"Romeo & Juliet Return?": The Official Jean Grey/Cyclops Debate

[GuestStar2004]

anyone read this James Marsden interview from over a year or something ago about if he would ever return to Xmen (my apologies if its already been posted before) XD

http://screenrant.com/james-marsden-...h-benm-108642/

“Yeah, I would love to! Honestly, people ask me more about that than anything and it’s almost embarrassing how little I know about what’s going on with X-Men: First Class. But I guess it’s obviously a prequel and it takes place before our movies, so I’m excited to see it, and I’m excited they’re making it. I think they’re smart, they know they can make X-Men movies as long as they want. There are plenty of characters and plenty of backstories, so I’m happy that they’re continuing the mythology. And I’m happy to have been a part of it at some point. But it would be great to get Hugh [Jackman] and Famke [Janssen] and Patrick [Stewart] and Ian [McKellan] and Halle [Berry] and everybody back together again to do another installment, our next chapter.”

“Well, the thing is I appreciate all the fans that have said that he didn’t get his due, or whatever. But for me it’s very difficult to look back on that experience with any sort of disappointment or regret. I feel really lucky to have been in those movies and feel very proud of what I do in those movies; it’s difficult when you have however many — 12, 15 — new characters that you’re trying to introduce to an audience in 90 to 120 minutes, to give everyone their due. That’s one of the reasons you’re seeing so many spin-offs, because every character could have a spin-off. You could have a Cyclops spin-off, you could have a Jean Grey spin-off — there’s an enormous wealth of backstory and character that you could make a franchise out of each of these characters. So in our X-Men they were always written from Wolverine’s standpoint. He was the lead protagonist. But that could have easily been Storm’s, or Beast’s — it just so happens that the ones I was a part of were very much focused on Wolverine, who was a very popular character in the comics. But I think there’s a lot more story to Cyclops, there’s a lot more depth that exists in the comics. But again, I’m also really realistic about the challenge of introducing and bringing all that depth to however many characters there are within the average running time of a movie.”

[DarknessOfDeath]

In X2, Jean tells Logan that she loves Scott and Logan questions her with "Do you?" I wanted to slap him.

[GuestStar2004]

Originally Posted by DarknessOfDeath

In X2, Jean tells Logan that she loves Scott and Logan questions her with "Do you?" I wanted to slap him.

then in X3 she kills scott the love of her life and then tries to seduce logan, then is killed by logan at the end and has her tomb stone next to scotts

i... i... dunno

[DarknessOfDeath]

Mind you, she wasn't herself when she seduced Logan, it was the Phoenix who was...horny (am I allowed to say that?) lol... then again, it was still Jean - its just that the Phoenix had the upper hand when Jean came to making out with Logan.

[venus_ice]

Marsden just joined Anchorman 2 which starts shooting in March. http://dlvr.it/2zfyPN

[DarknessOfDeath]

Good for him...though...what does that mean for DOFP?

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by DarknessOfDeath

Good for him...though...what does that mean for DOFP?

It means he isn't a major part of it, obviously. Which we all knew anyway. Why act sad and disappointed when

a) Cyclops is dead in the post-X3 dystopia

b) Cyclops isn't born yet in the 60s and is just a kid in the 70s

c) Marsden's name hasn't been among those announced on Twitter.

[DarknessOfDeath]

I guess...its all the above. lol

[SterlingDee]

Originally Posted by Double B

X2 is by far and away the best example of ensemble film-making of the entire trilogy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, I hate that film.

I'm going to have to rewatch X2. It's my favourite X-men movie but in terms of the ensemble, I remember Rogue, Prof X, Storm, Cyclops (as usual) being shortchanged. But Iceman, Pyro, and Jean did get more.

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.

Yes, Kitty doesn't have a storyline, but she still has more to do than the previous incarnations of Kitty in X1 & X2. Storm's role is of absolutely no substance in X3, but we at least get a bit more of her personality.

Definitely not arguing that I like X3 though, but I do feel it was more of an ensemble movie.

[SterlingDee]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

It means he isn't a major part of it, obviously. Which we all knew anyway. Why act sad and disappointed when

a) Cyclops is dead in the post-X3 dystopia

b) Cyclops isn't born yet in the 60s and is just a kid in the 70s

c) Marsden's name hasn't been among those announced on Twitter.

I don't think anyone was expecting him to be a major part of the film (maybe delusional fans), but he would still be able to shoot a cameo if needed. I'm sure he would jump at the chance.

Famke still hasn't announced a project...so my hopes rest there (not expecting her to be in it though!)

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by SterlingDee

I don't think anyone was expecting him to be a major part of the film (maybe delusional fans), but he would still be able to shoot a cameo if needed. I'm sure he would jump at the chance.

Famke still hasn't announced a project...so my hopes rest there (not expecting her to be in it though!)

Of course. A cameo would still be no problem. And I'm sure the fans would love it, especially if Scott and Jean were somehow alive at the end of the movie as a teaser for the next film.

