The Official X-Men: First Class Rate and Review Thread: Second Edition

[JP]

Originally Posted by The Dark Defender

Being ONE of the guys involve with coming up with the story compared to directing the entire film...not quite so much.

Peter Jackson may have helped Blomkamp out with D9, hardly makes it 'just as much of a PJ film as it is a Neill Blomkamp film.'

and as I said, this film isn't even THAT good, it's just decent.

He's not ONE of the guys involved with the story. He's THE guy. It's HIS story. He chose the story, the characters, and the settings. This was a Singer film that he didn't get to direct.

[The Dark Defender]

Originally Posted by Project862006

^coming up with the story and the characters for the movie is more than pj producing D9

it is not even a comparison

Being involved (and not singlehandedly) coming up with the story and what characters would be invovled contributed no more to the film than how well PJ aided Blomkamp in bringing his vision to life with as high quality production value as possible for a first time director.

[The Dark Defender]

Originally Posted by JP

He's not ONE of the guys involved with the story. He's THE guy. It's HIS story. He chose the story, the characters, and the settings. This was a Singer film that he didn't get to direct.

The characters that were chosen to be in it and the storyline weren't the problem with the ones he did direct either, his piss poor execution was, and how vapid he made the characters.

Oh, and as far as that last sentence, thank God.

[JP]

Well, that's your opinion that I don't agree with.

[Project862006]

Originally Posted by The Dark Defender

Being involved (and not singlehandedly) coming up with the story and what characters would be invovled contributed no more to the film than how well PJ aided Blomkamp in bringing his vision to life with as high quality production value as possible for a first time director.

WOW just WOW

so you are telling me a guy who came up with the entire story and its details where it takes place and what characters would be apart of the story

is exactly like PJ producing D9

[c-saw]

Originally Posted by JP

This is just as much a Bryan Singer film as it is a Matthew Vaughn film.

he went off and let vaughn do his movie. How much praise do you want him to get? His main involvement was in the script which vaughn re-wrote so until we know for sure how much of each one's influence is in there he'll keep getting the short end of the stick.

[Storm22]

Interesting now looking at X3 and the scene where Beast witnesses Mystique captured and being interrogated. Makes you look at that scene in a different light.

[The Dark Defender]

Originally Posted by c-saw

he went off and let vaughn do his movie. How much praise do you want him to get? His main involvement was in the script which vaughn re-wrote so until we know for sure how much of each one's influence is in there he'll keep getting the short end of the stick.

Thank you.

[Project862006]

Nolan is getting more credit in man of steel and he is less invovled than singer was lol

[JP]

Originally Posted by Project862006

Nolan is getting more credit in man of steel and he is less invovled than singer was lol

Funny how that works.

[c-saw]

Originally Posted by Project862006

Nolan is getting more credit in man of steel and he is less invovled than singer was lol

yeah but nolan has superhuman status among CBM directors/producers (for reasons that escape me)

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Originally Posted by ciscostudent561

In this reality they've covered most major stories
Hellfire
Weapon x
Brotherhood

Only apocalypse sinister and the sentinels remain

I think Sentinels would be a logical progression. The two world's powers of the time are aware of mutants, and have already taken measures to destroy them.

I could easily see a situation where, under the guise of the Cold War, one, or both, of the super powers (I think having it just be America would be fine) start developing technology to create Sentinels. You could have Agent Stryker be involved in over seeing it, with someone like Stephen Lang being the main guy in charge (since Trask was used in X-Men: The Last Stand)

Then over the course of the movie, we can see a bit more development into the Erik / Charles relationship. Perhaps they try to reconcile. We can see Magneto aiding Xavier in the creation of Cerebro, and they start to work together again, until finally, the realization of Sentinels breaks Xavier and Magneto once and for all.

It connects with the trilogy, showing how Xavier has Sentinels in the Danger Room, as well as why William Stryker has files relating to Sentinels on his computer (trying to follow in dad's footsteps).

Doesn't really require new characters (Vaughn said only one new character. Let characters like Havok and Banshee get the development they so desperately lacked in First Class).

I think Sentinels could be a very good way to go for a possible sequel.

[c-saw]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

I think Sentinels could be a very good way to go for a possible sequel.

I think it would be too much of a jump. The second one should be about fleshing out the x-men and side characters as well as the new one. The end of the movie should give us a glimpse in a facility where you can see the first sentinel prototype being produced.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Originally Posted by Figs

Just like people who are so desperate to make sure this has to be a prequel. There's nothing wrong in watching this movie as a new start not connected to the other films. With that being said, yes, this also works pretty well as a prequel.

