is a superhero who's purpose more is towards the bright colors and fancy powers, whereas the purpose of the X-Men is more of a social commentary, with superheroes to make it more interesting. Bryan Singer even said that he tried costumes more accurate to the comics, and they just didn't work.

Someone coming in and taking these characters seriously, and portraying them in a way that can be taken seriously by everyone is a sign of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's a director understanding that these characters aren't just comic book characters, and that these movies aren't just comic book movies. These are stories with a true message fueling them, not just "super hero has to fight super villian to save cty"... no, it's something that everyone can relate to on some level. And it's something that is very real in our world, something that has happened, something that is still happening.

The X-Men is about things like the Holocaust, the Jim Crow Laws of the south, genocide, segregation, the camps that Japanese Americans were placed in during World War 2, the destruction of the Native Americans... it is abot every kind of prejudice that this world has ever faced. And that is something that is much deeper than "Spiderman gets bit by a spider and gets super powers, and Norman Oswell's company goes bankrupt, he's exposed to a toxin, his company gets stolen from him, and he goes crazy"

No, the X-Men is about a man who survived one of the greatest horrors this world has ever faced, the Holocaust. A man who has seen first hand the destruction that can be caused through human intolerance. And a man who is a double minority; he is not just Jewish, but he is also a mutant. And the world looks dubiously towards mutants because of the potential threat they can cause. And this is a man who knows first hand what can happen because of those dubious views upon a group of people, and will not sit idly by while his people gradually lose all of their rights, and become oppressed yet again.

X-Men is also about another man, a pacifist, who believes that through hard work, patience, peace, and diplomacy, that mankind can come to accept mutants as equals, and that the 2 forms of humanity can live together in prosperity.

X-Men is about a group of young men and women who go to an institution to learn how to best utilize their powers, not just for themselves, but also for the benefit of all of mankind. It is also about another group of young men and women who are going to take action, and stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their acceptance and equality, even if their actions are a bit radical, they aren't going to sit around and accept their fate.

And Bryan Singer got that. He saw that, and that's what he made them about in the movies. Exactly what they should have been about. Unlike characters like Spiderman, the X-Men aren't about super powers and colorful costumes. They are about something much deeper than that, with special powers and colorful costumes to make it a bit interesting.

Being more "accurate", as you say, towards the comics (which, by more accurate, you just mean the stuff like powers and costumes, not the things that the X-Men is truly about, the things that truly are accurate) would mean sacrificing the emotion and heart of the storyline, sacrificing the substance, for the flash. And that is not what the X-Men is about. That would have turned X-Men into a typical summer action film, just like Fantastic 4 or Daredevil, that you all seem to despise so much. But instead we got someone who, despite not being a fan initially, saw deeper than Cyclops blasting a hole through a mountain, saw deeper than Rogue flying around throwing tanks at Sentinels, and dug deep to find out just what X-Men was truly about. And he saw it. And he got it. And he brought it to life, just the way it should have been brought to life.

I honestly feel that people who think these movies weren't accurate don't truly comprehend the true meaning behind the mythos, and the true essence that ever character possesses, beyond a costume and a power. Yes, there were some inaccuracies, such as the characterization of Storm, Iceman, and Lady Deathstrike, but other than that, everything these movies have portrayed has been spot on to what the comic books are all about.

Too bad we never see Cyclops blast a hole through a mountain and bark out orders like a madman. He is still portrayed as a leader. He is still portrayed as someone who looks towards Xavier like a father, and someone who will step up and take Xavier's role should anything ever happen to him. He is portrayed as someone with an undying love towards Jean Grey, and just because some of you can't see beyond Wolverine's screentime doesn't mean that's not how he's portrayed. He is shown as somebody who is loyal to his teammates, or rather, his family.

Too bad we don't see Rogue flying around throwing tanks. She is portrayed as someone who is very scared because of her powers, something very accurate to the comics. She is portrayed as someone afraid to hurt the ones she loves because of her powers, and as such, she is afraid to get close, just like in the comics. And this next movie seems to have her questioning herself, and whether or not she should "cure" herself... just like the comics.

If you think these movies weren't accurate, then you can't see the forest for the trees. You don't know these characters beyond their costumes and their powers. And you don't comprehend that X-Men is more than a superhero story, but a story about true to our world realities, with a message deeper than "the good guy always stops the bad guy".

Good post!...I understand what your saying. But, there is/was no need to focus for the most part on the social commentary of X-Men and less so on the fantastic nature of the CB. The two exist side by side in the CB without a problem. The same could have been done with the films. It all depends on how the fantastic side of the X-books are portrayed. What Singer did with X-Men is what I and my friends had feared; focus moreso on the stuff your typical audience can identify (racism, bigotry, prejudice, yada, yada, yada) with so as to appeal to the non fan.Throw in some nods towards the fans in an attempt to please them. Again, let the material stand the way it was meant to. Treat the material the same way the writers treat it. Look at the material the same way the fans do. We don't view it as wow-golly-gee-whiz-bang! We view it as, holy *****!! What a great story! What great characters?

I've heard someone on these boards describe the X-films as a made for the scifi channel movie. I won't be that cruel, but I can understand why they would say that.

Nell, describe to me what would be so terrible about a CB adaptation of the X-Men. Please don't start describing men and women in tights or scenes out of the power rangers. As a fan your imagination and vew of the X-Men must be broader and more creative and sophisticated than that. As much as I like the X-Men, the tights just don't work for their endeavors. Something more akin to the Unlimited costumes or the Batman hard suit.

Also, did you enjoy the Spiderman films? Did you appreciate the fact that Raimi took a CB approach or would you have wanted to see something different? Not trying to paint you into a corner or anything, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from?

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I enjoyed the Spiderman movies, yes, but Spiderman is also meant to be more of a "wiz-bow-bam!" type of character.

And even though Spiderman did keep it's fantastical and comic book elements, I also felt that those movies were taken very seriously as well.

I guess it's like this... my love of these characters is beyond a "comic book" that I enjoy. This universe, the X-Men universe, is my favorite fiction, period. I love these characters, and I have since I was a child. I grew up with them, and the X-Men is something very important and dear to me (as it is with all of us)

So when I see someone, like Bryan Singer, come along, who's not a fan from the beginning, but cares enough to see past the flashy powers, and costumes, and all of that stuff, and actually take these characters seriously, and dig beneath the surface to find out what these characters are truly about, I take that as a sign of respect for the source material, and for the fans.

I also don't feel that the movies are as off base from the comics as some people think. Is it "grounded in reality"? Yes. But by that, that just means we don't have goofy looking costumes, and the overall power of these mutants has been scaled down slightly, so as to not make it completely over the top.

But we still have all the things that make the X-Men a fantastical comic book that we all enjoy: We have a team of mutants with super powers, those super powers which have been on display quite well. We have the technology like the Blackbird, Cerebro, Danger Room, and doomsday machines. We may even have Sentinels. I mean, when I saw X-Men for the first time in theatres in 2000, I walked out thinking "My entire life I've been waiting for an 'X-Men' movie... after seeing this, it was well worth the wait"

I mean, it just felt X-Men to me. The characters were nailed perfectly (except for a number of exceptions that can be counted on one hand, one of which is being rectified in this movie). When I saw X2, I thought the same thing, but double!

As someone who has grown up with the X-Men, I watch these movies, and there are so many moments that I watch and I just think "Yup, that's the X-Men right there!"

Yea, sure, there are some beloved things that we all wanna see that we're not gonna be able to see; Gambit, Genosha, Muir Island (depending out how Moira is handled in this film. I'd love to see Muir Island, but I doubt it will happen), but that's what happens when you have to condence 40 years worth of material into 3 movies, spanning 5 1/2 hours.

And things like the Savage Land, Asteroid M, Onslaught, Apocalypse, Mr. Sinister, and other great pieces of the X-Men comics I don't feel could be adapted while keeping the overall themes alive, which in my opinion are the most important, getting the characters and the meaning correct. And none of that stuff is really vital to telling the story of the X-Men.

I think the X-Men movies were handled perfectly. Yes, there are a few things I don't like... but in any adaptation that's gonna happen. There's things my mom doesn't like about the Lord of the Rings movies, but she loves them. She is as big a LOTR fan as I am X-Men fan, and she's thrilled. Some sacrifices do have to be made, and I've come to accept those inaccuracies, or mistakes, as neccesities to translate the material. And it helps that in my mind, Singer got 95% of it right anyways.

