View Single Post
Old 02-21-2013, 10:18 PM   #144
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 32,197
Default Re: "Romeo & Juliet Return?": The Official Jean Grey/Cyclops Debate

I feel like some of you are stuck in the late 70’s or something when you whine about things like “Wolverine standing in a position of leadership”. Wolverine has been one of the X-Men’s leaders since the late eighties. He’s an immensely popular character.

And there are plenty of ways to bring Scott and Jean back, or to make up for what happened in X3.

I honestly can’t take people who say things like “X3 was awful, all of it” seriously. I just can’t anymore. There's too much to like about it.

Quote:
I even think X3 is probably the most "ensemble" film of the original trilogy

X3 is in fact the less ensemble of all lol. yeah, it had MANY characters, but the screentime was less ensemble than X2.
No it wasn't. If anything it was more of an ensemble film than X2. I'm not sure why anyone would argue this point.

In X3, more characters were spotlighted, for more general screentime, and we also found out more about those characters than we did in X2, and saw them change more than we had previously as characters. We also saw them interacting AS an ensemble more than we did in the two previous films, when character interactions were largely one on one, two on one, etc, save for a few key sequences. In X3, we saw groups of characters interacting together much more than we previously had.

X3, despite its flaws, still had some of the best character work and "spotlight moments" of the trilogy.

Quote:
X2 is by far and away the best example of ensemble film-making of the entire trilogy.
Arguable. X3 really took it to another level, one that X-MEN and X2 only flirted with writingwise.

Quote:
People do seem to look back on the OT with a "Too much Wolverine" mindset, and they're totally entitled to because there is a lot of him but I rewatched X2 the other day and it really is a real crafted film. Honestly, I think just about everyone has a purpose and opportunity to shine. They're not there to make up numbers, they all play a strong role, they pretty much all have an arc.

Oh and Lady Deathstrike wasn't treated well too, but considering she wasn't originally Lady Deathstrike in early drafts, I'm not surprised she felt tacked on.
The same can be said of X3. Every character has a purpose and an opportunity to shine. In fact, I'd say writingwise, the characters have more of a defined and significant arc to their characters in X3 than in any previous film.

Quote:
The only one shortchanged, IMO, is Cyclops. I think he should at least have had a better fight scene at the start, or a better one against Jean. I've never read the script but often wondered if there was a better role in there that got cut down.
I dunno, that power display against Jean at the end is pretty darned impressive.

Earlier scripts had bits where an imprisoned Cyclops would have encountered an imprisoned Angel in Stryker's base.

Quote:
I think X3 is a terrible example of an ensemble film. *Some* people may have had more screentime but if that isn't used wisely, it doesn't really matter. Kitty had no story. The 'love triangle' died on it's arse. Rogue was pretty much thrown under the bus. Iceman was cardboard. Colossus was less than cardboard and may as well have had no lines at all. Famke got the most screentime she ever had, but had no material whatsoever to really fun with. Terrible storytelling. Halle's Storm didn't come to life at all.
Kitty absolutely had a story. She was the youngest, most unproven X-Man, and she had the romantic angle with Bobby as well.

"Died on its arse"? Whatever that means.

I don't even know what "thrown under the bus" means in this context.

Iceman wasn't any more cardboard than he has generally been portrayed. If anything, he was given a bit more depth, related to his struggle/dedication as an X-Man.

Colossus may well have been mostly cardboard, but he still had a larger, more integral, and far more pivotal role than he did in X2.

Quote:
X3 just did an alright job at making the X-Men look like a team.
Again, whatever that means.

Quote:
But as far as the whole movie? X2 was the king at pretty much everything, including ensemble cast. Everyone had their own personal story. These characters are all different from the start of the film than the end: Pyro, Nightcrawler, Stryker, Logan, Iceman, Magneto, Mystique, Jean..even Xavier.
Ok. That's nine characters. And in X3:

Cyclops. Jean. Xavier. Magneto. Mystique. Storm. Wolverine. Kitty. Beast. Iceman. Rogue. Angel. Pyro.

All thirteen of those characters were shown evolving, or were developed and/or had changed somehow as characters by the end of X3.

Ive been reading 60's coming these past months, and Cyclops is a more likeable character than what Singer showed on X1 and X2.

Quote:
the trilogy didnt do him justice, including Singer films.
The trilogy hasn't done any of them justice. Just as THE AVENGERS hasn't done the characters in its universe justice, and Nolan's Batfilms haven't really done the characters in its films justice.

That's not really a solid argument against the overall treatment of that character. It's a tall order to really flesh out a comic book character in an ensemble franchise.

Quote:
And I disagree about Famke - she probably got her best material of all in X3 (playing what is essentially a schizophrenic character and taking out Prof X). She does so many "turns" in the med lab scene with Logan that I'm sure Famke must have been satisfied with it. The problem is that her character turned catatonic in the second act after setting Phoenix up as a significant character.
Absolutely. And even that "catatonic" Phoenix had some layers to it.

Quote:
Storm's role is of absolutely no substance in X3, but we at least get a bit more of her personality.
Not true. It's got a lot more substance than her role in either previous film had. She was developed as a teacher, a leader, a warrior, and a "spokesperson" for mutant rights.

Quote:
I disagree with this. Like I said, the Avengers movie treats their characters with a level of respect not seen in the X-Films. For example, When I watch The Avengers, Captain America actually feels like the leader of the team, while in comparison, I don't feel that with Cyclops.
Then I guess you didn't pay attention. The movies made it pretty clear that Scott was their field leader.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure when Cyclops left the team it usually has something to do with Jean being dead. In fact, when Logan and Jean have a "romance", its usually right under Scotts nose.
And when he left the team...its because he thought she was dead.

And when they had a romance...it was under Scott's nose.

Quote:
Still, it dosent't change the fact that the Comics successfully convey that her heart belongs with Cyclops.
The movies pretty clearly did so as well.

Quote:
The X Franchise is an ensemble the same way Star Wars was....yeah, there's a lot of characters, but there's obviously a centerpiece. For Star Wars, its Luke. For X-Men, its Wolverine. The difference is that Star Wars actually tried to make much of their characters awesome.
So none of the characters in the X-Men franchise were "awesome"?

Quote:
I disagree. He was undermined from the start, really. It's just that his X1 portrayal was still decent in spite of that.
How was he undermined from the start?

Quote:
Like I said, even if the aspects are there, its done in such a mediocre manner that it feels nonexistent.
"It feels nonexistent"? That’s absolute nonsense.

Quote:
The fact that people still see it that was is a mark of the filmmakers inability to give Cyclops better material.
No, it's a mark of people's inability to properly interpret a film and remember the specifics of a film.

Quote:
That's because Xavier and Storm aren't entirely defined by their relationship with Wolverine in the films. Thats what happens when you get little screentime for 2 out of 3 movies.
Scott isn’t defined with his relationship with Wolverine, either...what's your point?

Quote:
I never got the impression that film Jean DID love Scott. I admit this is my opinion on the matter and not absolute fact, but I personally feel that film Jean was with Scott because he was dependable.
Then again...you weren't paying attention. At all.

And if she was with Scott in part because he was dependable? So what?

__________________
"Perception is the enemy of reason."

-Me
The Guard is offline