I don't get why some are so against people wanting this to be a reboot, not necessarily you Nell, but I see a lot of people acting like it's the end of the world when someone like me wants to view this as a new start.

I can say for me, I absolutely despise the idea of reboots. I think it wreaks of zero creativity, and I think it takes away credibility from the movies it's done to. There is one exception to that rule, and that is the Nolan Batman series, and that is more because of the importance of the character of Batman to American pop culture - there will be new and different takes on the character of Batman until the end of time. Nolan's series certainly won't be the end of Batman.

I think it's a joke anytime something gets rebooted. I just can't take the movies seriously when the movie makers can't even take their own movies seriously enough to stick behind them. I doubt I'll even see Amazing Spiderman, I have no desire to see that story start over from the beginning and do the same thing again. The original three movies were great on their own. Let them stand. Same with Incredible Hulk. That movie was "better enough" than Hulk to justify throwing out the original. It made a joke out of both movies in my book. Punisher was completely irrelevant to begin with, and I think rebooting that made an even bigger joke out of something that wasn't taken seriously to begin with. And while Star Trek was a good movie, I can't take it seriously as part of the Star Trek franchise when it tries to throw out DECADES of lore to be some new "cool" take on the series.

I think that reboots are a horrible trend in Hollywood, and I do my best to boycott anything that is a reboot. X-Men is my favorite fictional universe of all time, and I don't want to see it turned into a joke by becoming a part of this "reboot" phase because one of the installments, or a certain creative choice, didn't please someone out there. Yea I'm plenty upset by certain things that happened in this series as well, but I'd rather let the movies speak for themselves, and accept that hey, they didn't get it 100% right, and let Hollywood move on to bigger and better things, than to see everything thrown out every few years so we can have a "new" take on it.

For that reason, I kinda hope this comic book movie phase can die out here in the not too distant future before the "reboot" plague can infect X-Men.

[Deaths Head II]

Reboots are always going to happen. There are always different interpretations of the story. Nolan's Batman is very different from Burton's Batman. Nolan had a story to tell using the character and it was essentially it's own being, separate from the other films. That being said, I think that there should be some breathing room between the old franchise and the new one. And rebooting should be a last resort when a series has already lost it's luster, not when it's still making money and still extremely popular.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Originally Posted by Deaths Head II

Reboots are always going to happen. There are always different interpretations of the story. Nolan's Batman is very different from Burton's Batman. Nolan had a story to tell using the character and it was essentially it's own being, separate from the other films. That being said, I think that there should be some breathing room between the old franchise and the new one. And rebooting should be a last resort when a series has already lost it's luster, not when it's still making money and still extremely popular.

I could buy a reboot more in 15-20 years when the franchise has been over with for a long... LONG time.

But I still don't prefer them. I mean, Star Trek had been done for how many years? And I wasn't dying for a "new take". Why don't we reboot Godfather while we're at it? I mean, that franchise died decades ago, it needs a "new take".

I mean, I just really feel like a movie franchise should be left to speak for itself.

If anything, I see First Class (and the probably continuation of the franchise in that direction) like a James Bond or Star Trek type continuity. It's not following a strict timeline of "this has to happen this way, in this time period", but it's not actively recreating the continuity either.

If you watch all 5 X-Men movies straight through, you're going to get a clear story - Xavier and Magneto meet. They recruit mutants, and the X-Men are formed. But Xavier and Magneto have a difference of opinion, go their separate ways, and Magneto forms the Brotherhood of mutants. Decades later, Xavier encounters a mutant named Logan, who was a victim of scientific experimentation on mutants, and takes him in to join his current team of X-Men. Magneto plans to preemptively "end" the war that he believes is coming between mutants and humans by taking out the humans and preventing what he sees as inevitable genocide. Xavier, on the other hand, prefers to use his X-Men to prevent human / mutant conflicts because he believes in a world where the two can co-exist.

Along the line, some details get a bit hazy. Magneto and Xavier were together at this point in time, and Xavier could walk, but wait this movie shows they split before that time and Xavier couldn't walk. Or Wolverine had visions and flashbacks of his experimentation in one way, but wait, this movie says it happened like this. I can go through any movie franchise and find the same type of stuff if I really wanted to analyze them that deeply. It's an unfortunate side effect of storytelling, and it's amplified in a movie series that currently spans 5 movies, 11 years, 4 directors, numerous writers and producers, and is based upon 50 years of comics and their numerous off-shoots and spin offs, and all the retcons that happened in the process.