[FieryBalrog]

...except for the fact that Wolverine goes at Cyclops all the time in the comics, cartoons, and every other form of medium the X-Men have appeared in as well... in fact, Cyclops goes back at Wolverine quite well. In the scene in Xavier's office, when Wolverine lashes out towards Cyclops, he's ready to blast Wolverine through the walls... in the scene in Wolverine's room, Cyclops goes at Wolverine "Better be careful, I might not be there next time" What they did between Cyclops and Wolverine was perfect. Wolverine definatley came out as the *******.

And yes they got Cyclops and Rogue correct. I will agree that Storm's portrayal wasn't accurate. But Cyclops is very much like his comic book self, and I think is one of the most accuratley represented characters. Quantity of screentime does not equal quality of screentime.

Rogue is spot on too. In the comics, Rogue is very uncomfortable about her powers, and thinks of them as a curse, and wants to be cured of them. And her being unconfident as she is in the movies is a very common thing for her. Sure, when she's all sassed up like in the 90's, she's really confident. But I've also seen many times, outside of the 90's era, where she breaks down and cries over her powers. And her reaction to Iceman over not wanting to hurt him is exactly how she reacted towards Gambit in the comics.

For those who think the movies were inaccurate to the comics, I think you need to go back and actually *read* the comics, not just flipping through all the pretty pictures.

When Logan gets in Cyke's face, Cyke isn't looking over his shoulder for Daddy X's approval to lay down the law. He does in the movies though and looks like a lapdog. He may be Xavier's most loyal X-man, but he's also a field leader who makes his own decisions and keeps the team in line. Logan shouldnt be teaching Scott strategy (like he does in the final scene when he corrects Cyke on the tactical decision of who goes up to the torch).

Again I like the movies, but because Logan was Singer's pet Mary Sue, he was made to look good at Cyke's expense. And this is coming from someone who doesn't really like Cyclops and whose second favorite character is Wolverine.

There's comic Cyke:

He's a hardass. He's uptight, and introverted, but he's clearly the alpha male in charge. And Logan knows it.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4325/cykelogan1eo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Oh and I agree with you about the costumes. X-men have never been about costumes and they work fine in uniforms (like they first started in), leather or otherwise. They dont care about dual identities and the meaning of the costume like Batman or Spiderman (Spiderman also has serious themes, they're just different, and the costume is part of it). The X-men's costumes (with a few exceptions, like the Phoenix costume because of its implications) have always been eye candy and thats why they change all the time for purely aesthetic reasons. Batman can't just change his costume on a whim like that because it would be changing who he is.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

omfg, people really need to get over the whole "Wolverine corrected Cyclops" bit...

Throughout that entire sequence, Cyclops is acting as the leader of the X-Men. People wanna take the belly flop, the "Storm, fry him", and Wolverine correcting him, and nit pick that because they need to have absolutley some kind of evidence to back up their whine fest. But in the process of that, they forget that it was actually Cyclops who led the team to Liberty Island, went over the game plan with the hologram thingy in the war room to make sure everyone was on the same page, led the team out of the jet and onto the island, led them through the Statue of Liberty, and was the one who made many decisions to lead them to victory.

Back at the mansion, before hand, he was also the one who tried to go over Xavier's rule by saying Wolverine would be a detriment to the team. But when Xavier says something, it goes, no matter what Cyclops' feelings are towards the situation.

Oh yea, and Cyclops was also the first to realize about Magneto's plan, coming to the realization "Wait, you said that Magneto's machine draws the power directly from him..." and it was Xavier and Wolverine that finished the thoughts started by Cyclops, and the team came to the realization of what Magneto was going to do with Rogue.

But no, people have to *****, because they can never be happy, and so they overlook all of the accuracies to the character to ***** about that one minor inaccuracy and make it look like the creative team didn't do Cyclops justice :rolleyes:

It's really annoying...

[thegameq]

I enjoyed the Spiderman movies, yes, but Spiderman is also meant to be more of a "wiz-bow-bam!" type of character.

And even though Spiderman did keep it's fantastical and comic book elements, I also felt that those movies were taken very seriously as well.

I guess it's like this... my love of these characters is beyond a "comic book" that I enjoy. This universe, the X-Men universe, is my favorite fiction, period. I love these characters, and I have since I was a child. I grew up with them, and the X-Men is something very important and dear to me (as it is with all of us)

So when I see someone, like Bryan Singer, come along, who's not a fan from the beginning, but cares enough to see past the flashy powers, and costumes, and all of that stuff, and actually take these characters seriously, and dig beneath the surface to find out what these characters are truly about, I take that as a sign of respect for the source material, and for the fans.

I also don't feel that the movies are as off base from the comics as some people think. Is it "grounded in reality"? Yes. But by that, that just means we don't have goofy looking costumes, and the overall power of these mutants has been scaled down slightly, so as to not make it completely over the top.

But we still have all the things that make the X-Men a fantastical comic book that we all enjoy: We have a team of mutants with super powers, those super powers which have been on display quite well. We have the technology like the Blackbird, Cerebro, Danger Room, and doomsday machines. We may even have Sentinels. I mean, when I saw X-Men for the first time in theatres in 2000, I walked out thinking "My entire life I've been waiting for an 'X-Men' movie... after seeing this, it was well worth the wait"

I mean, it just felt X-Men to me. The characters were nailed perfectly (except for a number of exceptions that can be counted on one hand, one of which is being rectified in this movie). When I saw X2, I thought the same thing, but double!

As someone who has grown up with the X-Men, I watch these movies, and there are so many moments that I watch and I just think "Yup, that's the X-Men right there!"

Yea, sure, there are some beloved things that we all wanna see that we're not gonna be able to see; Gambit, Genosha, Muir Island (depending out how Moira is handled in this film. I'd love to see Muir Island, but I doubt it will happen), but that's what happens when you have to condence 40 years worth of material into 3 movies, spanning 5 1/2 hours.

And things like the Savage Land, Asteroid M, Onslaught, Apocalypse, Mr. Sinister, and other great pieces of the X-Men comics I don't feel could be adapted while keeping the overall themes alive, which in my opinion are the most important, getting the characters and the meaning correct. And none of that stuff is really vital to telling the story of the X-Men.

I think the X-Men movies were handled perfectly. Yes, there are a few things I don't like... but in any adaptation that's gonna happen. There's things my mom doesn't like about the Lord of the Rings movies, but she loves them. She is as big a LOTR fan as I am X-Men fan, and she's thrilled. Some sacrifices do have to be made, and I've come to accept those inaccuracies, or mistakes, as neccesities to translate the material. And it helps that in my mind, Singer got 95% of it right anyways.

Okay. I think I understand now. I guess it's an example of how everyone sees and appreciates things differently. For me, the creative/artistic/scifi-fantasy aspect is what I enjoy most about the comics...and other forms of scif-fantasy entertainment. The amount of care that goes into products like the X-Men comics and other high quality scifi-fantasy, I profoundly and deeply appreciate as an artist myself. Then to see so much of that hard work (so much of what makes the X-Men so great) be stripped down and away truly irks me and I imagine many others. Perhaps worse so, is the fact that it wasn't done so much for condensing, but for appeal.

My complaint against the X-films is not that their bad. It's just that the films aren't the X-Men so many have come to love and expected. Every fan with common sense knows they aren't going to get a "verbatim", so to speak, translation of the comic to film. But most expected a movie that at least upheld the creative/fantasy/matter of fact aspect of the comic.

I don't know....I thought with Spiderman, Hollywood had finally got it right and learned to make these movies the way the were meant to be--the way the writers and fans envision them. Now, with the latest X-film and Batman Begins I fear these films and the scifi-fantasy genre in general will take a step backwards. Films like Spiderman, LOTR, HP, KK, etc. will continue to be the exception and not the new standard as they should be.

[FieryBalrog]

omfg, people really need to get over the whole "Wolverine corrected Cyclops" bit...

Throughout that entire sequence, Cyclops is acting as the leader of the X-Men. People wanna take the belly flop, the "Storm, fry him", and Wolverine correcting him, and nit pick that because they need to have absolutley some kind of evidence to back up their whine fest. But in the process of that, they forget that it was actually Cyclops who led the team to Liberty Island, went over the game plan with the hologram thingy in the war room to make sure everyone was on the same page, led the team out of the jet and onto the island, led them through the Statue of Liberty, and was the one who made many decisions to lead them to victory.

Back at the mansion, before hand, he was also the one who tried to go over Xavier's rule by saying Wolverine would be a detriment to the team. But when Xavier says something, it goes, no matter what Cyclops' feelings are towards the situation.

