The SuperHeroHype Forums

The SuperHeroHype Forums (http://forums.superherohype.com/index.php)
-   X-Men 1, 2 & 3 (http://forums.superherohype.com/forumdisplay.php?f=466)
-   -   Ratner's take on X3 a few years later. (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=337135)

Theweepeople 05-22-2010 04:22 PM

Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I don't think this interview was posted anywhere in the X-Men forums.


http://www.**************.com/fansit.../news/?a=18380

Manic X 05-22-2010 10:11 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
He's right though. You'll never please everyone.
Honestly, x3 is a blast to watch.

BMM 05-22-2010 10:38 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
We’re now almost two X-Men movies and four years beyond The Last Stand. Since then, we’ve had some brilliant comic book adaptations and even more to look forward to, and Brett Ratner isn’t involved with a single one of them. I think it’s safe to say he can be ignored.

henzINNIT 05-23-2010 05:30 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I'm not going to hate on Ratner. He did a decent job with all the pieces already in place. A lot of the problems that bothered me were cast schedules and he can't be blamed for that. It's more Singer's fault than Ratner's.

Hound55 05-23-2010 06:06 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
X-Men Origins: Wolverine was considerably worse than X-Men 3.

Ratner, whilst not being good, cops far too much flak. He's somehow become a bigger joke in the industry than Michael Bay despite not really getting his monster budgets to work with.

At least Ratner's had a Red Dragon to his name... that piece alone puts him above anything Bay COULD do...

X3 was pretty much "middle of the board" to me... And when you consider all of the crap FOX was pulling I'd say it was a fairly pleasant surprise that it was as good as it was...

Squidboy 05-23-2010 02:51 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hound55 (Post 18371172)
At least Ratner's had a Red Dragon to his name... that piece alone puts him above anything Bay COULD do...

X3 was pretty much "middle of the board" to me... And when you consider all of the crap FOX was pulling I'd say it was a fairly pleasant surprise that it was as good as it was...

That's exactly when I realized he was not to blame - because he can adapt a book/comicbook brilliantly, when he has the actual time and effort necessary from all those involved. Obviously rushing X-Men into production hurt the movie in so many ways, as many cast members had to drop out/get written out early on due to scheduling conflicts, and we were left with a Frankenstein version of the script we were meant to have. So I try not to blame Ratner or Penn, because I honestly believe them when they say they put in their best effort and did all they could do. It's just a shame that most of us had to judge the movie on the end-product, and not on the good intentions of those involved.

VenomVsSpidey 06-03-2010 10:59 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by henzINNIT (Post 18371157)
I'm not going to hate on Ratner. He did a decent job with all the pieces already in place. A lot of the problems that bothered me were cast schedules and he can't be blamed for that. It's more Singer's fault than Ratner's.

Yeah I actually quite liked X-3. But it's more Rothman's fault than Singer's, and Singer's than Ratners, IMO.

TNC9852002 06-06-2010 08:10 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Yeah, because we can all become experts about the movie business.

Rac 06-09-2010 02:39 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Manic X (Post 18370690)
Honestly, x3 is a blast to watch.

I found it quite boring, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hound55 (Post 18371172)
At least Ratner's had a Red Dragon to his name... that piece alone puts him above anything Bay COULD do...

Never seen Red Dragon (and don't really desire to watch it either), but I doubt it's any better than Manhunter.

Also, The Rock and The Island > anything Ratner has ever done.

Hound55 06-09-2010 02:58 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Red Dragon beat the hell out of Hannibal Rising... and whilst its not as good as the original SotL or the sequel Hannibal... the first is a classic and the second was directed by Ridley Scott, not an easy act to follow.

And Red Dragon is clearly closer to the first two in quality than it is to the crappy Hannibal Rising.

...and yes, Red Dragon is better than The Rock, The Island, Armaggeddon and any thing else Bay has made.

TNC9852002 06-09-2010 08:22 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I gave Ratner a chance when others would not. I tried to defend him and his predicament for the longest, but after reading this, I take it all back.

May he burn in hell.