The disappointment will be in not seeing Scott and Jean/Phoenix unleash their mighty powers against Sentinels (on the assumption they are not going to be around to do just that) so the filmmakers would have to give the pair of them plenty to unleash their powers on in the next movie!

[GuestStar2004]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

Of course. A cameo would still be no problem. And I'm sure the fans would love it, especially if Scott and Jean were somehow alive at the end of the movie as a teaser for the next film.

The disappointment will be in not seeing Scott and Jean/Phoenix unleash their mighty powers against Sentinels (on the assumption they are not going to be around to do just that) so the filmmakers would have to give the pair of them plenty to unleash their powers on in the next movie!

but how could you make cyclops and jeans comeback matter in terms of the ending? if they just appeared at the end and is just like we pressed the reset button and now these 2 are back... why would it have an impact? they ain't wolverine

maybe if say storm is killed on or off screen and a scene with Xavier where he says about how hard it is for him after the deaths of jean,scott,storm and maybe beast and how he can't stand to lose anymore Xmen then at the end they fix the timeline and all the Xmen are alive again so it wouldn't seem odd to bring back cyclops and jean

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by The Guard

I don’t think THE AVENGERS “balanced” things quite as well as people think in comparison to the X-Men movies. AVENGERS just showed more action in general. Marvel absolutely used Iron Man as their “Wolverine”, in several respects. I think THE AVENGERS was far less subtle about how they portrayed their iconic characters, so it seems like they’re putting more of their characters in the film, but in reality, there’s not that much depth to what’s onscreen, or that much development of the characters compared to what’s found in X-Men. It’s actually fairly comparable to what we see in X-MEN, with the exception of a few nods to the characters solo film adventures in THE AVENGERS.

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. The comic book characterizations for Cyclops may indeed be in the first three X Films, but they're done in a way that leaves many underwhelmed.

Originally Posted by The Guard

Frankly, I think Cyclops limited screentime in X3 is satisfying because of Marsden, the writing of the character, the effects team, and pretty much anyone involved.

Marsden was originally cast because Jim Caveziel and several other good up and coming actors essentially passed on the role. They were looking for people who could nail their parts and grow into them, who were good actors, not just “supporting cast actors”.

Heck, Hugh Jackman was a relative nobody when he was cast as Wolverine, not a “film leading man”.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/4048

If that's to be believed, Caviezel passed on the role because Fox, as we all know, seem hell bent on revolving things around Wolverine. Around the time of X3, Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg would answer questions for fans on a fansite. As the release date of Last Stand came closer and it was blatantly obvious that Cyclops was gonna get screwed, Penn admitted that Fox has been Wolverine-centered since day one.

Chris Reeve wasn't a "film leading man" either. Just because you aren't a name dosen't mean you can't posess leading man qualities.

Originally Posted by The Guard

And nothing ever will.

But the fact that they crapped on Cyclops in X3 doesn’t mean they crapped on him in two or three other films. There seems to be this attitude that because he was crapped on in X3 that he magically retroactively got crapped on in every movie. That’s just not true.

At best, I could say his role in X1 was decent. X2 he was barely there, given a five second fight (that Marsden had to ask for, by the way) that was mostly off screen, a five second battle with Jean, before being given a good dramatic scene with JEan's death...before they decided to focus more on Logan's reaction.

Originally Posted by The Guard

In the comics, when Cyclops has quit, is dead or is missing, guess what has happened?

Logan and Jean have occasionally had a romance/intrigue between them.

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.

Still, it dosent't change the fact that the Comics successfully convey that her heart belongs with Cyclops.

Originally Posted by The Guard

And Storm takes more responsibility as a leader. This has been repeated through various versions of the X-Men mythology for decades.

The difference is that Marvel dosent crap on Cyclops when he's being replaced. And the difference is that Cyclops always comes back.

Originally Posted by The Guard

Of the remaining X-Men in THE LAST STAND, if Scott was unable to do so, then Storm was the most logical choice to take on Xavier’s role, along with Logan, based on what the franchise had showed in two previous films. They didn’t just “give them Cyclops’ role”, they showed the logical progression of those characters based on the source material.

Logical progression or not, its done under such crappy circumstances that you can't help but think they just "gave them Cyclops' role".

Originally Posted by The Guard

The X-Men films ARE ensemble movies. Wolverine has a slightly larger role than the others, but that’s partially because he’s been the audience identification character from Day One. The same can be said of Rogue.

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.

Originally Posted by The Guard

And for the most part, they did. They did not in X3, though his role was acknowledged. It was an enormous weakness of that film/adaption. It does not invalidate the entire portrayal of Cyclops up to that point.

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

Originally Posted by The Guard

And that’s pretty much what he had been up until X3.



And they did. Until X3, and even during his limited time in X3.

Like I said, even if the aspects are there, its done in such a mediocre manner that it feels nonexistent.