Oh yea, and Cyclops was also the first to realize about Magneto's plan, coming to the realization "Wait, you said that Magneto's machine draws the power directly from him..." and it was Xavier and Wolverine that finished the thoughts started by Cyclops, and the team came to the realization of what Magneto was going to do with Rogue.

But no, people have to *****, because they can never be happy, and so they overlook all of the accuracies to the character to ***** about that one minor inaccuracy and make it look like the creative team didn't do Cyclops justice :rolleyes:

It's really annoying...

Oh come off it. Excuses are just excuses. Cyclops was clearly put down to build Wolverine up (the only reason the Jet-landing mistake exists is for this purpose) , and again, I prefer Wolverine over Cyclops every day and twice on Sundays but even I can see it happening. Thats why not a single casual viewer cares a whit for Cyclops's character and would probably cheer if Wolverine took over leading the team.

[hulkamania]

I just want to see the mutant powers. I don't care for much else... Wolverine and Colossus are my favorite characters, so I was little upset that Piotr and Kitty aren't together... The Cyclops thing does suck, but what's done is done...

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Oh come off it. Excuses are just excuses. Cyclops was clearly put down to build Wolverine up (the only reason the Jet-landing mistake exists is for this purpose) , and again, I prefer Wolverine over Cyclops every day and twice on Sundays but even I can see it happening. Thats why not a single casual viewer cares a whit for Cyclops's character and would probably cheer if Wolverine took over leading the team.

Have you ever read a comic book?

Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though.

[Angry Sentinel]

Have you ever read a comic book?

Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though. If all those other scenes were just to showcase the fueding Nell, then why is Cyclop's movie character mostly remembered as the 'DICK'?.... My point has always been that these other 'elements' in that movie, undermine Cyke's portrayal (all the other character elements that the movie did try to showcase were overshadowed by giving Wolverine the edge in those fueds), and that this was done intentionally. Why do I say intentionally? Well, it sure as hell didn't come from the comics, Cyclops was always clearly given the edge in all these 'fueds'. And everytime I see this conversation, no-one has been able to effectively show me any reasoning behind making this change, except for the obvious one...

Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman = More star power/ better acting chops.
Cyclops/ James Mardsen = Less star power/ lesser acting chops.

That is a business equation that amounts to MORE MONEY!

Through all my discussions on this topic I have come to see this much, that the Cyke portrayal was probably more hindered (overshadowed) by the inaccurate Wolverine portrayal.

With respect to all the other comments made, I actually agree with the consensus on this thread. Both aspects (Sci-fi/ social topics/ideals) exist in the comics, where as only one was truly highlighted in the film. In truth, this was probably the best way to draw all the non-sci-fi, mainstream audience into this genre and will only help this group of people in further accepting the sci-fi aspects in the future.... So in a way despite some of our dislike for this fact, someday this could turn into the goose that FIRST laid the golden egg.


[Jackie Chan 'Uncle']And another thing[Jackie Chan 'Uncle']...

We have completely ignored this thread's original topic. It was supposed to be about the reasoning behind changing the relationships. Personally I don't see any excuse for it except artistic choice (or as CB fans like to say 'Re-imagining').

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still disagree.

I don't have time to really back up my points right now, as I have to leave for school, but I disagree that the fued was put in to raise Wolverine's status and lower Cyclops'. The way I see it, they both got their shots in, they both got each other. And if audiences think that Cyclops is the dick, that's their own inability to comprehend what is laid out right before them, because Wolverine is obviously made out to be the dick. Cyclops tried to be polite to Wolverine, but he was the one who had to be a dick towards Cyclops from the beginning, and he was the one who had to try to take is girl. Cyclops definatley wasn't the dick, and anyone who interprets that story arc as Cyclops coming off as the dick can't comprehend.

And your star power arguement is wrong too. In X-Men, where most of the fueding took place, Hugh Jackman was just as much of a nobody in Hollywood standards as Marsden was. It wasn't until X2 that Jackman had become a household name, and there wasn't much Cyclops vs. Wolverine fueding in that movie. And what little bit there was, Cyclops had more of an upper hand (except for the Backstreet Boys sequence)

[The Batman]

Neil is simply not getting it....

In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and hes right.

I have read the comics, particualry the claremont ones, and the movies feel nothing like them. Face it, aspects of the films are innacurate...

[The Batman]

Yes. Take Cyke, the character who everyone seems to ***** about. In the movies, he was an uptight control freak who constantly sits on his hands and waits for Xavier's approval. That sounds quite a bit like Scott Summers to me. And I'll say it again : these are not comics! You can't slowly flesh out a character every month for 40 years. There would be no way to go into every detail of each character's histories the way you seem to want. Details were changed to fit the medium, but the characters were, at the core, the same. In the grand scheme of things, all you're doing is nitpicking and you know it. If you don't like the movies...

Deal.

With.

It.


You got the character of Cyclops so wrong....

[Angry Sentinel]

Edit...The way I see it, they both got their shots in, they both got each other. And if audiences think that Cyclops is the dick, that's their own inability to comprehend what is laid out right before them, because Wolverine is obviously made out to be the dick. Sure they both get their shots off, and sure the 'fued' is representated, but you have not answered why it is that Wolverine gets the wittier line, the 'cool' line, the finishing blow... regardless of the fact that this is not how it was done in the comics. Whose lines did you find truly got a rise out of you? How's the old saying go...he who laugh's last, laughs best! Even though Wolverine was clearly in the wrong, the light that the writing helped cast him in makes him more desirable.

Additionally, you have admitted that having the Backstreet Boys playing on Scott's radio was definitely a dig... Why is this necessary, the character wasn't even in the movie? Who won that 'fued'? When did Scott get his 'shot off'? Why do we not see scenes with Scott laughing at some picture wolvie took with a thong on? It's not a perception problem. This was an intentional moment to carry over that same spirit from the first film.


In X-Men, where most of the fueding took place, Hugh Jackman was just as much of a nobody in Hollywood standards as Marsden was
Com-on Nell, now you're just splitting hairs. My entire comment said... 'Star power/ Acting chops'. Hugh Jackman was an unknown but he had a much better resume than James Mardsen. Otherwise why wasn't James cast as Wolverine and Hugh cast as Cyclops... slap some mutton chops on on Jimmy and a visor on a clean shaven Hugh and there isn't that much difference other than acting talent. They knew exactly what they were doing and who the spotlight would be on.

Edit...
In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and he's right.
And in the comics, Scott is predominately the one that is portrayed as being wittier, smarter, and 'kewler' at the end of any given 'feud'...please show me where this happens in the movie.
:up:

[Sun_Down]

You got the character of Cyclops so wrong....

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

I agree, I'm sick and tired of being told I'm not a real fan and don't know these characters because I think the movies got them right, despite the fact that I've been a fan of these characters my entire life.

Where did Cyclops get Logan?

-About ready to blast Wolverine's block off in Xavier's office... however, since Wolverine was a guest in Xavier's house, Cyclops showed restraint, and maturity
-"You'd better be careful, I might not be there next time"
-"Oh, and Logan... stay away from my girl"
-"I'm sorry Professor, but he'll endanger the mission...", "No, you're the one who stabbed Rogue through the chest"
-Wolverine: "Your bike's empty" Cyclops: "Fill 'er up!"

Vs. Wolverine's digs:

-"You're a dick"
-"You call that a landing"
-Backstreet Boys (though that wasn't Wolverine's doing, I will admit that was a comedic moment at Cyclops' expense)
-"Hey, I wasn't the one who gave the train station a new sunroof" (which Cyclops immediatley snapped back at him with above quote, so this doesn't really count)

Cyclops got plenty of digs in at Wolverine.

In fact, I count 5 - 3 in Cyclops' favor... 5 - 4 in Cyclops' favor if you want to count the "sunroof" comment.

If you want to count deleted scenes from X-Men, both characters have digs at each other, which would make it 6 - 5 in favor of Cyclops.

If you don't agree that his portrayal was accurate, that's fine, your opinion. I highly disagree, but that's a different matter.

The point is, don't just ignore what is in the movie in your arguement of inaccuracy.

[Angry Sentinel]

Edit... That's your opinion, which is fine, Agreed...

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself :rolleyes: Now, why would I NOT watch a movie I like???!!!

Just because I don't agree with some other 'fan' that they got a character depiction correct or incorrect has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's simply a discussion of opinions, remember??? Or does your adult mind not allow you to make that distinction? Interesting, that you would refer to two adults discussing a difference of opinion as children, when you're the one telling people what movies they should watch just because those individuals don't agree an opinion about a character depiction. Not about the quality of the movie, just about a character depiction??

Next time you want to tell me what I should watch, consider doing it with your foot outside your mouth.

