The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > X-Men > X-Men 1, 2 & 3

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2007, 01:36 PM   #76
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Batman and Bond got excellent reboots. Superman's reboot will probably get rebooted, as it clearly didn't perform as expected or as some online wanted. (Superman shouldn't be such a gloomy movie). X-Men may get a reboot, but they will lose the star power if they don't keep some big names in it.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 01:17 AM   #77
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastSunrise1981 View Post
No one is hounding you, but it seems that you're hounding those who don't like the film you know? It's all a matter of opinion anyways and a lot of people have moved on.

I will say this though, and whether you like it or not, X-Men will be given a reboot. I know you won't like it and I know you're satisfied with the trilogy that was released. But it'll receive a reboot eventually. Punisher is receiving one and I truly didn't think it needed one, Batman got one, James Bond got one, Superman sort of got one, and now the Hulk, and of course any other remake/reboot that Hollywood is interested in.

It's pretty much inescapable Nell.
how am i hounding? i'm stating how i feel about vaughn, and like always, people are jumping on my opinion, and how "wrong" it is. well, you see it your way, and i see it mine.

as far as the reboots go, it may happen whether i like it or not, but no, i don't like reboots. reboots are lame in my opinion, and only ruin the films. i mean, should we reboot star wars (oh wait...), should we reboot indiana jones (oh wait...)

it's a lame idea. make a movie, and let that movie be it's own movie. stop trying to redo everything. some cases, it works. i.e. batman. because batman is one of those things that will always be done and redone, and then done again some more. but just because it works for some things doesn't mean it works for everything. and i'm tired of hollywood making needless sequels, remakes, and reboots for everything instead of just letting the movies speak for themselves, and come up with new and original ideas.

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 07:39 AM   #78
Theweepeople
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
i don't care if you don't believe me or not. the fact of the matter is, i never felt comfortable with vaughn on board. i never liked his attitude towards the movie, and the director before him. and the ideas that i have heard that have come from him, i didn't like.
That's okay. The evidence speaks for itself. You already exposed yourself for being a hypocrite so it's overwhelmingly obvious that your bias against Vaughn is irrational.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
why should i say good things about the guy when i have liked exactly 0% of what i know about his contribution to the film?.
I'm not sure how you can up with that percentage considering that Ratner made only a few changes to the script that Vaughn was responsible for? Since you feel so strongly about this I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving me a mathematical explanation for how this percentage makes sense.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
okay, but whether they were ever going to be used or not, those storyboards are just as much of evidence as anything that we never did get towards what he would have done with the movie. and i didn't like it. plain and simple.

it is evidence towards a direction i did not like. and i am not going to not use that as evidence, just because it might not have been used.
Since you're obsessed with storyboards Ratner had a moronic one that had Mystique and Magneto playing chess together. Where is you're criticism of that?

Another moronic decision Ratner made was having Rogue take the cure. That idea was not in the original script released by Ain't it cool news.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
so, using your logic, shouldn't ratner be given even MORE credit for walking into an even bigger mess on an even shorter notice?
I've already given Ratner credit for turning a foul smelling turd into a less foul smelling turd. I didn't think this was something Brett would want to be remembered for. Furthermore, Vaughn gets more credit for not being a hack in his decision to walk away from this mess.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
well, i don't think that jean dying, and mystique being cured are "bad" ideas. and yes, some of it was the result of vaughn's decisions. the script was written under his supervision. and his input was definately put into the script. vaughn even stated he wanted the film to be more gritty, and also have moments to drive people to tears. many of the things that he said he wanted to do were, at the time, heavily believed to be the death of cyclops, as well as xavier. was there studio input to kill off cyclops? i don't doubt that there was. but there was also a creative decision from the team, under supervision of vaughn, to do it as well. such as kinberg's statement that "we" (meaning, the creative team, supervised under vaughn) have found a great way to deal with marsden's limited availability.
This is all very amusing but, I will always refer back to what Kinberg said about these decisions on thexverse.com. Kinberg stated multiple times that these decisions were forced upon him and Zak by Fox.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
okay, but you state that opinion as though it is fact. it is not. i do not think that ratner is a "hack" in the least bit. i for one have yet to see a brett ratner movie that i didn't enjoy. i haven't seen rush hour 3 yet, but the first 2 were rather well made action / comedy flicks. i rather enjoyed money talks, the one time i saw it. and i thought that x-men 3 had many elements that have been sorely lacking from the first 2.
I never stated my opinion as fact. However, I have always backed up my opinions with facts, theories, and other opinions. I'm sure you have done the same so what exactly is your problem? I don't understand why you get so hypersensitive when anyone criticizes the people involved with putting X3 together(Vaughn being the exception of course).

That being said Ratner will always be a hack for the following:

Not making a single movie that has any replay value for me.

Not making a single movie that has received critical acclaim or commerical success.

Aggreeing with all of Jon Peter's deviations from Superman mythology with the ill-fated Superman Lives project.

Lying about changes made to the Superman Lives script after the fan backlash became apparent and a petition was started by online fans to end the project(Stan Lee admitted he signed the petition!!!).

Saying that the Superman Lives script was flawless.

Saying that the X-Men script was flawless.

Saying that he was determined to get the characters in X3 right yet, numerous characters in X3 did things that were completely inconsistent with their personalities.

Saying that everything that he filmed would be included with the theatrical release of the film.

Saying that 90% of the people who've seen X3 loved it.

His decision to hire mediocre actors time and time again just because he has a relationship with them(Chris Tucker, Ken Leung, and Omahyra). Without Ratner Chris Tucker's acting career would have ended 10 years ago. Unfortunately, Ratner has cast him again for his next film(The Rat Pack).