He could've really done himself a lot of good by at the very least telling the fans what they want to hear or maybe be honest to himself and not be so "Ratner" all the time. I guess for him, he probably couldn't care less. The studio loves him, he's got his money, and he'll always get work.

Squidboy 06-10-2010 09:06 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rac (Post 18417857)
I found it quite boring, actually.


Never seen Red Dragon (and don't really desire to watch it either), but I doubt it's any better than Manhunter.

Also, The Rock and The Island > anything Ratner has ever done.

I thought it was much better than Manhunter. The character of Francis Dolarhyde is given much more background and purpose in the film, becoming more of a tragic character than just a creepy bad guy that we're supposed to fear/hate. Gee, maybe Ratner could've used that working model to make some of the characters in X3 some substance.:awesome:

TNC9852002 06-11-2010 07:27 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Heck, people should hate this guy more than Michael bay. At least Bay can admit his mistakes.

Hound55 06-11-2010 09:48 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
When?!?

ChaoticPsylocke 06-11-2010 04:20 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
guh. what an idiot. phoenix was butchered! and rogue and cyclops were ruined too.

StevieNicks1988 06-30-2010 01:56 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Looking back on it; Phoenix, Cyclops & Rogue were pretty much toasted, burned and thrown out. Instead we ge Paranormal Activity Jean Grey, whimpy Cyclops dead in a few scenes and well, seeing as Rogue was one of the early major players in this "saga" of the X-Men Universe, the fact they ruined her is totally b.s.

However, there were things I liked, like Xavier's deathscene which was very emotional and I think worked very well, Kitty I thought was well done, Beast too. Angel was okay for what he was, and the final battle was pretty amazing in scope looking back on it.

So there are a lot of cons and a lot of pros after going back and watching it again, from someone (like me) that loved to hate on this movie and Ratner. Just chalk it up with the other movies that were ruined due to too many things going wrong with production all around the same time (such as actor schedules, too many clashing ideas on the script and characters, director changes, production costs, what have you).

Nevaratoiel 06-30-2010 09:59 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Funny, the first thing that popped into my head was; "What a moron". But I guess it was more the way he was saying it.

'You can't please everyone'; Of course you can't, but you can at least listen to what the fans are thinking and what they would like to see.

'They're wrong, I'm right'; Well, mister self esteem it seems to me. It was a hit, sure, but it really wasn't that good.

'The more the merrier': Uhuh.... rrright... Let's put him into that room with all these mutants.

But what do I know.... :whatever:

JP 06-30-2010 10:15 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
4 years later and X3 is even worse then I initial thought it was. Before I could at least sit though it, whilst picking it apart. Now, I can't even stomach the thought of watching it.

Yes, Cyke was killed. Yes, Jean was wasted, and yes Rogue was mistreated. But, the major problem lies with Ratners direction. Everything is about cheesy one liners and careless action. When an emotional scene arrives, he just brushes it over his shoulder.

I feel like Vaughn could have taken the SAME script and given us a brilliant movie worth watching.

Generation Lee 07-01-2010 05:52 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
The problem I had with X2, The Last Stand and new class is the ford factory line production of these films the get them out as quick as you can, look how little time there is now between First Class's release and getting a cast in place and filmed both seemed rushed and parts seemed chopped down. Truthfully if it takes over 2 hours to do an X-Men film then leave it at 2 hours as long as its enjoyable the time will fly in for the viewer.

Squidboy 07-01-2010 08:16 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I thought I could sit through the movie, but I've tried twice and fallen asleep due to disinterest. Literally every time Storm talks, I roll my eyes because the delivery is just so godawful - Halle should have left the movie like she was threatening to do, she was horrible in this movie. The only scene I bought her as Storm was the memorial scene for Xavier. Other than that, I can't sit through a scene with her without reacting like an 8 year old girl seeing the boy she thinks has cooties. I tried, though, I really did.

AVEITWITHJAMON 07-09-2010 04:49 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JP (Post 18508654)
4 years later and X3 is even worse then I initial thought it was. Before I could at least sit though it, whilst picking it apart. Now, I can't even stomach the thought of watching it.