[Mistopurr83]

Neil is simply not getting it....

In the comics, when logan and scott bicker, they're equals.

In the movies, when logan and scott bicker, logan gets the upper hand with some witty one liner. Scott is merely there to build up wolverine. thats why jim caviezel ended up not taking the role of cyclops, because he state that the charatcer was nothing more than a foil for wolverine. and hes right.

I have read the comics, particualry the claremont ones, and the movies feel nothing like them. Face it, aspects of the films are innacurate...

You are absolutely right!

[Angry Sentinel]

I agree, I'm sick and tired of being told I'm not a real fan and don't know these characters because I think the movies got them right, despite the fact that I've been a fan of these characters my entire life.

Where did Cyclops get Logan?

-About ready to blast Wolverine's block off in Xavier's office... however, since Wolverine was a guest in Xavier's house, Cyclops showed restraint, and maturity
-"You'd better be careful, I might not be there next time"
-"Oh, and Logan... stay away from my girl"
-"I'm sorry Professor, but he'll endanger the mission...", "No, you're the one who stabbed Rogue through the chest"
-Wolverine: "Your bike's empty" Cyclops: "Fill 'er up!"

Vs. Wolverine's digs:

-"You're a dick"
-"You call that a landing"
-Backstreet Boys (though that wasn't Wolverine's doing, I will admit that was a comedic moment at Cyclops' expense)
-"Hey, I wasn't the one who gave the train station a new sunroof" (which Cyclops immediatley snapped back at him with above quote, so this doesn't really count)

Cyclops got plenty of digs in at Wolverine.

In fact, I count 5 - 3 in Cyclops' favor... 5 - 4 in Cyclops' favor if you want to count the "sunroof" comment.

If you want to count deleted scenes from X-Men, both characters have digs at each other, which would make it 6 - 5 in favor of Cyclops.

If you don't agree that his portrayal was accurate, that's fine, your opinion. I highly disagree, but that's a different matter.

The point is, don't just ignore what is in the movie in your arguement of inaccuracy. First.. I have never challenged your fandom.

Secondly...Count them as you like, I could sit down and flesh out each one of those scenes and ask the same question I asked before? Which one left you with the 'greater' feeling of victor?

The fact remains that the writing and directing of the movie showed Wolverine with the 'better', 'wittier', 'kewler' delivery. And it's not just because Cyclops depiction is so flawed, but ALSO because, unlike the comics, he's 'fueding' with a hunky, Fonzy, bad boy...instead of a dysfunctional, gnarled old man. By changing the portrayal of Wolverine's character they actually changed the dynamic of this 'fued". Storytelling is all about perception, and they skewed this one in favor of Wolverine.

Lastly... I am not ignoring what is in the movie. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they got it right.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

First.. I have never challenged your fandom.

Secondly...Count them as you like, I could sit down and flesh out each one of those scenes and ask the same question I asked before? Which one left you with the 'greater' feeling of victor?

The fact remains that the writing and directing of the movie showed Wolverine with the 'better', 'wittier', 'kewler' delivery. And it's not just because Cyclops depiction is so flawed, but ALSO because, unlike the comics, he's 'fueding' with a hunky, Fonzy, bad boy...instead of a dysfunctional, gnarled old man. By changing the portrayal of Wolverine's character they actually changed the dynamic of this 'fued". Storytelling is all about perception, and they skewed this one in favor of Wolverine.

Lastly... I am not ignoring what is in the movie. Just because it's in there doesn't mean they got it right.

My fandom comment was directed towards The Batman, not you. Perhaps I could have made it clearer, and if you thought it was geared towards you, I apologize. You've been a very respectable debate opponent :)

I don't feel that Wolverine got made to look like the "better" of the 2. Like I listed off, there are more instances where Cyclops gets the final word in over Wolverine... not the other way around. If you can't see it, or don't want to see it as what it is, then I guess that's your interpretation. But I don't feel that there were any problems with their fued. I found it to be very accurate, and I never once felt that Cyclops was used as Wolverine's foil.

[The Batman]

That's your opinion, which is fine, but I'm really sick of you immature little kids spouting your immature little opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. Don't tell me I don't know a character because I perceive him differently. Is Cyke all of those things I said? Yes. Is he also a lot more? Yes. He's a complex character with 43 years of history. I know that, you know that. And I'm sick of all you frickin' children (I don't care how old you are, you ARE children) trying to tell me that I'm not an X-Men fan because I don't agree with your opinions. I can agree to disagree and be civil, but you have absolutely NO right to tell me that I'm somehow less of a fan, or some sort of bandwagoner.

If you, or anyone else, doesn't like the way Cyke acts in the movies or the way him and Wolverine bicker, then don't watch the movies. It's just that simple. Go watch Batman Begins and enjoy your undue sense of self-satisfaction by yourself.

Whine all you want, but its true. You got the character wrong. It happens. Cyke does alot more than wait for Xavier's apporval.

[The Batman]

And neil, considering how my comment wasnt directed at you, i dont know why you felt the need to respond to me...

[Sun_Down]

:rolleyes: Now, why would I NOT watch a movie I like???!!!

Just because I don't agree with some other 'fan' that they got a character depiction correct or incorrect has nothing to do with how good the movie is. It's simply a discussion of opinions, remember??? Or does your adult mind not allow you to make that distinction? Interesting, that you would refer to two adults discussing a difference of opinion as children, when you're the one telling people what movies they should watch just because those individuals don't agree an opinion about a character depiction. Not about the quality of the movie, just about a character depiction??

Next time you want to tell me what I should watch, consider doing it with your foot outside your mouth.

Those comments weren't directed at you. So I'd suggest not flying off the handle about a post that didn't involve you.

Whine all you want, but its true. You got the character wrong. It happens. Cyke does alot more than wait for Xavier's apporval.

And didn't I say that there's a lot more to Cyke? Yes, I did. He looks up to the man like a father, but is not incapable of defying him. He can be the perfect solider-boy, but can also stand up for his own opinions. Don't insult my fandom just because you're pissed off about the movies, and don't talk down to me because you're too immature to form a civil sentence.

This thread has gotten way off-topic and I'm gonna be the bigger man and walk away from it.

[The Batman]

please do, so we dont have to listen to anymore of your whining. You're taking things way too seriously.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And neil, considering how my comment wasnt directed at you, i dont know why you felt the need to respond to me...

How can you say your comment wasn't directed at me when you said "Neil simply isn't getting it"?!

And BTW, it's NELL, N - E - L - L, not Neil...

[FieryBalrog]

Have you ever read a comic book?


No, never. :rolleyes:

Only from X-men vol. 1 #1. :rolleyes:


Cyclops and Wolverine have fueded with each other as long as I can remember.

Those scenes were put in the movie to showcase this fued!

The jet-landing mistake exists to make Cyclops look dumb. Thats it.


The only scene that I will agree to that was put there to poke fun at Cyclops was in X2, when Wolverine, Rogue, Iceman, and Pyro were in the car, and Pyro hit the radio which was blasting Backstreet Boys.

That's it though.

Its part of a trend.

[Mistopurr83]

Cylcops listening to Nsync sure is an insult to the comic Cyclops. It's another way of making him look bad in the films. It's true that they screwed up the feud between Cylcops and Wolverine. They also make it seem like Jean likes Wolverine better than Cyclops.:o Also, near the end where Cyclops cried on Wolverine's shoulder really made me cringe.:mad: It was so unCyclops-like. Talk about film makers who don't care about a character who's always been the one incharge of a team. Marsden himself doesn't seem to care about the character either.

[usagicassidy]

You know, I never once thought that the Backstreet Boys joke was meant for Cyclops in any way. In fact, I didn't even think "Cyke was listening to BB" when I saw it. I thought it was just the radio, and in that case, it's not Cyclops' fault at all.

[Angry Sentinel]

They were in HIS car... running from an eminent threat... and they took the time to stop and turn on the radio???? It was an obvious moment of levity, and the BUTT of the levity, as always, was Cyclops. Again I ask why? Why take this shot at a guy who isn't even in the movie? I'll tell you, because it was the same humor and emotional slapstick that they got in the first movie (which in their minds worked well) that they wanted to take advantage of again in the second movie. They probably even felt it was clever considering Scott wasn't even in the movie... ("we don't even need him in the scene to get these jokes to work"). To me, this scene alone proves that what was done in the first movie was done intenionally. And having Wolverine being the one to make the 'WTF' face underscores their need to make him the Xmen's 'FONZY.

[moonstar]

Quote: Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman = More star power/ better acting chops.
Cyclops/ James Mardsen = Less star power/ lesser acting chops.

