Now that Disney has acquired Lucas films...

[Bruce Malone]

Glenn danzig actually had the right look of short (5'4") and muscular but the guy's a d-bag and probably can't act.

[Project862006]

well he isnt an actor lol casting him would be like casting ben ryan as captain america

[Bruce Malone]

True, but he was going to be the wolverine before he turned the role down. I believe he was the guy they had in mind when casting the first x-men.

It would have changed the way the series turned out for sure.

[Project862006]

^that was dougary scott he was wolverine before he dropped out for mission impossible II

[Bruce Malone]

Both were considered. I think dougray dropped out first.

Danzig told L.A. Weekly his Wolverine "wouldn't have been as gay. Actually, he wasn't the first choice. They hired Dougray Scott. He had a falling out with the director, and then they hired Hugh Jackman. I'm glad I didn't do it. It was terrible."

Then there was rocker Glenn Danzig, whose resemblance to Wolvie -- both in appearance and scrappy stature -- made him a fan favorite for the role. Thankfully, Danzig passed due to scheduling conflicts

[Project862006]

lolol gay

hugh probably would stomp his short ass anyone see that backstage video where danzig gets put to sleep lol

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by YoungPrime

We've spoke on this before. I wasn't a comic book reader when this film came out but I did watch the cartoon on Fox Kids in the 90's just like millions of other people so trust me, the GA can tell the difference between a 5'3 Wolverine and 6ft Hugh Jackman. It wasn't just comic book fans.

X-Men 1 sold about 25-30 million tickets in the United States. If you can prove to me that the X-Men: Animated Garnered ratings of even half that number of viewers, I will agree with you, but I highly doubt it did.

I can't imagine it's viewership was much more than 1/10th of that figure, which wouldn't necessarily mean everyone going to the film was unaware of the change, but a lot fewer people were bothered by it than you seem to believe.

[Project862006]

^height did'nt bother anyone but hardcore comic fans but animated series was a classic imo dont underestimate it's popularity

it probably got alot of people into x men when they were growing up i know it did for me

[S. Grundy]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Both were considered. I think dougray dropped out first.

At one point Tom Jane was really close to getting the part too, like just an audition for formality and it would have been his.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^height did'nt bother anyone but hardcore comic fans but animated series was a classic imo dont underestimate it's popularity

it probably got alot of people into x men when they were growing up i know it did for me

A lot of people in a very small demographic. I'm sorry, and we've been over this, but film demographics and tv demographics are NOT comparable.

If only people who watched the animated series saw X-Men 1, it would've flopped.

[Gold Samurai]

Originally Posted by xeno000

The changes made to the characters' ages and backgrounds weren't too problematic, in my opinion, but other alterations definitely held the series back from realizing its potential. Specifically, depowering the mutants and limiting how much they used what little powers they were allowed was a major failing. Fox's budgetary concerns kept the number of FX shots to a minimum, which had a big effect on the action in the films.


They grounded Storm, whose powers should have looked magnificent on screen. She should have been whipping up hurricanes rather than frying toads with a little electricity. Rogue had no powers to speak of -- they never even tried to give her an alternate source for the powers she stole from Ms. Marvel in the comics. Phoenix was a total waste; no firebird silhouette or dazzling displays of raw energy for her. The one character who had a truly great sequence was Nightcrawler. And they never used the team's greatest foes, the Sentinels, except in a throwaway scene, which was a criminal lapse.


The X films simply never lived up to the potential for epic action inherent in the comics, and that held them back at the box office, IMO.

I'd like to add that the first "X-men" movie also looked cheap. Probably was made cheap. The mutants using their powers never felt extraordinary. It was just okay.

Wolverine flipping back on one of the Statue of Liberty's crown looked really fake.

[Baramos]

Danzig was never really "considered" for Wolverine. He has exaggerated his attempt at getting into an audition, from what I can tell. He never really made "the list". I mean I like Mother as much as the next guy but this has about as much weight as Hulk Hogan claiming he was on a short list to star in the Wrestler.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Gold Samurai

I'd like to add that the first "X-men" movie also looked cheap. Probably was made cheap. The mutants using their powers never felt extraordinary. It was just okay.

Wolverine flipping back on one of the Statue of Liberty's crown looked really fake.

The first X-Men movie was filmed on the cheap. The film's budget was a measly $75 million, so they couldn't afford good effects, or even as many effects shots as the film should have had. When it was being filmed Bryan Singer gave interviews where he said that Fox slashed his desired budget and forced him to remove many of the planned FX shots to save money. As a result, the characters never used their powers in any impressive way. There were no huge storms, Iceman never iced up, Magneto bent a little metal here and there, and the finale was somewhat of a letdown.


But that's Fox's strategy: Cut budgets to the detriment of quality, so they can wring every last bit of profit out of a property. They don't care if their superhero movies look like crap, as both FF movies proved.

[bubbadoom]

I always wanted to see an Indiana Jones movie in which Indy discovers the M. Falcon in an Aztec pyramid and Big Foot is a descendant of Chewie...now that Disney is making Lucas Films - maybe we will...

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by xeno000

The first X-Men movie was filmed on the cheap. The film's budget was a measly $75 million, so they couldn't afford good effects, or even as many effects shots as the film should have had. When it was being filmed Bryan Singer gave interviews where he said that Fox slashed his desired budget and forced him to remove many of the planned FX shots to save money. As a result, the characters never used their powers in any impressive way. There were no huge storms, Iceman never iced up, Magneto bent a little metal here and there, and the finale was somewhat of a letdown.