Below is a website that nominates Ratner for being the biggest hack director in hollywood. There are other websites that also reffer to him as being a hack.

http://www.radaronline.com/features/...l_part_vii.php




Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
competant writers? well, that's debateable. i believe they gave us a DAMNED good plot.
I'm confused. You disliked the script Vaughn, Kinberg, and Penn put together. Then you became happy with the same script after Ratner made a few changes? Please explain to me how your bias against Vaughn is not unfair and hyprocritcal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
i believe these 2 guys are very creative, and very imaginative.
Really? Zak Penn's resume as a writer was laughable before X3(Last Action Hero, PCU, Elektra(Most boring comic book film), Behind Enemy Lines. The only good film his name has been attached to is X2 and none of his ideas were used.

Simon Kinberg's resume before X3 was not much better(XXX, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.)

Creative and imaginative are not the words I would use to describe their work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
well, considering that the backbone of the script remains the same, i suppose some credit needs to be given where it is due. but given the evidence, in my opinion, YES, the bad decisions were the result of vaughn while the good decisions were the result of ratner.
What good decisions by Ratner? The main ones that stand out our his decision to have Rogue cured, unnecessarily changing the opening of the film, and changing the location of the final battle. Why didn't Ratner change some of the fates multiple characters? He had time to make a significant change to the middle of script so it's obvious that he had time to make other changes.

In retrospect Ratner made many bad decisions. His decisions to leave the character fates of Cyclops, Xavier, Mystique, and Magneto alone were all bad. His decision to not give multiple characters any development at all were all bad decisions. His decision to give the movie a run time 25 minutes the X2 was a bad decision.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
and according to zak penn, there were many more horrible ideas on the way
Considering the source I don't know what to believe. I'm not sure whether he truly understands the difference between good ideas and bad ones considering his so-called great ideas for X2 were all tossed aside. Based on the fact that I've yet to be impressed by any of Zak's scripts his opinions are irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
had vaughn not been canned.
This is the second time I've heard you refer to Vaughn getting canned and there is no evidence to back up this claim. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link that proves this assertion.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
i will too, and i like how you conveniently decided NOT to quote the parts of my post which i said pretty much the exact same thing.
Now what's your problem? Your exact quotes that I didn't include were"
ratner's film lacks the heart of singer's films, and for that, i see it as a more flawed movie. but if i want an x-men movie that will awe me and wow me, and give me that epic feeling, x-men 3 is the film for that."

Saying that X3 gave you an epic feel doesn't give me the feeling that you would have preferred Singer to do X3 over Ratner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
ratner had amazing action, but only had great character MOMENTS. in the end, singer's films are better made films. but ratner's style does have it's place, and is not inherently wrong, and i find enjoyment out of the elements that ratner focused on as well. like i said, i think x-men 3 is at the same time the best of the series, and the worst. and one of the reasons why it is the worst is because of the lack of depth and development.
I agree that Ratner had intense action but, at times it seemed mindless and a little to chaotic for my tastes.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
except for beast's one leap,.
My problem with beast was with the exception to the one second cgi scene where he kicks someone beast did not move and fight in a way I would expect from a mutant with his abilities. In most of his fight scenes he didn't look extraodinarily strong and agile. He simply looked like someone in a furry custome who was punching people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
i felt the fights in x-men 3 felt much more natural than the wolverine vs. lady deathstrike fight from x2.,.
With the exception of one scene during the deathstrike fight I didn't have a problem with it. The only scene that looked really fake to me was when deathstrike grabs logan and smashes him against a wall while holding him.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
if you've moved on, then perhaps you can stop hounding me over the fact that i have a positive view of this film, and ratner, and even kinberg and penn.
Hounding you? I'm merely stating contrary opions to yours. What's the harm in that?

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. No one bothered to give Tom Rothman the memo.

CBM hack list:

Mark Steven Johnson, Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Kenneth Johnson, Rob Bowman, Zak Penn, Simon Kinberg, Avi Arad, Pitoff, John Rogers, and Tim Story.
Theweepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 09:22 AM   #79
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Ratner certainly didn't seem the obvious choice for an X-Men movie. But in interviews it's been said that he and Singer are friends and that Singer recommended him for X3. It was apparently also felt that because of Ratner's work on Red Dragon, he was capable of picking up an existing franchise without being fazed by the task of continuing someone else's work.

I'd never have imagined Ratner directing X-Men, nor Vaughn for that matter. And back in the late 90s, Bryan Singer seemed an odd choice.

As for the casting of friends, or people with whom a director has previously worked, this is commonplace. Singer cast Apt Pupil's Spacey in SR and he cast Marsden in SR and he spoke to Shawn Ashmore about a role in SR and he also met Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman (not sure if that was about an SR role). Vaughn cast Vinnie Jones, with whom he had worked before. Singer brought in his friends Harris and Dougherty to write X2, pushing out Zak Penn and also pushing out David Hayter (who then left Fox on very bad terms, which is a terrible shame considering his work on the first two X-movies). This kind of nepotism is very common in the business world. The movie industry is no exception.

Interesting site on Ratner being named a hack. Quite funny, though it's wrong about the drop in takings on X3. It didn't flatline from $123m to $7m in the second week at all.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10

Last edited by X-Maniac; 10-20-2007 at 09:32 AM.
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 01:06 PM   #80
Theweepeople
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
As for the casting of friends, or people with whom a director has previously worked, this is commonplace. Singer cast Apt Pupil's Spacey in SR and he cast Marsden in SR and he spoke to Shawn Ashmore about a role in SR and he also met Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman (not sure if that was about an SR role). Vaughn cast Vinnie Jones, with whom he had worked before. Singer brought in his friends Harris and Dougherty to write X2, pushing out Zak Penn and also pushing out David Hayter (who then left Fox on very bad terms, which is a terrible shame considering his work on the first two X-movies). This kind of nepotism is very common in the business world. The movie industry is no exception.
I don't really have a problem with nepotism as long as the people hired for jobs have a good resume. The problem I have with Ratner is the actors and actress he hired for multiple films haven't impressed me with their acting. I had the same problem with Matthew Vaughn hiring Vinnie Jones for Juggernaut. Jones is an atrocious actor and he lacked the height to play the character. Matthew should have hired someone tall and muscular to play the role. Ralf Moeller would have been my first choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
It didn't flatline from $123m to $7m in the second week at all.
You're about it not flatlining. However, it did have a 67% dropoff during the second weekend and was added to Boxofficemojo's lists of greatest second weekend dropoff's.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. No one bothered to give Tom Rothman the memo.

