Bryan Singer Directing X-Men: Days of Future Past - Part 1

[Hawkingbird]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

This has to be in it! It's classic!

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Electrix

I saw The Hobbit in 2D 24fps and IMAX 3D 48fps. I can see why some wouldn't like the HFR, but during some scenes it was superior.

The Hobbit might not have been the best film for people to get their first look at HFR because of the dwarf make-up. It's a lot more detailed and clear, which can take some getting used to, however using it on a film like Avatar 2 would provide amazing results. Interested to see what Singer goes for.

I thought the dwarves' make-up looked fine, even in 48fps. I was scrutinising it, looking for the joins, but (to me) it was seamless. I just didn't like the general look of the format when there were real sets, like Bilbo's house.

Talking of dwarves and make-up, I also thought James Nesbitt needed more of it! He looked just like James Nesbitt - but with a funny hat on. He even kept his Irish accent. It didn't feel like he was acting or transformed into a dwarf at all. (I didn't think Martin Freeman was doing much acting either, to be honest; he's the same in everything he's in).

[Wolvieboy17]

Lol I love that your definition of 'acting' is whether the actor is recognisable or not.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Lol I love that your definition of 'acting' is whether the actor is recognisable or not.

lol... no, not just recognisable, but behaving the same as when you see them in real life (like on talk shows, in press interviews) or in other roles.

[Wolvieboy17]

Martin Freeman is widely regarded as one of the best natural actors, that is, he's MEANT to act like himself. There's an entire school of acting around it, to play an engaging, relatable everyman character. That doesn't mean he's LESS talented than someone like Cate Blanchett, who plays very different characters, it's just his style of acting.

The fact that he may have sounded or looked similar to how he did in Sherlock (or anything else) should have absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not he is good at a different role.

I thought he was perfect for Bilbo as did a great many other people. But to say he 'wasn't doing much acting' is completely ignorant of the craft altogether.

[Loganbabe]

Martin Freeman always has this kind of surprised "what I'm doing here" look on his face mixed with a bit of "I'm bored and mildly irritated" that really annoys me. I don't see much acting from him either. To be a natural actor is one thing, to look/act like yourself all the time is another. Plus he comes off as arrogant in interviews, like when he screamed "I have two Baftas!" Oh really?

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Martin Freeman is widely regarded as one of the best natural actors, that is, he's MEANT to act like himself. There's an entire school of acting around it, to play an engaging, relatable everyman character. That doesn't mean he's LESS talented than someone like Cate Blanchett, who plays very different characters, it's just his style of acting.

The fact that he may have sounded or looked similar to how he did in Sherlock (or anything else) should have absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not he is good at a different role.

I thought he was perfect for Bilbo as did a great many other people. But to say he 'wasn't doing much acting' is completely ignorant of the craft altogether.

Just so we're clear: I didn't see much acting! It has to involve a bit more than just learning dialogue. And I'm sticking to that, nothing you say will convince me otherwise. Let's hope he does something that doesn't involve looking mildly stunned all the time.

[Wolvieboy17]

That's a giant load of crap. So I suppose Robert Downey Jr isn't acting in the Iron Man movies because that character is close to himself, or Patrick Stewart isn't acting in X-Men because he sounds exactly the same as Jean Luc Picard?

Seriously, Martin Freeman aside, your over simplification of acting is just offensive to anyone with even the smallest amount of respect for the arts. It's a whole lot more than just walking and talking and it's a lot more complicated and deeper than putting on a different voice or making yourself look different.

Martin Freeman has a reputation for being a great naturalist actor, capable of portraying the likeable and endearing everyman. He did that superbly in The Office and pretty much since then, has been sought after or cast on his basis to do just that. That's the whole reason he got cast in The Hobbit in the first place, that's what Peter Jackson and co. wanted for Bilbo. Which is perfect because that's basically what Bilbo is anyway, a likeable and unassuming everyman.

Whereas a character like Gollum requires someone more like Andy Serkis, someone capable of great physical and transformative acting.

Now whether you like Martin Freeman's style of acting or whatever is fine, but to simply say he ISN'T acting or that you don't see much 'acting' is stupid. That's the whole POINT of a naturalistic or realism style of acting, it's not MEANT to feel or look like acting. In fact they teach you in that school of acting that you need to find a way to bring yourself to the character anyway, that's one of the main philosophies behind making your character believable. You can see that in just about any drama out there, film, tv or theatre.

[X-Maniac]

Robert Downey Jr's winning factor is charisma. The camera loves him.

Patrick Stewart has gravitas, much of it because of a stage-trained voice. Like most actors who began by treading the boards, he knows meter (metre), he knows how to read a line properly, enunciate words and project his voice (because the people at the back of the theatre also have to be able to hear what he is saying). McKellen is just as good at it, and his skills show (to me) in that Gandalf and Magneto feel entirely different and not like the same person, just as Xavier and Picard don't feel the same.

Martin Freeman is likeable and an everyman, and generally it sort of works, but I'd like to see a bit more range. If the roles don't require it, maybe he should seek out something more challenging.