But that's Fox's strategy: Cut budgets to the detriment of quality, so they can wring every last bit of profit out of a property. They don't care if their superhero movies look like crap, as both FF movies proved.

thats why i never get complaints of lack of huge scale singer was never allowed to do so 70 million budget for x men was ridiculously low

compare it to spiderman which came out 2 years later and was made for 140 million

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Project862006

thats why i never get complaints of lack of huge scale singer was never allowed to do so 70 million budget for x men was ridiculously low

compare it to spiderman which came out 2 years later and was made for 140 million

This was the same problem with the first FF movie - they went into production with an $80 million budget so the scale was too small from the start - even when they added $20 million, they were locked into this small movie...

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by xeno000

Phoenix was a total waste; no firebird silhouette or dazzling displays of raw energy for her.

Jean did display the Phoenix flame, at the end of X2:




They were on the right path, but we know what happened next, as far as X-Men 3's production is concerned.

It was basically Alien 3, all over again...

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by BenReilly

Jean did display the Phoenix flame, at the end of X2:




They were on the right path, but we know what happened next, as far as X-Men 3's production is concerned.

It was basically Alien 3, all over again...

When I wrote that I was thinking mainly of Last Stand, wherein Jean had the full Phoenix powers. The only flaming display in that film were some lame explosions and a Bic-lighter fueled firefight from Pyro at the finish.


The gif you posted comes from one of the best sequences in all of the X-Men films, a scene that had great emotional impact and a striking visual. (One could even overlook the fact that Jean needn't have sacrificed herself in order to save the others, if only to justify the operatic drama of the scene.) After watching that, I had such high hopes that the next film would go to even greater heights, not just in terms of technical achievement but with the epic scope of the Phoenix saga as well. Fox's cheapness and Ratner's hackishness torpedoed that.

[Dark Raven]

Now that Disney has acquired Lucas films, do you think they'll remake the 1979 Disney sci-fi movie "The Black Hole"? Ironically, it was trying to capitalise on Star Wars and couldn't use ILM's equipment at the time to make the film.

[Hypestyle]

we'll see. I hope that eventually the FF and X-Men get folded back to Marvel. certainly FF, I see them having more of a broader role in the Marvel-movieverse than whatever's been established with the x-men world..

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by xeno000

The first X-Men movie was filmed on the cheap. The film's budget was a measly $75 million, so they couldn't afford good effects, or even as many effects shots as the film should have had. When it was being filmed Bryan Singer gave interviews where he said that Fox slashed his desired budget and forced him to remove many of the planned FX shots to save money. As a result, the characters never used their powers in any impressive way. There were no huge storms, Iceman never iced up, Magneto bent a little metal here and there, and the finale was somewhat of a letdown.

Yeah they didn't have much budget but to be fair, the visual effects of the first X-Men movie didn't look bad at all. The production design of the Cerebro/the subbasement of the X-Mansion/the headquarters of the Brotherhood looked good. I thought the make-up for Mystique/Sabretooth/Toad good. Plus they hired good actors for the movie.

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Now that Disney has acquired Lucas films, do you think they'll remake the 1979 Disney sci-fi movie "The Black Hole"? Ironically, it was trying to capitalise on Star Wars and couldn't use ILM's equipment at the time to make the film.

The already remade a black hole. It was called Tron: Legacy.

[HowardStark]

I would like to see Willow remade with todays effects and a more epic feel that Howard just couldn't deliver back then.

[Gabe99]

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Now that Disney has acquired Lucas films, do you think they'll remake the 1979 Disney sci-fi movie "The Black Hole"? Ironically, it was trying to capitalise on Star Wars and couldn't use ILM's equipment at the time to make the film.

Originally Posted by xeno000

The already remade a black hole. It was called Tron: Legacy.

From Heat Vision:
'Tron: Legacy' team mount a 'Black Hole' remake

Originally Posted by Borys Kit

Disney is preparing another expedition into “The Black Hole.”

Joseph Kosinski and Sean Bailey, the director and producer of Disney’s new “Tron: Legacy,” and scribe Travis Beacham are teaming up for what is being labeled a reinvention of the 1979 sci-fi film, which at the time was the most expensive movie Disney had ever produced.

“Hole” marks one of the first projects to be put into development by new studio chief Rich Ross.

The original followed a group of space explorers aboard the USS Palomino who come across a lost ship, the USS Cygnus, hovering outside a black hole. Inside the Cygnus, the explorers meet a scientist, commanding an army of faceless robots, who explains his crew deserted him as he planned to go through the black hole. The explorers soon discover that the robots are the remnants of the former crew and that the scientist has no intention of letting them leave.

The $26 million movie, which featured a menacing red robot named Maximilian and two smaller, friendlier robots, was Disney’s first PG-rated production and helped put the company on the special effects map.

The details of the update are being kept secret, though the take does involve grounding the story in the science of a black hole, much more so than in the original. Maximilian also would return.

Brigham Taylor and Casey Wolfe are overseeing for Disney. Matt Smith and Justin Springer are shepherding for Idealogy.

“Hole” puts Bailey, who is making “Hole” via his Idealogy cq’d banner, back on track after seeing his “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” project shelved by Ross shortly after the November reorganization at Disney.

Kosinski, repped by WME and Anonymous, is a commercial director making his feature debut with “Tron,” which is set for release on Dec. 17, 2010. Disney is high on the movie, which could launch a franchise. It is unknown where “Hole” would fit in Kosinski’s timetable.

Beacham, also repped by WME and Anonymous, came onto the screenwriting scene with “Killing on Carnival Row” and worked on the “Clash of the Titans” remake.

[Joeyjojo72]