CBM hack list:

Mark Steven Johnson, Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Kenneth Johnson, Rob Bowman, Zak Penn, Simon Kinberg, Avi Arad, Pitoff, John Rogers, and Tim Story.
Theweepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2007, 11:46 PM   #81
LastSunrise1981
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Serious intelligent question for everyone here.

If a restart were to come to fruition anytime soon, and believe me, a reboot will happen sometime in the future. But say if it were happening at this moment and they were putting together a script, what story would you hope they would adapt?

And who would you want directing it? And who would you want writing the story?

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 04:34 AM   #82
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
That's okay. The evidence speaks for itself. You already exposed yourself for being a hypocrite so it's overwhelmingly obvious that your bias against Vaughn is irrational.
a hypocrit because i don't like matthew vaughn? what is so hard for you to get? i NEVER liked the guy! i never liked his attitude towards singer and the previous films. i never liked his attitude for the tone he wanted to set with the film. it came off to me as though he was more concerned with making a matthew vaughn film, rather than an x-men film. HIS style was more important than the X-MEN style, and that bothered me from the beginning. he was more concerned with his own stamp, than making a film that connected with the first 2. that is the impression that i got.

as well as some of his ideas - his danger room storyboard, wolverine running around with leech in a backpack, and wanting to use stacy-x as a character, none of those ideas sat well with me. on top of his attitude, there was not much for me to like about matthew vaughn.

i don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I'm not sure how you can up with that percentage considering that Ratner made only a few changes to the script that Vaughn was responsible for? Since you feel so strongly about this I'm sure you wouldn't mind giving me a mathematical explanation for how this percentage makes sense.
okay, no, i'm not going to sit here and come up with an exact mathematic calculation. but let the record show that most of the problems i have with the film, in terms of the script, were problems that were around since before ratner was on board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Since you're obsessed with storyboards Ratner had a moronic one that had Mystique and Magneto playing chess together. Where is you're criticism of that?
it's never been brought up. but since you are bringing it up now:

i believe that was a horrible scene idea. i never said ratner's film was perfect. i have stated that it is plenty flawed, and i have stated many MANY times where i believe it to be flawed. this idea i believe was a horrible idea, and i am glad that rebecca romijn was not available to shoot that scene. because that's the only reason why i heard it was scrapped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Another moronic decision Ratner made was having Rogue take the cure. That idea was not in the original script released by Ain't it cool news.
you would be correct, that is actually one of the changes that ratner did make that was the wrong decision. i did overlook that. and i agree with you. it was a horrible decision.

matthew vaughn bad decisions - 4
brett ratner bad decisions - 1

(by the way, these counts are based on -MY- idea of "bad" decisions. because i don't agree with what you consider to be "bad" decisions.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I've already given Ratner credit for turning a foul smelling turd into a less foul smelling turd. I didn't think this was something Brett would want to be remembered for. Furthermore, Vaughn gets more credit for not being a hack in his decision to walk away from this mess.
no, he is just a hack because he decided all of a sudden that he couldn't hang, and he left the production a mess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
This is all very amusing but, I will always refer back to what Kinberg said about these decisions on thexverse.com. Kinberg stated multiple times that these decisions were forced upon him and Zak by Fox.
that may be the truth. that may be a cop out. it may be a little bit of both.

while i do agree that studio politics messed with this film, i also don't think that fox execs were sitting in their offices saying "marsden went to another movie, we must kill him off!" as with most things in life, i believe it's a bit in the middle.

politics - fox wanted a movie focused on hugh jackman and halle berry, meaning that wolverine and storm got the focus. in particular wolverine. therefore, cyclops was to have a limited role regardless

creative blunders - marsden has limited availability, fox wants this to be a wolverine movie, we write out cyclops completely by killing him.

you think of the remarks kinberg made on xverse, i also think of remarks he made on one of the video interviews he gave, where he stated they found a great way to deal with marsden's limited availability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I never stated my opinion as fact. However, I have always backed up my opinions with facts, theories, and other opinions. I'm sure you have done the same so what exactly is your problem? I don't understand why you get so hypersensitive when anyone criticizes the people involved with putting X3 together(Vaughn being the exception of course).
i take offense to the fact that my opinion is never accepted. while i do appreciate an intelligent debate, i also don't appreciate my opinion being talked down upon. which is pretty much what has happened, even if you don't go to the extremes of name calling and subtle insults, which i admit i can be prone to when i get frustrated.

but by calling me a hypocrit because i disliked vaughn, and not ratner, and just completely not accepting the fact that i don't believe that ratner, kinberg, and penn are the hacks that you make them out to be. the fact that if i said i DID prefer ratner to singer (which is not the case) you would not be accepting of that opinion.

it's the whole superiority complex that i have faced time and time again on all types of message boards, from music, to movies, to politics, and here is no different. it gets annoying, and very frustrating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
That being said Ratner will always be a hack for the following:

Not making a single movie that has any replay value for me.

Not making a single movie that has received critical acclaim or commerical success.