Yes, Cyke was killed. Yes, Jean was wasted, and yes Rogue was mistreated. But, the major problem lies with Ratners direction. Everything is about cheesy one liners and careless action. When an emotional scene arrives, he just brushes it over his shoulder.

I feel like Vaughn could have taken the SAME script and given us a brilliant movie worth watching
.

Wow, you couldnt have summed up my feelings more perfectly, not long after its release, I could at least sit through it, now, I cant even get 10 mins in. And Ratner is just as much to blame as anyone else IMO.

Marx 08-30-2010 08:20 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Did X3 have its flaws? Absolutely, but it's still a good movie.

VenomVsSpidey 08-30-2010 09:35 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Marx (Post 18834650)
Did X3 have its flaws? Absolutely, but it's still a good movie.

So is
Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:
spider-man 3
:o:oldrazz:

lancimouspitt 01-31-2011 02:48 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
The good

1.Kesley Grammer as Beast
2. Pretty good action. Especialy the phoenix/Xavier battle

The bad
1. Cyclops is totaly negated. This wouldn't have been as bad if he hadn't of been shafted in the first two films as well.

2. Phoenix is a cosmic force,yet is reduced to to an overglorified zombie.

3. The Juggernaut. Jones had the spirit of the character,but I felt the suit just wasn't even a decent homage to the comic counterpart. I feel that if Juggernaut is going to be represented in an X movie you have to go all out with the character and I feel they failed with this on many,many,levels.

4. Rogue. I mean really. WTF? Granted I can see with how her power was represented in the first two it would be hard to suddenly build it for the third but they would have been better off dropping all the extra characters and sticking to the basics.

5. No nightcrawler. I think the funniest scene ever in the trilogy would have been an incident where Beast,Mystique,and Nightcrawler all end up in the same room looking at eachother with awkward faces.

6. Some of the dialogue was really off the mark. Xavier and Magneto still held true to the first two but some of the stuff that spews at of Wolverine's mouth seemed kind of lame.

S. Grundy 02-02-2011 07:38 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lancimouspitt (Post 19613941)
3. The Juggernaut. Jones had the spirit of the character,but I felt the suit just wasn't even a decent homage to the comic counterpart. I feel that if Juggernaut is going to be represented in an X movie you have to go all out with the character and I feel they failed with this on many,many,levels.

They were clearly going for a more Ultimate X-Men look for his costume, and all things considering I think they did their best with it. It's a tough look to get right without having the helmet look ridiculous and cumbersome.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8824/juggernaut.png

lancimouspitt 02-03-2011 07:20 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I highly agree it's a hard look to emulate but to me,a character like that has to be all or nothing in a movie. I would have loved to seen Singer attempt Juggernaut. i can't remember where,but he said once the helmet itself would have to be a character in a simular relation to how Cerebro was. I feel that what we got was more of a version of Magneto's helmet on steriods.

Hellion 02-06-2011 09:04 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lancimouspitt (Post 19634573)
I highly agree it's a hard look to emulate but to me,a character like that has to be all or nothing in a movie. I would have loved to seen Singer attempt Juggernaut. i can't remember where,but he said once the helmet itself would have to be a character in a simular relation to how Cerebro was. I feel that what we got was more of a version of Magneto's helmet on steriods.


I personally liked Juggernaut's look from the X-Men Movie CCG, if anyone remembers what it looks like...

...actually I would say the overall design is similar but the helmet's are different......I do agree with the helmet on steroids, the CCG version IIRC, of Juggernaut had I believe the forehead and top of the head exposed, I'll try to find a pic if I can...

lancimouspitt 02-13-2011 06:56 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
The original X3 design for Juggernaut would have been 1 million times better than what we ended up with.

http://www.destructoid.com/juggernau...2-141710.phtml

AVEITWITHJAMON 02-16-2011 06:51 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
^That was much better than what we got, I still cant believe they didnt have a fight scene between Juggernaut and Collosus.

Hellion 02-16-2011 08:00 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON (Post 19726606)
^That was much better than what we got, I still cant believe they didnt have a fight scene between Juggernaut and Collosus.