Originally Posted by The Guard

The only reason people insist on seeing Scott as just Logan’s foil is because people insist on only seeing him that way.

That’s not the reality of whats onscreen.

The fact that people still see it that was is a mark of the filmmakers inability to give Cyclops better material.

Originally Posted by The Guard

I never saw Scott as “just Logan’s foil”. Any more than I saw Xavier as “just Logan’s mentor” or Storm as “Just the girl who kicks Logan in the pants now and then”. The nature of Scott’s character was very clear on film.

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.

Originally Posted by The Guard

Where on Earth do you get the idea that Jean doesn’t actually love Scott?

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.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by PhoenixRogue

Phoenix can return.... you know a Phoenix rises from the ashes.... and lets be honest Scott was never seen dead.... everyone of the x-men thought he was dead... I would love for their return... but I think it will be small... leave a bigger role for X4

Yeah just save them for X4 or X5. That way they could get a proper comeback w/o the First Class cast sharing the screentime with them.

[wobbly]

Originally Posted by DarknessOfDeath

In X2, Jean tells Logan that she loves Scott and Logan questions her with "Do you?" I wanted to slap him.

What annoyed me more was Logan telling Scott at the end "she made her choice...and she chose you"

Nice one Logan...Guy is in mourning for the love of his life and you basically go telling him she was considering other options!!

[DarknessOfDeath]

... maybe I should change my sig lol Whats a good Jean/Scott quote?

[psylockolussus]

Cyke: How?
Jean: I dunno

[DarknessOfDeath]

I think what they should have said was this:

Scott: Jean? I...can't believe it. You're alive. How?
Jean: I should still be dead...I don't know how to explain it.
Scott: You don't have to...I mean...All this time you’ve haunted me in my dreams, calling out to me for help. I couldn’t stand myself not being able to see you again...I had to see you and yet, you’re here...I've missed you.
Jean: Oh Scott...*hugs him*

[The Guard]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

X3 just did an alright job at making the X-Men look like a team.

Again, whatever that means.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

[summers1055]

If Hugh Jackman could do it, why can't James Marsden?

the filming of both their movies is off by a couple weeks. Who knows when Bryan Singer is shooting the future timeline, apparently Hugh Jackman still has a huge role in days of future past despite shooting this movie which production began yesterday.
Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal begin shooting 'Prisoners'

Published Thursday, Feb 21 2013, 10:21am EST | By Emma Dibdin | Add







Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal star in Prisoners, which began production this week in Georgia.

The new thriller from Incendies director Denis Villeneuve stars Jackman as a man whose 6-year-old daughter has gone missing.

[summers1055]

http://movies.about.com/b/2013/02/20...-prisoners.htm

I see no reason to be discouraged if Hugh Jackman literally just began filming a day ago and we are already in late february, James Marsden's movie begins filiming in early March, that's practically the same difference.

[summers1055]

Also, Jennifer Lawrence is starring in a movie which begins production this coming month. Don't give up faith on James Marsden, that's two of the leading stars in days of future past in the same predicament as James Marsden.

http://screenrant.com/jennifer-lawre...s-earth-movie/ (link to article)



Meanwhile, THR has learned Lawrence is committing to The Ends of the Earth, with Russell planning to direct, possibly once the pair completes shooting their ABSCAM project (which begins production in New York and Boston next month). Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch (The Pursuit of Happyness) are producing, with a script from Chris Terrio – the Argo screenwriter who is “competing” for the same Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar as Russell is for Silver Linings Playbook.

Jennifer Lawrence Appearing in David O. Russell’s Next Two Movies

1 day ago by Sandy Schaefer

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by summers1055

http://movies.about.com/b/2013/02/20...-prisoners.htm

I see no reason to be discouraged if Hugh Jackman literally just began filming a day ago and we are already in late february, James Marsden's movie begins filiming in early March, that's practically the same difference.

Also, with comedies, they tend to be quick shoots anyway. Especially with Anchorman which has a short post-production schedule since it's being released later this year.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

Of course. A cameo would still be no problem. And I'm sure the fans would love it, especially if Scott and Jean were somehow alive at the end of the movie as a teaser for the next film.

The question is why would Jean and Cyclops get resurrected if the X-Men prevented the Sentinels-event that is going to happen in the future. Especially they didn't die because of a Sentinel.

Unless they go back to the past, and confront/stop young Jean Grey for being a bad Jean grey in the future, then you could prevent their death that happened in X3.

[The Infernal]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

The question is why would Jean and Cyclops get resurrected if the X-Men prevented the Sentinels-event that is going to happen in the future. Especially they didn't die because of a Sentinel.

Unless they go back to the past, and confront/stop young Jean Grey for being a bad Jean grey in the future, then you could prevent their death that happened in X3.

Isn't the event they're trying to stop in the past? If it is then preventing that could have an effect on those events. You really wouldn't need to explain them being alive since the entire timeline would have changed.