Aggreeing with all of Jon Peter's deviations from Superman mythology with the ill-fated Superman Lives project.

Lying about changes made to the Superman Lives script after the fan backlash became apparent and a petition was started by online fans to end the project(Stan Lee admitted he signed the petition!!!).

Saying that the Superman Lives script was flawless.

Saying that the X-Men script was flawless.

Saying that he was determined to get the characters in X3 right yet, numerous characters in X3 did things that were completely inconsistent with their personalities.

Saying that everything that he filmed would be included with the theatrical release of the film.

Saying that 90% of the people who've seen X3 loved it.

His decision to hire mediocre actors time and time again just because he has a relationship with them(Chris Tucker, Ken Leung, and Omahyra). Without Ratner Chris Tucker's acting career would have ended 10 years ago. Unfortunately, Ratner has cast him again for his next film(The Rat Pack).
well, i definately think you are wrong on ratner never making a film that had commercial success:

rush hour, rush hour 2, x-men: the last stand, rush hour 3 -> all of those were commercial successes.

the rest of those are your opinion, and you are entitled to them, but i do not agree with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Below is a website that nominates Ratner for being the biggest hack director in hollywood. There are other websites that also reffer to him as being a hack.

http://www.radaronline.com/features/...l_part_vii.php
okay? i don't care. i don't base MY opinion, and what satisfies ME, based upon what other people think. i like to think for myself, and form my own opinions.

i am not saying -you- don't. i am saying that a website full of what other people think is no kind of factor what so ever in this debate as far as i'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I'm confused. You disliked the script Vaughn, Kinberg, and Penn put together. Then you became happy with the same script after Ratner made a few changes? Please explain to me how your bias against Vaughn is not unfair and hyprocritcal.
i have my problems with the script that we got. i do believe that the plot was great, but the details were pretty ****ed up. why i disliked vaughn's over the one we got is due to the fact that individual ideas were enough, to me, to negate what was good about the film. these were elements that go to make a bad movie, plain and simple. just like you have your problems, with plotholes and inconsistancies which all movies have, but the ones in x-men 3 to you are less acceptable.

the errors in x-men 3 to me don't make a bad movie. they make a questionable x-men movie, as an adaptation, when you kill cyclops, xavier, cure rogue, and make wolverine into the leader. but they aren't bad errors in terms of making a movie.

i think many of vaughn's ideas that never made the cut would be enough for me to not enjoy the movie, at all, on any level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Really? Zak Penn's resume as a writer was laughable before X3(Last Action Hero, PCU, Elektra(Most boring comic book film), Behind Enemy Lines. The only good film his name has been attached to is X2 and none of his ideas were used.

Simon Kinberg's resume before X3 was not much better(XXX, Mr. and Mrs. Smith.)
i happen to like last action hero, and behind enemy lines. wasn't a fan of xxx, haven't seen the rest.

i know kinberg was also involved on fantastic 4, a movie which i also enjoyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Creative and imaginative are not the words I would use to describe their work.
k. your opinion. not mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
What good decisions by Ratner? The main ones that stand out our his decision to have Rogue cured, unnecessarily changing the opening of the film, and changing the location of the final battle. Why didn't Ratner change some of the fates multiple characters? He had time to make a significant change to the middle of script so it's obvious that he had time to make other changes.
curing rogue = bad decision.

want to explain to me how he changed the opening? as far as i know, it was always to be the jean intro. and i don't think the location of the final battle really made a difference one way or another in terms of quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
In retrospect Ratner made many bad decisions. His decisions to leave the character fates of Cyclops, Xavier, Mystique, and Magneto alone were all bad. His decision to not give multiple characters any development at all were all bad decisions. His decision to give the movie a run time 25 minutes the X2 was a bad decision.
i don't agree, not 100%

i don't believe the fates of mystique or magneto were "bad". cyclops and xavier? yes. but those were decisions that were made before him. and i don't know how much power he (or anyone else for that matter) really had to change fates like that.

as far as development goes, i do agree that there could have been more development. developing beast's past relationship with xavier and the x-men. developing angel and his relationship with his father, and his decision to join the x-men, and go fight. developing jean's internal struggle within herself.

characters like colossus, kitty pryde, arclight, callisto, juggernaut, etc... i don't think it hurt the film not developing them. because they were secondary characters that didn't really play a part in the plot, but still served a purpose. nightcrawler, for example, played a part in the plot and was developed. lady deathstrike, however, had little involvement, and her character didn't need development. not every character can get the time to be fleshed out.

as far as making the film too short? yea, it should have been longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Considering the source I don't know what to believe. I'm not sure whether he truly understands the difference between good ideas and bad ones considering his so-called great ideas for X2 were all tossed aside. Based on the fact that I've yet to be impressed by any of Zak's scripts his opinions are irrelevant.
considering some of the ideas vaughn DID come up with, i am inclined to believe penn on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
This is the second time I've heard you refer to Vaughn getting canned and there is no evidence to back up this claim. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link that proves this assertion.
i'm sorry for not using the proper terms, i'm writing these posts late at night.

i believe i told you the first time it was speculation on my part that vaughn got fired. there is no evidence. it's just a theory of mine. there is nothing solid to say it did happen. it's just my feeling on what possibly happened.

but if it makes you feel better, i will say when he "left". when i made that post, i did not intentionally type "canned", it's just what i typed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Now what's your problem? Your exact quotes that I didn't include were"
ratner's film lacks the heart of singer's films, and for that, i see it as a more flawed movie. but if i want an x-men movie that will awe me and wow me, and give me that epic feeling, x-men 3 is the film for that."