You think that would have been an obvious one right?

lancimouspitt 02-17-2011 05:46 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
yeah jug and colussus would have been THE fight to showcase for the film but of course it didn't happen. I can somewhat see why the placed him against Kitty becomes of the huge differences between the two but I still feel that the two big guys not fighting was such a huge letdown. I think back to the bar fight in Uncanny X men between the two and what could have been for the movie..............

AVEITWITHJAMON 02-17-2011 07:33 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellion (Post 19727116)
You think that would have been an obvious one right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancimouspitt (Post 19729462)
yeah jug and colussus would have been THE fight to showcase for the film but of course it didn't happen. I can somewhat see why the placed him against Kitty becomes of the huge differences between the two but I still feel that the two big guys not fighting was such a huge letdown. I think back to the bar fight in Uncanny X men between the two and what could have been for the movie..............

Exactly, its such an obvious thing that i'm still shocked it wasnt in the movie, hell, why not have them fight as Juggs is charging into the building to get Leech, let them have a fight then have the Kitty scene, film-makers get paid millions but still miss stuff like this how?

X-Maniac 02-17-2011 01:17 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON (Post 19729640)
Exactly, its such an obvious thing that i'm still shocked it wasnt in the movie, hell, why not have them fight as Juggs is charging into the building to get Leech, let them have a fight then have the Kitty scene, film-makers get paid millions but still miss stuff like this how?

Time...money... etc, I'm sure those were the reasons.

X-Maniac 02-17-2011 01:18 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lancimouspitt (Post 19705721)
The original X3 design for Juggernaut would have been 1 million times better than what we ended up with.

They changed it because people on here didn't like it. Go figure!

JP 02-17-2011 01:22 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Hahahahaha, sure.

X-Maniac 02-18-2011 07:39 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JP (Post 19731062)
Hahahahaha, sure.

Amusing but true. I found an interview in a magazine that says they changed the look of Juggernaut because the fans didn't like it. :whatever:

Kingslayer 02-18-2011 10:14 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
I used to defend Ratner's version of the movie, but after reading this interview, no more. Especially after rewatching the trilogy and seeing just how much was screwed up. Sure, much of it can be blamed on Fox or Singer/Vaughn leaving, but Ratner was still a bad choice. And he just strikes me as a complete douchebag about reading his thoughts now.

Alexei Belyakov 02-18-2011 10:20 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingslayer (Post 19737726)
I used to defend Ratner's version of the movie, but after reading this interview, no more. Especially after rewatching the trilogy and seeing just how much was screwed up. Sure, much of it can be blamed on Fox or Singer/Vaughn leaving, but Ratner was still a bad choice. And he just strikes me as a complete douchebag about reading his thoughts now.

Can you really blame the guy for sounding a little bitter towards the fans? They've been ripping him a new one for 5 years straight. I doubt you would be any friendlier.

Kingslayer 02-18-2011 10:35 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov (Post 19737765)
Can you really blame the guy for sounding a little bitter towards the fans? They've been ripping him a new one for 5 years straight. I doubt you would be any friendlier.

Yeah, I can't blame him for being bitter, but he deserves much of the blame nonetheless. It's not like this film is a simple blip on his directing career. Essentially everything he's churned out has been pretty bad (although I personally think Red Dragon is fine). I understand that circumstances for the film were far from ideal, but I think he would be more accepting of that instead of just strictly saying he wouldn't change a thing.

However, that all being said, now that I reflect more upon it, I think a lot of the fault lies with Penn and Kinberg, because the script was likely subpar to begin with. And matters just got worse when they lied to fans about various things. The whole thing was just a troubled production from the moment Singer jumped ship.

Alexei Belyakov 02-18-2011 10:47 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingslayer (Post 19737829)
Yeah, I can't blame him for being bitter, but he deserves much of the blame nonetheless. It's not like this film is a simple blip on his directing career. Essentially everything he's churned out has been pretty bad (although I personally think Red Dragon is fine).