Number 1. Marsden doesnt sing and dance and wasn't quite old enough looking to take advantage of the Leading man roles Hugh Jackman got offered due to his success as Wolverine.
So no he didn't get the breaks and wasn't featured as much as wolvie in X1. They focused on logan because he was probably the most recognizable Xman.

As for the acting James Marsden is amazing and anyone who says different is on crack.
He conveyed all of the characters' qualities and concerns even though most of his face was covered! So he couldn't even use his face ( an actor's main tool!) and still he could convey great emotion.

The only scene that didn't ring true was the crying at the end of X2. The way they tried to squeeze in the P saga in .5 seconds without building up the why behind Jean's sacrifice which made the balling a little ridiculous. I don't know if that was bad writing , acting or directing or an unfortunate combination of all those elements.


Quote: [They also make it seem like Jean likes Wolverine better than Cyclops. Also, near the end where Cyclops cried on Wolverine's shoulder really made me cringe. It was so unCyclops-like. Talk about film makers who don't care about a character who's always been the one incharge of a team. Marsden himself doesn't seem to care about the character either.]

I really don't see any chemistry between Famke and hugh or James when she's actually in a scene with them. I don't know why this is. She just never seems to b there with them in that moment mayb this is intentional as she's distracted by the voices in her head..dunno...Rebecca has the most chemistry of the women

The filmakers better not have taken the chance of pissing us hardcore Cyke fans off again by cutting him out of the movie. He is the heart and brains of the team. If they do I don't really care about any sequels Gambit or not.:o

They need to show J&S's relationship as well as feature Scott using his powers in an impressive way. Most of the pain u feel for Jeans death is actually for Cyke so omitting him is anticlimactic.I love Wolvie but Im tired of him taking over xmovies- give him his own vehicle.

I think Marsden's done amazing with what he's been given and obviously cares about the character : his timing is dead on. He actually seems like the only actor who's done the homework of reading the books and actually [getting] the character.The voice,the face,the posture i could go on He has a big career ahead of him-mayb superman can do for his career what xmen unfortunately didnt.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

They were in HIS car... running from an eminent threat... and they took the time to stop and turn on the radio???? It was an obvious moment of levity, and the BUTT of the levity, as always, was Cyclops. Again I ask why? Why take this shot at a guy who isn't even in the movie? I'll tell you, because it was the same humor and emotional slapstick that they got in the first movie (which in their minds worked well) that they wanted to take advantage of again in the second movie. They probably even felt it was clever considering Scott wasn't even in the movie... ("we don't even need him in the scene to get these jokes to work"). To me, this scene alone proves that what was done in the first movie was done intenionally. And having Wolverine being the one to make the 'WTF' face underscores their need to make him the Xmen's 'FONZY.

As always?! WTF are you talking about? That was the only moment where Cyclops was the butt of the joke.

Please don't bring up the "you're a dick" line... what was Cyclops supposed to do? Blast Wolverine for making a smartass remark? It's not a good trait of a leader to assault his soldiers for making a smart ass remark when they are on a mission. There were more important things at hand that the team needed to attend to... like saving the lives of millions of New Yorkers...

However, I've listed off the "points" count, if you wanna call it that, to show that Cyclops actually had the "last laugh" more than Wolverine did.

[Angry Sentinel]

Please don't bring up the "you're a dick" line... what was Cyclops supposed to do? Blast Wolverine for making a smartass remark? It's not a good trait of a leader to assault his soldiers for making a smart ass remark when they are on a mission. There were more important things at hand that the team needed to attend to... like saving the lives of millions of New Yorkers... I'm not asking Cyke to DO anything. We are discussing how a character was portrayed. Cyke was put into a position of the 'lesser' of the two characters by even having a scene where Wolverine gets to call him a 'Dick'. Not to mention that this is how the scene resolves itself, with Wolverine being the wittier, smarter, 'kewler', character.

Truthfully it doesn't matter what he could/should do, because this moment like all the rest, underscores what their intenions were by writing and directing the characters this way. Now add in wolverine fights/faceoffs, (Magnus, Mystique, and Sabertooth). And the fact that Wolverine is our viewpoint character and just about any viewer would walk away with the feeling that Wolverine is 'The man'.

However, I've listed off the "points" count, if you wanna call it that, to show that Cyclops actually had the "last laugh" more than Wolverine did. Except that you leave out tons of scenes by Wolverine...

-Taking Cyke's bike (twice)
-Telling Jean that her power is "Putting up with that guy"
-Telling Jean that maybe she's "being held back, by more than Xavier"
-Flipping him the 'Bladed' Finger when he sets off the alarms
-By Simply being the 'A-typical, Hollywood, billy-badass' that WRITERS & DIRECTORS know full well that audiences like.
-And much, much, more

...Seriously Nell, Wolverine OWNED the screen in Xmen, there isn't even a fair comparison. And again this is the most important concept of this discussion. Wolverine's shadow just plain blots out anything done with Cyclop's character to the point where no one cared that Cyke actually had a come back... Wolverine's were always 'kewler' and left him as the ultra hip-super cool, Fonzy!

Quote: Wolverine/ Hugh Jackman = More star power/ better acting chops.
Cyclops/ James Mardsen = Less star power/ lesser acting chops.

Number 1. Marsden doesnt sing and dance and wasn't quite old enough looking to take advantage of the Leading man roles Hugh Jackman got offered due to his success as Wolverine.
So no he didn't get the breaks and wasn't featured as much as wolvie in X1. They focused on logan because he was probably the most recognizable Xman. Just so we're clear, you do know this was exactly the point I was attempting to make. It was in no means an attempt to down James Mardsen. Simply to illustrate that Wolverine was always intended to be the focal character and that they decided that his 'badass' qualities should be the highlights of the film.

[rjb182]

I'm not asking Cyke to DO anything. We are discussing how a character was portrayed. Cyke was put into a position of the 'lesser' of the two characters by even having a scene where Wolverine gets to call him a 'Dick'. Not to mention that this is how the scene resolves itself, with Wolverine being the wittier, smarter, 'kewler', character.

Actually, I thought they BOTH came off pretty "cool" in that exchange-- anybody can call someone a dick. It's actually cooler to be able to shrug it off and say "Okay," like Cyke did and do the job instead of getting hot and bothered. It's not like he was conceding that he was a dick-- merely that he knew Wolverine thought that, which he does early on in the comics, too. It was classic buddy-comedy banter. Also,


Wolverine's were always 'kewler' and left him as the ultra hip-super cool, Fonzy!


Ironic, since Fonzie himself hasn't been cool since roughly 1978. But point taken.

I agree, of course, that there's a general trend toward making Wolverine the centerpiece and marginalizing Cyke. I admit-- as a Wolvie fan, I kinda like that, but I can see it's there. It's happened in the comics, too, after all-- it's the cinematic equivalent of Wolvie being in four titles and a solo series while Cyke is reduced to the occasional mindgame with Emma in Astonishing, a.k.a. The Kitty Pryde Story. (Wow. That sounded harsh toward Astonishing-- which I love. All I'm really trying to say is that this "Wolvie rules, Cyclops who?" trend is fairly true to what's happened to the X-Men in general...)

To me, though, it would only become a real problem if one of two things happened: 1) Scott vanished from the film series entirely, for whatever reason, or 2) Jean left him for Logan. Either of those things would be a betrayal of the character, and clearly done just to let Logan have an upper hand he's never had in the "real" story. Short of them, it's not going to bother me.

But again, that's as a Wolvie fan. If I were a Cyclops fan, I can see where I'd be irritated as heck. :o

[Angry Sentinel]

LOL, being a wolvie fan I guess I can see why you wouldn't like my 'Fonzy' comparison. But as you say, it is the current trend. Just as I'm sure the Wolverine character won't be thrust into such a major role (in the comics or in movies) as soon as the next character takes the title of 'moneymaker'.

... And people will be making comments like, "Wolverine hasn't been 'kewl' since 2010".

Edit... it's the cinematic equivalent of Wolvie being in four titles and a solo series while Cyke is reduced to the occasional mindgame with Emma in Astonishing, a.k.a. The Kitty Pryde Story. (Wow. That sounded harsh toward Astonishing-- which I love. That's funny, but I completely agree. Even though this is the current situation, I very much so love that book. But Joss is good storyteller, so it doesn't surprise me that he gets me interested in detestable ideas. :o

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Oh come on!

I'm much more of a Cyclops fan than I am of Wolverine... and I didn't feel shortchanged at all in what they did with the Cyclops / Wolverine fued. It felt just like the comics and the cartoons to me.