Saying that X3 gave you an epic feel doesn't give me the feeling that you would have preferred Singer to do X3 over Ratner.
and if i did prefer ratner to singer, would there be a problem with that?

i don't. and the point of my post was that ratner DID give me something i felt singer lacked, but in the singer, singer still made higher quality films. and i do believe that i at least implied that singer's x3 would have been better, but i'm not going back through my post now. i should be in bed as it is, but i am awake because i just got home from seeing my maybe soon to be girlfriend, and i decided to do a quick message board check before i went to bed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I agree that Ratner had intense action but, at times it seemed mindless and a little to chaotic for my tastes.
that's your opinion, and i accept that. i believe his action is leaps and bounds better than singer's. not as good as it could have been, but i liked it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
My problem with beast was with the exception to the one second cgi scene where he kicks someone beast did not move and fight in a way I would expect from a mutant with his abilities. In most of his fight scenes he didn't look extraodinarily strong and agile. He simply looked like someone in a furry custome who was punching people.
i would have liked to have seen more of beast in action, but i don't have any problems with what we did get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
With the exception of one scene during the deathstrike fight I didn't have a problem with it. The only scene that looked really fake to me was when deathstrike grabs logan and smashes him against a wall while holding him.
i think the whole thing looks pretty fake. but that's me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
Hounding you? I'm merely stating contrary opions to yours. What's the harm in that?
there's no harm in that. i just don't like being called a hypocrit because you have a hard time accepting the fact that maybe, possibly, somebody truly does like ratner better, and doesn't have the same problems that you do.

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 04:42 AM   #83
Nell2ThaIzzay
Banned User
 
Nell2ThaIzzay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 16,635
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastSunrise1981 View Post
Serious intelligent question for everyone here.

If a restart were to come to fruition anytime soon, and believe me, a reboot will happen sometime in the future. But say if it were happening at this moment and they were putting together a script, what story would you hope they would adapt?

And who would you want directing it? And who would you want writing the story?
that is hard to say.

i've expressed my feelings towards a reboot. i don't like them. period.

and if it did, it is hard for me to decide where to start. because honestly, i think singer handled it perfectly.

he started it basic - x-men vs. brotherhood. planted some seeds for the future. he introduced wolverine as an outsider, but he was a main character, as he should have been.

the 2nd movie dealt with getting to know this outsider a bit better, as well as seeing some new things happen with the rest of the team. i think setting up phoenix for #3 was perfect. and dealing with phoenix in #3 was perfect.

i would like to see something similar; x-men vs. brotherhood. what specific story? i don't know. but nothing TOO big. i don't think it should start off with the original 5. i believe that the core should remain: wolverine, cyclops, storm, and jean. perhaps more characters can be thrown in the mix as well though. give iceman a bigger role from the beginning, beast, nightcrawler, colossus. something like the 80's lineup.

i think that'd be a good lineup to start with: cyclops, storm, jean, wolverine, beast, iceman, nightcrawler, colossus, and rogue.

other characters can later be introduced, like gambit, etc...

directors? i don't know who i would want directing. singer was perfect for drama and character, but lacked with action. ratner was great for action and epic scope, but lacked with emotion and depth. the ONLY comparrison for director i've ever been able to think of myself was george lucas, simply because i think anakin's turn to the darkside in star wars 3 is exactly how jean's turn to the phoenix should have been dealt with in x-men 3.

i do want somebody who can find a good balance of action and character, but in the end, keep the stories serious. i like how singer kept the x-men grounded, because i feel they should be. BUT, there are times, especially after seeing x-men 3, where i believe he grounded it a bit too much.

it's just hard for me to say what i want, when really, except for no gambit, no sentinels (real ones anyways), and the fact that cyclops and xavier died, and rogue got cured, i got EXACTLY what i wanted out of the x-men films.

Nell2ThaIzzay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 04:25 PM   #84
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastSunrise1981 View Post
Serious intelligent question for everyone here.

If a restart were to come to fruition anytime soon, and believe me, a reboot will happen sometime in the future. But say if it were happening at this moment and they were putting together a script, what story would you hope they would adapt?

And who would you want directing it? And who would you want writing the story?
The story? It could be something totally original, it could be something from the comics. I'd hope it would provide the chance for depth for some characters who haven't yet been looked at in depth in the existing franchise. I think a solid film is more important than comicbook accuracy, though it has to be a balance. Characters should be chosen if they can work on film and bring something to the movie, not just because they are in the comics. I don't want a remake, so repeating what we have seen already is not an option. It must be different.

Director? Not Ratner, he's not deep enough. Singer won't come back and, if he did, it would be replicating what he has done before. We need new blood. I can't say how i feel about Vaughn until I see Stardust and also Thor. I'd like something as epic as LoTR so i keep thinking about Peter Jackson, but it could also be something gritty in the style of the Bourne movies or Casino Royale.

Writer? Me of course! No doubt with some professional Hollywood screenwriter ordered to interfere and 'help'! I could do it easily - i'm realistic, logical, know the source material but am not precious about changing it (ie, I am not some silly fanboy)....

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 06:58 PM   #85
Theweepeople
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay View Post
a hypocrit because i don't like matthew vaughn? what is so hard for you to get? i NEVER liked the guy! i never liked his attitude towards singer and the previous films. i never liked his attitude for the tone he wanted to set with the film. it came off to me as though he was more concerned with making a matthew vaughn film, rather than an x-men film. HIS style was more important than the X-MEN style, and that bothered me from the beginning. he was more concerned with his own stamp, than making a film that connected with the first 2. that is the impression that i got.

as well as some of his ideas - his danger room storyboard, wolverine running around with leech in a backpack, and wanting to use stacy-x as a character, none of those ideas sat well with me. on top of his attitude, there was not much for me to like about matthew vaughn.

i don't know why that is so difficult for you to accept.



okay, no, i'm not going to sit here and come up with an exact mathematic calculation. but let the record show that most of the problems i have with the film, in terms of the script, were problems that were around since before ratner was on board.