I'm with you on Red Dragon being decent (though its crap compared to Manhunter) and I liked The Family Man. But yeah, he's not impressive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingslayer (Post 19737829)
However, that all being said, now that I reflect more upon it, I think a lot of the fault lies with Penn and Kinberg, because the script was likely subpar to begin with. And matters just got worse when they lied to fans about various things. The whole thing was just a troubled production from the moment Singer jumped ship.

See, for me the film works. I liked what they did with the story and I didn't mind the lack of character development for the supporting cast because I didn't care about the supporting cast. My only real problem with the film was the pace/running time. It moved too quickly but still [surprisingly] managed to deliver some pretty intense/emotional moments - and I credit that to the fact that we already had an existing relationship with these characters.

I think people seem to think Ratner set out to change everything Singer established but I see it the other way around. I think he basically tried his best to do "a Bryan Singer film" with less time, more characters and very high expectations from an already displeased fanbase (since Singer left).

Personally, I think alot of the fans went in to X3 ready to bash it. I say that because the second time I saw it I went with some friends that avidly read comics and they were badmouthing it on the way to the theatre.

For me the emotional intensity made the film work. And John Powell's score :cwink:

JP 02-18-2011 10:49 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by X-Maniac (Post 19737245)
Amusing but true. I found an interview in a magazine that says they changed the look of Juggernaut because the fans didn't like it. :whatever:

So basically, they made an awful decision and are blaming fans instead of themselves? Classy. :whatever:

Optimus_Prime_ 02-18-2011 12:21 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov (Post 19737765)
Can you really blame the guy for sounding a little bitter towards the fans? They've been ripping him a new one for 5 years straight. I doubt you would be any friendlier.

He's probably better off standing by his work. It's not as though he gets a do-over. Even if in another few years he admits everything he did sucked and killing Cyclops was an awful idea ultimately X-Men: The Last Stand will still stand as the movie he decided to make. Usually when a movie flops in a CB franchise I notice directors set up the circular firing squad and blame others for all those things that fans were repulsed by. In the end though these people never listened when it counted. Cyclops' punk'd death was known about prior to filming, and the fan outcry was ignored then, which would make any apology for that or anything else pretty inconsequential. At least Ratner's being honest and saying he didn't care then, and doesn't care now. Schumacher's been apologizing for years now, and no one wants him ten feet in front of a comic book store.

Kingslayer 02-18-2011 12:55 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov (Post 19737889)
I'm with you on Red Dragon being decent (though its crap compared to Manhunter) and I liked The Family Man. But yeah, he's not impressive.

Well, you can't really top Michael Mann! I haven't seen The Family Man, so I'm just basing my opinion off the awful Rush Hour series.

Quote:


See, for me the film works. I liked what they did with the story and I didn't mind the lack of character development for the supporting cast because I didn't care about the supporting cast. My only real problem with the film was the pace/running time. It moved too quickly but still [surprisingly] managed to deliver some pretty intense/emotional moments - and I credit that to the fact that we already had an existing relationship with these characters.

I think people seem to think Ratner set out to change everything Singer established but I see it the other way around. I think he basically tried his best to do "a Bryan Singer film" with less time, more characters and very high expectations from an already displeased fanbase (since Singer left).

Personally, I think alot of the fans went in to X3 ready to bash it. I say that because the second time I saw it I went with some friends that avidly read comics and they were badmouthing it on the way to the theatre.

For me the emotional intensity made the film work. And John Powell's score :cwink:
I really liked the characterization that Singer brought to the first two films. It made it that much of a better movie for me. I think that was my main problem with X3, aside from having way too many unnecessary subplots. All the characters just felt shoehorned into bit roles, and those that should have been developed were just completely shafted. Cyclops? Dead! Xavier? Dead! Phoenix? Zombie! Honestly, I think a lot of this lies with the bad writing, so I can't completely fault Ratner for that. But at the same time, I feel like he was just a yes man that went along with everything. And maybe even needlessly added more characters, if the "more the merrier" comment is too be taken too seriously.