The X-Men movies got a lot wrong. A lot. But I'd prefer to just let this franchise speak for itself as the movie version of the X-Men universe, than to have this version of the universe, and that version of the universe, and another version of the universe... etc. It may be partially the fault of my OCD that wants to have things a certain way, but I don't need, nor have any desire for, a thousand different versions of the same stories. Let the film makers tell the stories that they think are appropriate for this universe, and then move on. I'm not, never have been, and never will be, a fan of remakes or reboots, with certain - but limited - exceptions to that rule.

[SuperSoldier985]

Anyone listen to http://www.spill.com/ 's audio review? 3 Full Prices and 1 Matinee, not bad!

Also, slashfilm is currently on-air streaming with their XMFC review coming up in about a half hour:
http://www.slashfilm.com/live/

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

Why don't we reboot Godfather while we're at it? I mean, that franchise died decades ago, it needs a "new take"

The difference is The Godfather is a cinematic masterpiece based on a book series that has a SET STORY AND A SET END. Comic book characters have over 40 years of history that is constantly changing and continuing. A lot of comics do there own "reboot" type deal in comics. Spiderman for example had a "reboot" in 2000, then a "reboot" type idea with Ultimate Spiderman and then NEW DAY. Maybe not exactly reboots, but you get the picture. Comic book characters do this because they don't have endings to their stories which leads to years and years of altering characters which can lead to new directions for film series based on the comic books. Plus some movies just get out-dated. Some last time without being effected. Casablanca, Gone With Wind, and Scarface(1932) are just a few great OLD films that have aged well. The first X-men has already been outdated. The dialogue is extremely cheesy, the effects suck and well, it just aged terribly and its barely 10 years old. I'm perfectly fine with First Class being a prequel, but X-men could very well use a Reboot in the near future when there is no where else to go with prequels. Due to the nature of Comics, having no set end, comic book films can always be rebooted like the comics themselves. Rebooting non-comic film franchises is dumb, but it doesn't really happen much, so I don't really get the beef with that.( Crystal Skull and Live Free Die Hard are sequels, not reboots contrary to what some people think).

EDIT: And for what its worth, X2 and First Class are two of my favorite Superhero films. I just find it ridiculous to think the film series can't reboot when comics essentially do the same thing over time.

[TomPiltoff]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

I doubt I'll even see Amazing Spiderman, I have no desire to see that story start over from the beginning and do the same thing again.

Yeah, alright, I'm sure the kind of person who posts on superhero message boards is going to sit out the theatrical run of a hugely popular character because they're just still so invested in the 2002 take.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Lots of movies are outdated. Lots of movies are set in universes that don't have a set beginning or end. That doesn't mean you have to keep constantly remaking it. Outside of Batman, there hasn't been a reboot made yet that hasn't tarnished both the original, and the new films in my eyes. I despise the very concept of reboots, and I will not support any film franchise that heads in that direction.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Originally Posted by TomPiltoff

Yeah, alright, I'm sure the kind of person who posts on superhero message boards is going to sit out the theatrical run of a hugely popular character because they're just still so invested in the 2002 take.

Why would I want to? The 3 Spiderman films we got were just fine. Why do I need to see the *SAME* stories told again?

[JP]

Well, they already told the same story 3 times.

[Spider-Fan]

This wasn't a glorifeid Singer film. This was a film Singer produced and came up with the story for, that Vaughn reworked and made it his own. You could tell this was a Matthew Vaughn film. It had more edge than Singer's X-Men films. When did Singer drop an F-bomb? Singer also minimized blood. Vaughn was not afraid of these things. It was more Kick Ass in that way.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

Lots of movies are outdated. Lots of movies are set in universes that don't have a set beginning or end. That doesn't mean you have to keep constantly remaking it. Outside of Batman, there hasn't been a reboot made yet that hasn't tarnished both the original, and the new films in my eyes. I despise the very concept of reboots, and I will not support any film franchise that heads in that direction.

BB and TDK are proof that Reboots can work for the better. I agree with you rebooting can be very bad and studios should not just jump to the gun on rebooting, but being against ALL REBOOTS without giving them a chance is EXTREMELY Ignorant.

[weezerspider]

Originally Posted by Nell2ThaIzzay

Why would I want to? The 3 Spiderman films we got were just fine. Why do I need to see the *SAME* stories told again?

Yeah thats why I never watched the LOTR films because I had already read the SAME stories and I didn't need to experience them again.