it's never been brought up. but since you are bringing it up now:

i believe that was a horrible scene idea. i never said ratner's film was perfect. i have stated that it is plenty flawed, and i have stated many MANY times where i believe it to be flawed. this idea i believe was a horrible idea, and i am glad that rebecca romijn was not available to shoot that scene. because that's the only reason why i heard it was scrapped.



you would be correct, that is actually one of the changes that ratner did make that was the wrong decision. i did overlook that. and i agree with you. it was a horrible decision.

matthew vaughn bad decisions - 4
brett ratner bad decisions - 1

(by the way, these counts are based on -MY- idea of "bad" decisions. because i don't agree with what you consider to be "bad" decisions.)



no, he is just a hack because he decided all of a sudden that he couldn't hang, and he left the production a mess.



that may be the truth. that may be a cop out. it may be a little bit of both.

while i do agree that studio politics messed with this film, i also don't think that fox execs were sitting in their offices saying "marsden went to another movie, we must kill him off!" as with most things in life, i believe it's a bit in the middle.

politics - fox wanted a movie focused on hugh jackman and halle berry, meaning that wolverine and storm got the focus. in particular wolverine. therefore, cyclops was to have a limited role regardless

creative blunders - marsden has limited availability, fox wants this to be a wolverine movie, we write out cyclops completely by killing him.

you think of the remarks kinberg made on xverse, i also think of remarks he made on one of the video interviews he gave, where he stated they found a great way to deal with marsden's limited availability.



i take offense to the fact that my opinion is never accepted. while i do appreciate an intelligent debate, i also don't appreciate my opinion being talked down upon. which is pretty much what has happened, even if you don't go to the extremes of name calling and subtle insults, which i admit i can be prone to when i get frustrated.

but by calling me a hypocrit because i disliked vaughn, and not ratner, and just completely not accepting the fact that i don't believe that ratner, kinberg, and penn are the hacks that you make them out to be. the fact that if i said i DID prefer ratner to singer (which is not the case) you would not be accepting of that opinion.

it's the whole superiority complex that i have faced time and time again on all types of message boards, from music, to movies, to politics, and here is no different. it gets annoying, and very frustrating.



well, i definately think you are wrong on ratner never making a film that had commercial success:

rush hour, rush hour 2, x-men: the last stand, rush hour 3 -> all of those were commercial successes.

the rest of those are your opinion, and you are entitled to them, but i do not agree with them.



okay? i don't care. i don't base MY opinion, and what satisfies ME, based upon what other people think. i like to think for myself, and form my own opinions.

i am not saying -you- don't. i am saying that a website full of what other people think is no kind of factor what so ever in this debate as far as i'm concerned.



i have my problems with the script that we got. i do believe that the plot was great, but the details were pretty ****ed up. why i disliked vaughn's over the one we got is due to the fact that individual ideas were enough, to me, to negate what was good about the film. these were elements that go to make a bad movie, plain and simple. just like you have your problems, with plotholes and inconsistancies which all movies have, but the ones in x-men 3 to you are less acceptable.

the errors in x-men 3 to me don't make a bad movie. they make a questionable x-men movie, as an adaptation, when you kill cyclops, xavier, cure rogue, and make wolverine into the leader. but they aren't bad errors in terms of making a movie.

i think many of vaughn's ideas that never made the cut would be enough for me to not enjoy the movie, at all, on any level.



i happen to like last action hero, and behind enemy lines. wasn't a fan of xxx, haven't seen the rest.

i know kinberg was also involved on fantastic 4, a movie which i also enjoyed.



k. your opinion. not mine.



curing rogue = bad decision.

want to explain to me how he changed the opening? as far as i know, it was always to be the jean intro. and i don't think the location of the final battle really made a difference one way or another in terms of quality.



i don't agree, not 100%

i don't believe the fates of mystique or magneto were "bad". cyclops and xavier? yes. but those were decisions that were made before him. and i don't know how much power he (or anyone else for that matter) really had to change fates like that.

as far as development goes, i do agree that there could have been more development. developing beast's past relationship with xavier and the x-men. developing angel and his relationship with his father, and his decision to join the x-men, and go fight. developing jean's internal struggle within herself.

characters like colossus, kitty pryde, arclight, callisto, juggernaut, etc... i don't think it hurt the film not developing them. because they were secondary characters that didn't really play a part in the plot, but still served a purpose. nightcrawler, for example, played a part in the plot and was developed. lady deathstrike, however, had little involvement, and her character didn't need development. not every character can get the time to be fleshed out.

as far as making the film too short? yea, it should have been longer.



considering some of the ideas vaughn DID come up with, i am inclined to believe penn on this one.



i'm sorry for not using the proper terms, i'm writing these posts late at night.

i believe i told you the first time it was speculation on my part that vaughn got fired. there is no evidence. it's just a theory of mine. there is nothing solid to say it did happen. it's just my feeling on what possibly happened.

but if it makes you feel better, i will say when he "left". when i made that post, i did not intentionally type "canned", it's just what i typed.



and if i did prefer ratner to singer, would there be a problem with that?

i don't. and the point of my post was that ratner DID give me something i felt singer lacked, but in the singer, singer still made higher quality films. and i do believe that i at least implied that singer's x3 would have been better, but i'm not going back through my post now. i should be in bed as it is, but i am awake because i just got home from seeing my maybe soon to be girlfriend, and i decided to do a quick message board check before i went to bed.



that's your opinion, and i accept that. i believe his action is leaps and bounds better than singer's. not as good as it could have been, but i liked it.



i would have liked to have seen more of beast in action, but i don't have any problems with what we did get.



i think the whole thing looks pretty fake. but that's me.



there's no harm in that. i just don't like being called a hypocrit because you have a hard time accepting the fact that maybe, possibly, somebody truly does like ratner better, and doesn't have the same problems that you do.