I know most fanboys are rabid, so that likely was the general consensus that it would be bad going in. I recall liking the film when I saw it, but as I've watched it more times, it just doesn't stand up, especially when stacked alongside Singer's first two films. It just feels like a complete letdown as part of this epic trilogy. The Phoenix plot should have been the focal point of the film instead of sharing time with "the Cure" plot that just doesn't fit. Many of the characterizations stemming from that plot are just bad too. The whole project feels like someone else's vision of the end, which is just disappointing, because I feel like Singer was really the one that needed to conclude everything.

It's still much better than Wolverine by all means, it's just a disappointment to me because of the potential it had set up by the end of X2. Just a missed opportunity, really.

X-Maniac 02-18-2011 02:44 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JP (Post 19737896)
So basically, they made an awful decision and are blaming fans instead of themselves? Classy. :whatever:

You're making it into a no-win situation. If they listen to fans, that's wrong; if they don't listen, then no doubt that's wrong too.

At the end of the day, Juggernaut looked fine. The more comic-accurate look in the film was generally fine, as was the darker, edgier version in the earlier designs. The look wasn't the problem with the character!

X-Maniac 02-18-2011 02:50 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_ (Post 19738455)
He's probably better off standing by his work. It's not as though he gets a do-over. Even if in another few years he admits everything he did sucked and killing Cyclops was an awful idea ultimately X-Men: The Last Stand will still stand as the movie he decided to make. Usually when a movie flops in a CB franchise I notice directors set up the circular firing squad and blame others for all those things that fans were repulsed by. In the end though these people never listened when it counted. Cyclops' punk'd death was known about prior to filming, and the fan outcry was ignored then, which would make any apology for that or anything else pretty inconsequential. At least Ratner's being honest and saying he didn't care then, and doesn't care now. Schumacher's been apologizing for years now, and no one wants him ten feet in front of a comic book store.

I'm not surprised a major Hollywood figure doesn't admit mistakes, or believe they made any in the first place. Few filmmakers will say they think they got it wrong. Schumacher's a rare exception.

Of course Ratner's going to stand his ground, and dig his heels in, when constantly prodded about the movie. He's fairly egotistical anyway. And the tone of the questions doesn't help either; they're always bitter and accusatory rather than polite or enquiring what was intended in a specific scene etc.

Yes, he made a few misjudgements on the film. And so did a lot of other people involved.

lancimouspitt 02-18-2011 07:38 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by X-Maniac (Post 19739439)
You're making it into a no-win situation. If they listen to fans, that's wrong; if they don't listen, then no doubt that's wrong too.

At the end of the day, Juggernaut looked fine. The more comic-accurate look in the film was generally fine, as was the darker, edgier version in the earlier designs. The look wasn't the problem with the character!

To each his own but for me the look was bad. When I first saw the picture I thought "that's a pretty bad ass looking avalanche or something."..:argh:

I'll go as far to say for me Jug was the biggest dissapointment in the X films (well,maybe not but it's up their). For what it's worth though if that's the biggest complaint I have for the day i'm doing good.

lancimouspitt 02-18-2011 08:04 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by X-Maniac (Post 19731048)
They changed it because people on here didn't like it. Go figure!


I would love to see a copy of that. The thing is this, had I just seen that picture alone I would have been skeptical myself and made nitpicks mentioning how the helmet was wrong,etc,etc,etc. Especialy if it was put next to a picture of the comic counterpart. What I would like to know is did they put the original prototype next to the picture of the second design we ended up with in the movie and ask for feedback? If that where the case I can't see many fans opting for the second design. It could very well be a case of hearing a group of fans being critical and then just decidining where going to complain anyway,then going with something easier to apply to the actual film. Maybe i'm wrong, but it never hurts to be skeptical .

X-Maniac 02-19-2011 06:43 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lancimouspitt (Post 19741532)
What I would like to know is did they put the original prototype next to the picture of the second design we ended up with in the movie and ask for feedback?

No, they didn't do that. That would never happen with any movie. They didn't 'ask' for feedback but when the first designs leaked out, reaction on forums such as this showed that most people didn't like them.