Honestly, it's my opinion that if you think that Cyclops was just used to raise Wolverine's status in the movie, then you're one of those paranoid people who think that everything is some kind of conspiracy. I know people like that from everything as important as politics, to stuff as petty as movies.

Cyclops and Wolverine fued in the comics and the cartoons. And they do it in the movies. Enough said.

If you want to think about it, Wolverine probably should have more of the "comebacks" or "last words" or whatever. HE IS THE *******. Cyclops isn't. Cyclops is a mature leader. He's not going to go out of his way to make Wolverine look bad. And I found plenty of instances in the movies where Cyclops did put Wolverine in his place.

And I also find it ironic, all of this "Cyclops is used to bring Wolverine up" arguement, but you forget the whole final sequence of X2... When Jean dies, we see a totally in character Cyclops moment, and in the final scene, WOLVERINE CONCEDES TO CYCLOPS. Not that there should have been any competition in the first place... Cyclops and Jean Grey were already together. Whether they were married or engaged is up to interpretation, but the fact is, they were married, and Wolverine was out of line by coming in and trying to take her. There shouldn't have been a competition anyways. But Wolverine made it one. And he conceded to Cyclops.

Maybe I just have the luxury of watching these movies on probably too much of a regular basis. I probably have to take into consideration that not everyone watches these movies as much as I do. And when you haven't seen a movie for awhile, but you start talking about it, the things you talk about begin to influence your opinion.

But I never get sucked into this whole "Cyclops was just Wolverine's foil" or "Storm didn't do anything except fly the jet" talk, because I watch these movies, again like I said, on a most likely unhealthy basis. So I'm seeing what really is happening in these movies. And as much more of a Cyclops fan than a Wolverine fan, I never once felt like Cyclops was just Wolverine's foil.

And I really find the whole discussion over the fued to be quite humorous. I mean, god damnit, this fued is STRAIGHT OUT OF THE COMICS!!!!! How much more accurate do you want? That there was no fued?! And that Cyclops is constantly putting Wolverine "in his place", and coming across as the dick that he isn't, just for the sake of having the upper hand?

For a fued to work properly, it has to go both ways. So yes, Wolverine did get the "last word" in, or whatever you want to call it, on a few occassions. But Cyclops got his in as well. And in the end, the whole purpose for the fued, which was Jean Grey, Wolverine conceded to Cyclops.

I don't know what more you want.

[The Batman]

1. The camera totally focused on logan after jeans death scene when cyke was crying.

2. No ones saying the fued between wolverine/cyclops is not accurate. its the way that its totally one sided in logans favor that is.

[Angry Sentinel]

Conspiracy theorist??? OK, lol! Talk about dramatic repsonses.

There are two things that exist, for certain, in this world, money & more money. Neither of these are conspiracy, they are fact. Both of these were served by creating a super 'kewl', big daddy character from these films. Especially when one of the individuals, who owns rights to these characters, comes from the toy biz. Believe what you want this is no conspiracy theory, it's business!

We've been over the whole 'Fued' issue and it's a fact that we agree on it being 'present' in the movie. So I agree with you on your "enough said'. However, this discussion was to further seek understanding about it's accuracy.

Whether he "should' or not, is really not an issue. For accuracies sake (by the source material) Cyclops 'is' supposed to be the Super 'kewl', 'wittier' character in these 'fueds'.

How does Wolverine making a concession of Jean being Cyclop's girl, undo the fact that Cyclops has been his stepping stone for two movies? It may redeem wolverine's character from being a total a**hole (and since he makes this concession when everyone believes Jean is dead, it is the LEAST he could do). Actually, this could further illustrate that the writer/director is trying to make sure you LIKE his billy-badass character.

I can assure you, that I have watched both films sufficiently and that this particular opinion is actually more fueled by what I've seen. I've even gone so far as to be 'devil's advocate' on the subject, just to see if I could convince myself differently... I could not. I do think it's possible that your opinions differ because, the comic books that you have read obviously did not leave the impression upon you that it did on other comic book fans. For example, when I read the books, I walked away feeling like Cyclops trumped Wolverine and that he (Cyke) was portrayed as the "kewl" character. Where as comic Wolverine was just a gnarled, dysfunctional, old man, with authority issues. I think if the comic books had made this same impression upon you, then you may be able to agree that this is not the same dynamic portrayed in the movies.

I suppose it is a little trite, but sometimes the little things are what's important. But considering this Fued, or it's portrayal, is IMO a direct reason why Cyclop's character portrayal suffers in the film, then it becomes really relevant when discussing his character portrayal. I have already elaborated on what I believe would be an accurate portrayal of this fued. And I agree, since Cyclops didn't go 'out of his way' to 'trump' Wolverine in the comics, he shouldn't do it in the movies... that would also be inaccurate.

*reads your last paragraph*
Did you just admit that Wolverine 'pwned' Cyclops??

*re-reads your last paragraph*
Oh my, wonders never cease, lol... I think it's pretty obvious that the fued between Cyclops and Wolverine is about much more than Jean. She is a component, but that's all. Their fued is about respect, responsibility, control, and a crap load of psychological issues on both character's behalf. The portion represented in the film over Jean was fairly accurate, but Wolverine's character constantly coming out on top isn't.

I don't actually NEED it to be more accurate, but I would like it to be, especially as a cyclops fan.

[FieryBalrog]

I'm not even a Cyclops fan. I really dislike Cyclops right now when I read comics. I like Wolverine and he's probably my second or third favorite X-man. And I still got the impression that Cyclops was used as Wolverines foil.

It has nothing to do with paranoid conspiracys, Mr. Nell2ThaIzzay. Singer isn't much of an X-men fan. His favorite character is admittedly (and obviously) Wolverine. Wolverine is the most marketable X-man. Its a STANDARD story-telling tactic to have a foil to the main character, someone whose character is used to build the likeability or "badassity" of the main character. This is exactly Cyclops and Wolverine's relationship in the movie. Just like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, except Cyclops isn't shown half as cool as Daffy is.

In the movies Cyclops is not square jawed, uptight and ******* leader. Thats how he is in the comics, where he certainly isn't likeable a lot of the time, but he also has a presence. Can you see movie Cyclops doing this?

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4325/cykelogan1eo.jpg

no, you cannot. Comic Cyclops gets in Wolverines face and puts him down. He's an alpha male. They both are; and thats why they're rivals.

[Angry Sentinel]

that is a really good example... He didn't even tell Wolverine he was way out of line when he got in his face once in the movies, much less anyone elses.

[Mr Sensitive]

I'm not even a Cyclops fan. I really dislike Cyclops right now when I read comics. I like Wolverine and he's probably my second or third favorite X-man. And I still got the impression that Cyclops was used as Wolverines foil.

It has nothing to do with paranoid conspiracys, Mr. Nell2ThaIzzay. Singer isn't much of an X-men fan. His favorite character is admittedly (and obviously) Wolverine. Wolverine is the most marketable X-man. Its a STANDARD story-telling tactic to have a foil to the main character, someone whose character is used to build the likeability or "badassity" of the main character. This is exactly Cyclops and Wolverine's relationship in the movie. Just like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, except Cyclops isn't shown half as cool as Daffy is.

In the movies Cyclops is not square jawed, uptight and ******* leader. Thats how he is in the comics, where he certainly isn't likeable a lot of the time, but he also has a presence. Can you see movie Cyclops doing this?

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4325/cykelogan1eo.jpg

no, you cannot. Comic Cyclops gets in Wolverines face and puts him down. He's an alpha male. They both are; and thats why they're rivals.


Precisely.

That's the exact problem with the movie depiction of Cyclops, who's not the leader of the comicbooks at all (the true leadership is divided among the other principal characters, alternately).

[thegameq]

Wolverine was and has been the star of the show and Cyclops isn't. Period. We all saw it and we all know it. Singer used Logan as the focal point for the last two films. No amount of spin can change that.

The studio's and Singer's reasons are to obvious to mention.

[undomiel]

I think the real question being asked here is whether or not the movies have an obligation to remain absolutely true to the comic books. And, if so, to what extent. Many have already pointed out the need to change certain things for practical pruposes, i.e. can't have 40 years' worth of storyline crammed into three films. This makes sense.

So how much should the films exactly reflect the comic books? Well, I think there are a few things to keep in mind, like the many different versions of X-men comics that are out there. Also, let's not forget that a lot of these things are a matter of opinion, which varies from individual to individual. Everyones' perceptions are not the same. So while one person may think that Wolverine's character (or the relationships, or whatever) was totally altered for the sake of some kind of money-making scheme, another person may simply think Bryan Singer was tapping into some deeper themes that other people may have missed.