I'm going to make this very brief. I do not have a superiority complex. It was never my intention to offend anyone who had a different opinion towards this film. I was just surprised at how adamant you are in your criticism of Vaughn considering he didn't make X-Men 3. I don't even have a problem with you disliking Matthew because I don't like him either. I didn't think calling you a hypocrite would anger you because you admitted a few months ago that it was hypocritical to bash Matthew because Ratner used the same script.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. No one bothered to give Tom Rothman the memo.

CBM hack list:

Mark Steven Johnson, Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Kenneth Johnson, Rob Bowman, Zak Penn, Simon Kinberg, Avi Arad, Pitoff, John Rogers, and Tim Story.
Theweepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 07:13 PM   #86
Theweepeople
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
Director? Not Ratner, he's not deep enough. Singer won't come back and, if he did, it would be replicating what he has done before. We need new blood. I can't say how i feel about Vaughn until I see Stardust and also Thor. I'd like something as epic as LoTR so i keep thinking about Peter Jackson, but it could also be something gritty in the style of the Bourne movies or Casino Royale.

Writer? Me of course! No doubt with some professional Hollywood screenwriter ordered to interfere and 'help'! I could do it easily - i'm realistic, logical, know the source material but am not precious about changing it (ie, I am not some silly fanboy)....
I'm not sure which director I want for the eventual reboot. Peter Jackson would provide us with something epic. Speilberg would also be a no brainer choice. Terry Gilliam has a great imagination and is regarded as a good science fiction director but, he has never directed anything this big. Sam Raimi would be a solid choice yet he looks burned out after Spider-man. I would be thrilled to see Christopher Nolan do this series after he is done with Batman. Of course I wouldn't mind if Nolan works on the Robotech franchise that WB purchased. That has the potential to end up being longer and more epic than Star Wars.

Finally, my last choice for a director is Alexas Proyas. He has an interesting resume(The Crow, Dark City, I-Robot). He has a good imagination and directed some fantastic action sequences in I-Robot with a modest budget.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. No one bothered to give Tom Rothman the memo.

CBM hack list:

Mark Steven Johnson, Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Kenneth Johnson, Rob Bowman, Zak Penn, Simon Kinberg, Avi Arad, Pitoff, John Rogers, and Tim Story.
Theweepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2007, 09:23 PM   #87
Arkady Rossovich
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Currently Unknown
Posts: 7,408
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

With what the final product was..i think he could have done better.

Arkady Rossovich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 06:12 AM   #88
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jourmugand View Post
With what the final product was..i think he could have done better.
He would have added more 'soul' into the movie...but he would still have been constrained by studio demands - and the character fates that have upset so many on here would still be part of the movie.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 06:29 AM   #89
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theweepeople View Post
I'm not sure which director I want for the eventual reboot. Peter Jackson would provide us with something epic. Speilberg would also be a no brainer choice. Terry Gilliam has a great imagination and is regarded as a good science fiction director but, he has never directed anything this big. Sam Raimi would be a solid choice yet he looks burned out after Spider-man. I would be thrilled to see Christopher Nolan do this series after he is done with Batman. Of course I wouldn't mind if Nolan works on the Robotech franchise that WB purchased. That has the potential to end up being longer and more epic than Star Wars.

Finally, my last choice for a director is Alexas Proyas. He has an interesting resume(The Crow, Dark City, I-Robot). He has a good imagination and directed some fantastic action sequences in I-Robot with a modest budget.
Jackson would be good if the movie had a strong fantasy element and an epic scale. Spielberg is a no-brainer, I agree.

I doubt Raimi would want to take on another superhero franchise at this point, or even in a few years. He'll probably end up continuing the Spider-Man franchise unless he opts out and they get a fresh director in (which is very likely). SM3 proved that even with the same director, a third movie can be shaky.

Christopher Nolan has brought a gritty, dark realism to projects like BB and Prestige. He might do well with X-Men, not sure.

What about Gore Verbinski of the Pirates franchise?

Or Doug Liman (Bourne Identity), Paul Greengrass (Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum), Martin Campbell (Casino Royale), James McTeigue (V for Vendetta)?

Alex Proyas would be great, though he is talks for 2009's FF spin-off Silver Surfer. He seems an ideal choice for that.

Incidentally, Variety reports that Harris and Dougherty (X2, SR) are off the SR sequel 'Man of Steel'. It says they 'opted out', but that sounds like spin. Which probably means Singer is off 'Man of Steel' too. But, I'd rather none of those come back, and the probably won't anyway. They seem to be moving on.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2007, 08:14 AM   #90
Theweepeople
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,498
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

I'm not surprised by the superman news. I think the first mistake Singer made with that film was not rebooting the franchise. The second mistake Singer made was deciding that a superman movie well over 2 hours long with about 10 minutes of action would appeal to most audiences. Singer's blunder may have forced the WB into a superman reboot five years from now.

__________________
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. No one bothered to give Tom Rothman the memo.

CBM hack list:

Mark Steven Johnson, Paul WS Anderson, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher, Kenneth Johnson, Rob Bowman, Zak Penn, Simon Kinberg, Avi Arad, Pitoff, John Rogers, and Tim Story.
Theweepeople is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 08:29 AM   #91
LastSunrise1981
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

I'm very surprised by the Superman news. Quite frankly I enjoyed the film and found it to be an emotional, beautiful, and serious take on the Superman mythology. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. However, WB should at least let Singer do the sequel and see what he does with the film itself.