ALittlePush 02-19-2011 10:32 AM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kingslayer (Post 19738638)


I really liked the characterization that Singer brought to the first two films. It made it that much of a better movie for me. I think that was my main problem with X3, aside from having way too many unnecessary subplots. All the characters just felt shoehorned into bit roles, and those that should have been developed were just completely shafted. Cyclops? Dead! Xavier? Dead! Phoenix? Zombie! Honestly, I think a lot of this lies with the bad writing, so I can't completely fault Ratner for that. But at the same time, I feel like he was just a yes man that went along with everything. And maybe even needlessly added more characters, if the "more the merrier" comment is too be taken too seriously.

I know most fanboys are rabid, so that likely was the general consensus that it would be bad going in. I recall liking the film when I saw it, but as I've watched it more times, it just doesn't stand up, especially when stacked alongside Singer's first two films. It just feels like a complete letdown as part of this epic trilogy. The Phoenix plot should have been the focal point of the film instead of sharing time with "the Cure" plot that just doesn't fit. Many of the characterizations stemming from that plot are just bad too. The whole project feels like someone else's vision of the end, which is just disappointing, because I feel like Singer was really the one that needed to conclude everything.

It's still much better than Wolverine by all means, it's just a disappointment to me because of the potential it had set up by the end of X2. Just a missed opportunity, really.

I think the main problem with X3 is the runtime. They had two potentially great stories that would have created good character focussed plotlines, but instead they squeezed both stories in to a short time without giving either story the justice it deserves. The emotional aspect of the film just wasn't there for me, it literally felt like: next scene, next scene, he's dead, next scene, next scene, he's dead too, next scene, etc.

There could have been some brilliant moments had the film not felt rushed. Cyclops' death, had it not just been swept under the carpet, could have been a real emotional moment, showing how out of control Jean Grey had become. It's the same with Rogue and the cure, it was the perfect opportunity to show how simply being able to touch another person without hurting them would affect her entire life. Instead, they boiled it down to she took the cure because she didn't like Iceman getting touchy-feely with Kitty.

Had they given the two storylines the time they deserved, we would have ended up with a much better movie.

Kingslayer 02-19-2011 08:42 PM

Re: Ratner's take on X3 a few years later.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ALittlePush (Post 19744290)
I think the main problem with X3 is the runtime. They had two potentially great stories that would have created good character focussed plotlines, but instead they squeezed both stories in to a short time without giving either story the justice it deserves. The emotional aspect of the film just wasn't there for me, it literally felt like: next scene, next scene, he's dead, next scene, next scene, he's dead too, next scene, etc.

There could have been some brilliant moments had the film not felt rushed. Cyclops' death, had it not just been swept under the carpet, could have been a real emotional moment, showing how out of control Jean Grey had become. It's the same with Rogue and the cure, it was the perfect opportunity to show how simply being able to touch another person without hurting them would affect her entire life. Instead, they boiled it down to she took the cure because she didn't like Iceman getting touchy-feely with Kitty.

Had they given the two storylines the time they deserved, we would have ended up with a much better movie.

I agree in that both plotlines are fine, but "The Cure" just feels out of place as part of the conclusion to the trilogy. Like I said earlier, Phoenix demanded the full attention of the film, and rightfully so, because it's both a huge and phenomenal story arc that was just utterly wasted. "The Cure" needed to be saved for a potential future film, if it was going to be used at all.

And yes, in all fairness, a 2.5 hour runtime may have solved quite a bit of the problems that exist, but I still think what I said above is more ideal to finish the trilogy. More time certainly would have helped make those plot details work much better in context, but I still think they're both piss poor characterizations. Cyclops should not die so easily. I get that Wolverine is the so-called main character of the movie, but Cyclops should be a huge part of the Phoenix saga, even with the love triangle Singer developed right off the bat. Also, Rogue taking the cure is such a cop out. It's the antithesis to the entire story arc that Singer built around her being able to accept her powers.

A much better movie? Yes.

What it should have been with Singer's continued development? Hell no.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com, A property of Mandatory, a divison of AtomicOnline, LLC © 2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.