Personally, I like what Singer has done with the story. If he's altered it, then I think he's altered it for the better. I realize I'm in the minority with this opinion, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

[The Batman]

Well, for one characterization. If Cyclops has always been the leader in the comics, he should be absolute leader in the movies. No question.

If Iceman has always been a joker in the comics, he should be in the movies.

If Logan only had a crush on jean in the comics, than it should be that way in the movies. Wolverine NEVER tried to come between jean and scott. he respected them both too well to do that. whereas movie logan's trying to play homewrecker.

If Cyke and Logan are equals in the comics, it should be that way in the movies. They are NOT equals in the movies. Cyclops was always more than the butt of jokes or wolverines foil.

Wolverine's character was altrered form the movies. It's mostly a romanticized version of the character. Comics Wolverine was alot nastier, alot viscious, and a lot more efficient. He also had honor to him. I dont see that with singer's logan.

All I'm saying is, be accurate to the characters, their role in the comics, and their relationships. Something these movies havent really done well.

[Angry Sentinel]

I think the real question being asked here is whether or not the movies have an obligation to remain absolutely true to the comic books. And, if so, to what extent.
That is a good question. I made a really sarcastic comment about changing source material on one of these threads (maybe this one)... something to do with altering all source documentation by getting the mass viewing audience enticed with movie adaptations. And that I would start with the Bible.

I think that most of the reasonings behind altering source material have been a little weak. Not because I'm some 'purist', but because most hinge on the concept of not being able to do it the same from one media to the next. This is a little weak to me because everytime someone says it CAN'T be done, time passes and someone accomplishes it. Even with your example (40 years crammed into 2 hours). I just don't think man has reached the pinnacle of it's existence enough to know for certain that this CAN't be done.

I know it sounds crazy, but so did putting a man in tights, flying him around, and have him turn back TIME on the big screen in 1979!! NOT TODAY, BUT 1979!! Once someone does it and the audience loves it, then there will be all kinds of other excuses.

Edit...Everyones' perceptions are not the same.So while one person may think that Wolverine's character (or the relationships, or whatever) was totally altered for the sake of some kind of money-making scheme, another person may simply think Bryan Singer was tapping into some deeper themes that other people may have missed.
And to be fair, both are quite possibley true. Considering we are not the writer, director, or producers, we can't really speak for them. But using those same differing perceptions, I think it's still possible to ascertain which one of these options is more 'likely' true.

[Mr Sensitive]

And: if the changes are to make it good, I could understand.

In the specific case of Cyclops, he has been turned, from a focused and heart-aching leader, into just a sentimental bore that could be in one of those boysbands.

[undomiel]

Still I say: To each, his own. Let's remember, unlike the Bible, it's all fiction anyway. I grant Bryan Singer his artistic license, and gladly.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm not even a Cyclops fan. I really dislike Cyclops right now when I read comics. I like Wolverine and he's probably my second or third favorite X-man. And I still got the impression that Cyclops was used as Wolverines foil.

It has nothing to do with paranoid conspiracys, Mr. Nell2ThaIzzay. Singer isn't much of an X-men fan. His favorite character is admittedly (and obviously) Wolverine. Wolverine is the most marketable X-man. Its a STANDARD story-telling tactic to have a foil to the main character, someone whose character is used to build the likeability or "badassity" of the main character. This is exactly Cyclops and Wolverine's relationship in the movie. Just like Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny, except Cyclops isn't shown half as cool as Daffy is.

In the movies Cyclops is not square jawed, uptight and ******* leader. Thats how he is in the comics, where he certainly isn't likeable a lot of the time, but he also has a presence. Can you see movie Cyclops doing this?

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4325/cykelogan1eo.jpg

no, you cannot. Comic Cyclops gets in Wolverines face and puts him down. He's an alpha male. They both are; and thats why they're rivals.

...

"No, you're the one who stabbed Rogue through the chest"

"It must burn you up that a boy like me saved your life. You better be careful, I might not be there next time"

Wolverine: "Your bike needs gas." Cyclops: "Fill 'er up!"

That sounds like getting in Wolverine's face to me...

All moments where I thought to myself "PWN3D!!!" because of how Cyclops just punked Wolverine.

[CapBeerCino]

C'Mon folks...they've been focusing on jean and logan instead of jean and scott, who's relationship got a helluva lot farther. what makes you think they'd get any other realtionships right?

My thoughts exactly.

[javi1024]

I like the movies but I do agree w\u some things in the movies shouldn't have changed!
i actually thought that if in the first movie they replaced Rogue with Kitty Pryde, and maybe already had Rogue as an adult member of the team, they could have a setup for relationships more close to the comics. all they wouldve had to do was change Magneto's plan.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

ALL they would have had to change?

Magneto's plan was what pushed the entire movie forward. It would have been a TOTALLY different movie had Magneto had a different plan.

[javi1024]

ALL they would have had to change?

Magneto's plan was what pushed the entire movie forward. It would have been a TOTALLY different movie had Magneto had a different plan.
did it have to be a machine that drained his powers? did he have to kidnap rogue to power it? it couldve been more about magneto gathering parts to get it completed. maybe he really couldve been hunting wolverine because he needed adimantium. theres plenty of things that couldve been altered.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

That would have changed many of the dinamics of the movie and made it a totally different movie.

[MoPlaYa]

I love the first 2 X-Men movies and I`m a huge fan of the comics...I still think Colossus and Kitty should be attracted to each other in X3 rather then the love triangle....I grew up reading and loving thier relationship

[javi1024]

That would have changed many of the dinamics of the movie and made it a totally different movie.
well its not like it was the greatest story ever written. it wouldnt have hurt to change some things up.

[Mistopurr83]

i actually thought that if in the first movie they replaced Rogue with Kitty Pryde, and maybe already had Rogue as an adult member of the team, they could have a setup for relationships more close to the comics. all they wouldve had to do was change Magneto's plan.

I agree with that!

[Mistopurr83]

did it have to be a machine that drained his powers? did he have to kidnap rogue to power it? it couldve been more about magneto gathering parts to get it completed. maybe he really couldve been hunting wolverine because he needed adimantium. theres plenty of things that couldve been altered.

No it certainly didn't have to be that way!:o Yes there were things that could've been done differently for the better by using Kitty Pryde as the newcomer in X1.

[Mistopurr83]

I think Ultimate took it from the movies actually.

Actually no they didn't. Kitty and Bobby were a couple in the Ultimate universe before the X3 script was written. That's why I said they took that from Ultimate X-Men.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

well its not like it was the greatest story ever written. it wouldnt have hurt to change some things up.

I'm not saying it's the greatest story ever told. It's in response to your "all they would have had to have changed was Magneto's plan" statement, like changing Magneto's plan was such a minor plot point or something, when in actuality, it was his plan that was the reasoning behind just about everything that happened in the movie.

[javi1024]

I'm not saying it's the greatest story ever told. It's in response to your "all they would have had to have changed was Magneto's plan" statement, like changing Magneto's plan was such a minor plot point or something, when in actuality, it was his plan that was the reasoning behind just about everything that happened in the movie.
well yes magneto's plan was important to the film. all i was saying was they could have changed some of the details to bring rogue closer to her character, maybe have Wolverine Magneto's actual target, or have Kitty or even Jubilee as the newcomer and one of them could've been Magneto's target. it would hav worked better because im sure we all know that wolverine does have that kind of relationship with Kitty Pryde and/or Jubilee (cant remember right now).yes many of the scenes would have to be altered to fit with the new character(s), but esentially it couldve been the same story with characters/relationships we're used to.

on another note- would it have killed the writers to have Sabertooth and Wolverine talk about their history before they fought in Canada? or maybe when Xavier was describing Sabertooth, Wolverine couldve interrupted and said "Yea I know him." I dont understand why singer wouldnt want to establish that relationship (especially since Wolverine was his favorite X-Man)

[javi1024]

1. The camera totally focused on logan after jeans death scene when cyke was crying.

2. No ones saying the fued between wolverine/cyclops is not accurate. its the way that its totally one sided in logans favor that is.
1.They should both of them cry after Jean died- first Cyclops as he lost it, then Wolverine trying to hold back his tears, and then back to Cyclops while Nightcrawler was reciting the Bible verse.
2. I didnt see it as one-sided at all. Yes Wolverine has feelings for Jean, but he went out of line when he tried to take her from Cyclops. I think they portrayed both characters perfectly.

my only gripe was Cyclops was barely in the second one. i know it was for good reason, but i think if they included his 2 deleted scenes i wouldve been more satisfied.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

well yes magneto's plan was important to the film. all i was saying was they could have changed some of the details to bring rogue closer to her character, maybe have Wolverine Magneto's actual target, or have Kitty or even Jubilee as the newcomer and one of them could've been Magneto's target. it would hav worked better because im sure we all know that wolverine does have that kind of relationship with Kitty Pryde and/or Jubilee (cant remember right now).yes many of the scenes would have to be altered to fit with the new character(s), but esentially it couldve been the same story with characters/relationships we're used to.

on another note- would it have killed the writers to have Sabertooth and Wolverine talk about their history before they fought in Canada? or maybe when Xavier was describing Sabertooth, Wolverine couldve interrupted and said "Yea I know him." I dont understand why singer wouldnt want to establish that relationship (especially since Wolverine was his favorite X-Man)

I'll totally agree with you on that last point. Even though I'm not a huge Sabretooth fan, some history between him and Wolverine should have happened. I don't think it would have been too hard.