I understand it wasn't a mindblowing success that the WB was hoping for, it also wasn't a flop either, so I'm confused as to why they're adamant and down by the box office numbers? Batman Begins didn't have huge numbers, but the numbers it promised a sequel. Anyone have any ideas on how Superman Returns did in DVD sales? Most films make most of their money on DVD these days.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 01:39 PM   #92
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastSunrise1981 View Post
I'm very surprised by the Superman news. Quite frankly I enjoyed the film and found it to be an emotional, beautiful, and serious take on the Superman mythology. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. However, WB should at least let Singer do the sequel and see what he does with the film itself.

I understand it wasn't a mindblowing success that the WB was hoping for, it also wasn't a flop either, so I'm confused as to why they're adamant and down by the box office numbers? Batman Begins didn't have huge numbers, but the numbers it promised a sequel. Anyone have any ideas on how Superman Returns did in DVD sales? Most films make most of their money on DVD these days.
Batman Begins made $222m profit, which is $100m more than SR. Plus, a $200m profit is the industry expectation these days - and the industry definition of a blockbuster. SR was not a blockbuster by that standard.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 01:56 PM   #93
BMM
Side-Kick
 
BMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,385
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
Batman Begins made $222m profit, which is $100m more than SR. Plus, a $200m profit is the industry expectation these days - and the industry definition of a blockbuster. SR was not a blockbuster by that standard.
Blockbuster status is, and has been, derived via ticket sales--not profit. A movie achieves blockbuster status by crossing a sales "milestone." It used to be $100 million in ticket sales. Now, it is considered $200 million in ticket sales.

BMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 02:04 PM   #94
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMM View Post
Blockbuster status is, and has been, derived via ticket sales--not profit. A movie achieves blockbuster status by crossing a sales "milestone." It used to be $100 million in ticket sales. Now, it is considered $200 million in ticket sales.
In that case, I stand corrected.

But, the facts remains that

1) Batman Begins made $100m more than SR

2) SR crawled to its eventual $391m over five months and made only $121m profit

3) SR's writers have 'left' the sequel project

4) if SR had been amazingly successful, we'd have heard about a sequel with the same team almost straight away

5) a Superman movie has to be expected to be a massive success

6) Massive successes like Pirates, Spider-Man and Transformers (which did not receive massive negative feedback) prove that rollicking, spectacular action-adventure sells well if done right.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 02:11 PM   #95
LastSunrise1981
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

I think the only reason Superman wasn't a resounding success was because of fanboys and non-fanboys complaining about no action. Most of their complaints state that Superman should be wall to wall action, which is quite sad, considering that Superman is a wonderful story and there's more to the character than mindless action.

People complain saying that the recent Superman vs. Doomsday animated film is how the action should've been done in SR.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 02:12 PM   #96
BMM
Side-Kick
 
BMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,385
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
In that case, I stand corrected.

But, the facts remains that

1) Batman Begins made $100m more than SR

2) SR crawled to its eventual $391m over five months and made only $121m profit

3) SR's writers have 'left' the sequel project

4) if SR had been amazingly successful, we'd have heard about a sequel with the same team almost straight away

5) a Superman movie has to be expected to be a massive success

6) Massive successes like Pirates, Spider-Man and Transformers (which did not receive massive negative feedback) prove that rollicking, spectacular action-adventure sells well if done right.
Right, but I'm not debating the success of Superman Returns. I'm just letting you know the proper definition of a blockbuster.

BMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 03:12 PM   #97
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMM View Post
Right, but I'm not debating the success of Superman Returns. I'm just letting you know the proper definition of a blockbuster.
And I said I stood corrected.

Although, according to sources such as this 2004 article (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...er-main_x.htm), even $200m may not be a fair figure to measure a blockbuster. And that was three years ago.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 03:17 PM   #98
X-Maniac
High Evolutionary
 
X-Maniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Genosha
Posts: 12,882
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by LastSunrise1981 View Post
I think the only reason Superman wasn't a resounding success was because of fanboys and non-fanboys complaining about no action. Most of their complaints state that Superman should be wall to wall action, which is quite sad, considering that Superman is a wonderful story and there's more to the character than mindless action.

People complain saying that the recent Superman vs. Doomsday animated film is how the action should've been done in SR.

I don't think 'wall to wall' action is the answer, nor what people wanted. More action, for sure...and presented in a more dynamic style; and a one-on-one showdown with a new villain. But there were other problems.... Superman was tragic and terribly alone, unable to seek the guidance of his father (Lex took the crystals), unable to be with Lois (because of Richard) and unable to be with his son (because he had Richard and Lois as parents).
It was hard to empathise with someone who is such a victim and a loser. Even though Superman did heroic things, he was the total victim and outsider, which doesn't give a very heroic or uplifting tone. Far too much nostaglia was the other bad move. A sequel is somewhat bogged down by those factors.

__________________
Noah 3/10, Godzilla 6/10, CA:TWS 7/10, GoTG 7.5/10, X-Men: Days of Future Past 9/10
X-Maniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 03:38 PM   #99
BMM
Side-Kick
 
BMM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,385
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-Maniac View Post
And I said I stood corrected.

Although, according to sources such as this 2004 article (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...er-main_x.htm), even $200m may not be a fair figure to measure a blockbuster. And that was three years ago.
Yeah, I used that article as one of my sources. I don't know... I think $200 million is still a pretty good marker for success, at least domestically. I think $300 million is pushing it. Not many movies, save for the mega-franchises, seem to push past the $300 million domestic mark. Worldwide box office, however, is a different matter.

BMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2007, 03:41 PM   #100
Advanced Dark
Banned User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Rock Bottom
Posts: 17,593
Default Re: Vaughn: 'I could have made X-Men 3 100x better'

Now Vaughn can back up his words with Thor. I don't want to hear any execuses about the budget either. Nobody is gonna make a 300 million dollar Thor film. He has 180 to get the job done. That's good enough.

Advanced Dark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.