In your response to Batman, I also agree. I don't think that Wolverine was the focus when Jean died. I think that Cyclops was the focus. I think it was obvious. And I also agree that I think they nailed the characters as well as they could.

My only complaint with Cyclops' portrayal is by the end of all things, Storm will have been portrayed as more of a leader than he was.

Cyclops led the team well, just like he should have, in X-Men. But in X2 he was out of commission due to Stryker's plan, and Storm took over. Now in this one, whether he dies or not, he's still striken with grief, and leaves the team.

[JeetKuneDo]

Yes. Take Cyke, the character who everyone seems to ***** about. In the movies, he was an uptight control freak who constantly sits on his hands and waits for Xavier's approval. That sounds quite a bit like Scott Summers to me. And I'll say it again : these are not comics! You can't slowly flesh out a character every month for 40 years. There would be no way to go into every detail of each character's histories the way you seem to want. Details were changed to fit the medium, but the characters were, at the core, the same. In the grand scheme of things, all you're doing is nitpicking and you know it. If you don't like the movies...

Deal.

With.

It.

True about Scott. Seems to me he is exactly like he is in the comics. And I don't mind anything about him. The actor works just fine for me. I love how he really doesn't take one ounce of crap from Logan. The "It needs gas" ...."Well fill it up!" exchange is perfect.

Bottom line for me is make a good movie please. I can take changes if the movie is good. The characters change in the comics too. (We tend to forget that one.) But if the comic remains good, I can take it. I remember when the New Mutants went to that weird artwork....yuck...I could barely stand it.

So change Rogue for the movie...I understand that we can't explain Ms Marvel...I get it. The movie was good and I like Rogue....so it's ok.

Change the Hulk....the movie is horrid...it's not ok.

[Rowen]

mistopurr, never make assumptions about my X-Men fandom ever again. I have been a fan of the X-Men since long, LONG before the movies ever came out. I've been wanting X-Men movies my entire life. But I "get" the X-Men, and I realize that there is more to the X-Men than just being a bunch of superheroes with super powers. There is a true meaning there, to not only each character, but to the mythos as a whole. X-Men in general (no matter the form) suffers when it strays from it's themes of oppression, and the political commentary. When they go into space, and alternate realities, and all of that kind of stuff, it suffers. And I feel that way about the comics, cartoons, video games, and if the movies end up taking that direction in future movies.

Don't you ever question my love of these characters again.




Now to this:

First off, yes, I am a fan of the comics. I am by no means an expert on the comics, but I am a fan of the comics. And yes, I do feel that the X-Men movies were all that they could have been.

Because as a fan, I take it as a sign of respect towards the fans, and towards the mythos, that someone like Bryan Singer came along and saw these characters as *more* than just comic book characters. He saw these guys as something to be taken seriously. And yes, it would have looked like Power Rangers if it was taken out of the comics. People always bring up Spiderman as a comparrison as to why the costumes could have worked, but there is a difference here; the character of Spiderman was done in all CGI, it wasn't a guy in a bright red spider costume. There is also the fact that Spiderman isn't as serious of a superhero as the X-Men are. Spiderman is a superhero who's purpose more is towards the bright colors and fancy powers, whereas the purpose of the X-Men is more of a social commentary, with superheroes to make it more interesting. Bryan Singer even said that he tried costumes more accurate to the comics, and they just didn't work.

Someone coming in and taking these characters seriously, and portraying them in a way that can be taken seriously by everyone is a sign of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's a director understanding that these characters aren't just comic book characters, and that these movies aren't just comic book movies. These are stories with a true message fueling them, not just "super hero has to fight super villian to save cty"... no, it's something that everyone can relate to on some level. And it's something that is very real in our world, something that has happened, something that is still happening.

The X-Men is about things like the Holocaust, the Jim Crow Laws of the south, genocide, segregation, the camps that Japanese Americans were placed in during World War 2, the destruction of the Native Americans... it is abot every kind of prejudice that this world has ever faced. And that is something that is much deeper than "Spiderman gets bit by a spider and gets super powers, and Norman Oswell's company goes bankrupt, he's exposed to a toxin, his company gets stolen from him, and he goes crazy"

No, the X-Men is about a man who survived one of the greatest horrors this world has ever faced, the Holocaust. A man who has seen first hand the destruction that can be caused through human intolerance. And a man who is a double minority; he is not just Jewish, but he is also a mutant. And the world looks dubiously towards mutants because of the potential threat they can cause. And this is a man who knows first hand what can happen because of those dubious views upon a group of people, and will not sit idly by while his people gradually lose all of their rights, and become oppressed yet again.

X-Men is also about another man, a pacifist, who believes that through hard work, patience, peace, and diplomacy, that mankind can come to accept mutants as equals, and that the 2 forms of humanity can live together in prosperity.

X-Men is about a group of young men and women who go to an institution to learn how to best utilize their powers, not just for themselves, but also for the benefit of all of mankind. It is also about another group of young men and women who are going to take action, and stand up for what they believe in, and fight for their acceptance and equality, even if their actions are a bit radical, they aren't going to sit around and accept their fate.

And Bryan Singer got that. He saw that, and that's what he made them about in the movies. Exactly what they should have been about. Unlike characters like Spiderman, the X-Men aren't about super powers and colorful costumes. They are about something much deeper than that, with special powers and colorful costumes to make it a bit interesting.

Being more "accurate", as you say, towards the comics (which, by more accurate, you just mean the stuff like powers and costumes, not the things that the X-Men is truly about, the things that truly are accurate) would mean sacrificing the emotion and heart of the storyline, sacrificing the substance, for the flash. And that is not what the X-Men is about. That would have turned X-Men into a typical summer action film, just like Fantastic 4 or Daredevil, that you all seem to despise so much. But instead we got someone who, despite not being a fan initially, saw deeper than Cyclops blasting a hole through a mountain, saw deeper than Rogue flying around throwing tanks at Sentinels, and dug deep to find out just what X-Men was truly about. And he saw it. And he got it. And he brought it to life, just the way it should have been brought to life.

I honestly feel that people who think these movies weren't accurate don't truly comprehend the true meaning behind the mythos, and the true essence that ever character possesses, beyond a costume and a power. Yes, there were some inaccuracies, such as the characterization of Storm, Iceman, and Lady Deathstrike, but other than that, everything these movies have portrayed has been spot on to what the comic books are all about.

Too bad we never see Cyclops blast a hole through a mountain and bark out orders like a madman. He is still portrayed as a leader. He is still portrayed as someone who looks towards Xavier like a father, and someone who will step up and take Xavier's role should anything ever happen to him. He is portrayed as someone with an undying love towards Jean Grey, and just because some of you can't see beyond Wolverine's screentime doesn't mean that's not how he's portrayed. He is shown as somebody who is loyal to his teammates, or rather, his family.

Too bad we don't see Rogue flying around throwing tanks. She is portrayed as someone who is very scared because of her powers, something very accurate to the comics. She is portrayed as someone afraid to hurt the ones she loves because of her powers, and as such, she is afraid to get close, just like in the comics. And this next movie seems to have her questioning herself, and whether or not she should "cure" herself... just like the comics.

If you think these movies weren't accurate, then you can't see the forest for the trees. You don't know these characters beyond their costumes and their powers. And you don't comprehend that X-Men is more than a superhero story, but a story about true to our world realities, with a message deeper than "the good guy always stops the bad guy".

you nailed it. i also agree with your theaory. i think brian singer got this franchise right. i see to that it might of not of had as much of an impact if the x-men where in thier costumes. it just makes it more real that they went with the uniforms & thier owm clothes.

i liked the direction that singer went with. & i hope this 3rd movie will go out with a bang!