If you think I'm going to worship all actors as gods of their craft, you are mistaken.

[Wolvieboy17]

It's got nothing to do with worshipping actors, it's about respecting that there are many different kind of actors just as there are many different kinds of roles, genres and conventions. Dismissing one because it isn't like another is just ignorant.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

It's got nothing to do with worshipping actors, it's about respecting that there are many different kind of actors just as there are many different kinds of roles, genres and conventions. Dismissing one because it isn't like another is just ignorant.

It's also to do with personal taste, perception and opinion. I don't have to 'respect' any of them or their world; there are some actors I utterly despise. If they don't like the public stare, they shouldn't be in the public glare.

[Wolvieboy17]

You are completely missing the point.... I'm not saying one needs to respect the ACTORS themselves, I'm talking respecting the craft and difference between the schools of acting.
If you understand the principles of the acting styles and still find certain styles annoying or certain actors bland or not to your tastes, you've made an informed opinion and something worth discussing. If you're being wilfully ignorant of the subject though and adopting a 'just coz' style opinion, then you're not only undermining the chance to have a real discussion but you're just highlighting your own narrow mindedness.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

You are completely missing the point.... I'm not saying one needs to respect the ACTORS themselves, I'm talking respecting the craft and difference between the schools of acting.
If you understand the principles of the acting styles and still find certain styles annoying or certain actors bland or not to your tastes, you've made an informed opinion and something worth discussing. If you're being wilfully ignorant of the subject though and adopting a 'just coz' style opinion, then you're not only undermining the chance to have a real discussion but you're just highlighting your own narrow mindedness.

Not everyone who comes on to this or any other forum would be in a position to "understand the principles of the acting styles." Don't be ridiculous! This isn't a forum for those who've studied acting!

I don't care how narrow-minded I might look, I didn't think Freeman was acting very much. He was pretty crap to be honest. James Nesbitt was even worse. Awful. The 3D was crap as well. And the 48fps was a waste of time.

However 'naturalistic' it was supposed to be, it didn't work for me at all. My opinion of course, but I know a couple of others have said similar things.

[danoyse]

The Hobbit has been one of my favorite books since I was a kid and I loved Martin Freeman in the role. He was perfect, as far as I'm concerned.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by danoyse

The Hobbit has been one of my favorite books since I was a kid and I loved Martin Freeman in the role. He was perfect, as far as I'm concerned.

I prefer Ian Holm (a better actor!) but, as the younger version, Freeman sorta pulled it off (though I wasn't 100 per cent convinced by the performance, obviously)

(You know how it is when someone keeps pushing and pushing until you snap and say something horrible! lol)

[Robin91939]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

That's a giant load of crap. So I suppose Robert Downey Jr isn't acting in the Iron Man movies because that character is close to himself, or Patrick Stewart isn't acting in X-Men because he sounds exactly the same as Jean Luc Picard?

Seriously, Martin Freeman aside, your over simplification of acting is just offensive to anyone with even the smallest amount of respect for the arts. It's a whole lot more than just walking and talking and it's a lot more complicated and deeper than putting on a different voice or making yourself look different.

Martin Freeman has a reputation for being a great naturalist actor, capable of portraying the likeable and endearing everyman. He did that superbly in The Office and pretty much since then, has been sought after or cast on his basis to do just that. That's the whole reason he got cast in The Hobbit in the first place, that's what Peter Jackson and co. wanted for Bilbo. Which is perfect because that's basically what Bilbo is anyway, a likeable and unassuming everyman.

Whereas a character like Gollum requires someone more like Andy Serkis, someone capable of great physical and transformative acting.

Now whether you like Martin Freeman's style of acting or whatever is fine, but to simply say he ISN'T acting or that you don't see much 'acting' is stupid. That's the whole POINT of a naturalistic or realism style of acting, it's not MEANT to feel or look like acting. In fact they teach you in that school of acting that you need to find a way to bring yourself to the character anyway, that's one of the main philosophies behind making your character believable. You can see that in just about any drama out there, film, tv or theatre.

I agree with you here. Gabriel Byrne says in the special features of The Usual Suspects that his style of acting is being honest, and connecting with yourself and playing that. Being an honest version of himself being a true version of the person he is playing. Sure, when you are playing a monster, and animal, or perhaps a larger-than-life character this might have to be adapted.

But acting as yourself is a pretty common practice and method of acting. See Jack Nicholson. Jack is always Jack. But Jack is very good at being a different version of Jack who reflects the most honest version of the character he is playing.

-R

[henzINNIT]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Martin Freeman has a reputation for being a great naturalist actor, capable of portraying the likeable and endearing everyman. He did that superbly in The Office

He was indeed fantastic in the Office, and totally different to his portrayal of Bilbo too. Freeman is king of understatement, but Tim carries a sadness and cynicism that isn't at all found in the whimsical Baggins.

[Wolvieboy17]

I actually thought Ian Holm was terrible in The Hobbit compared to Fellowship. It felt completely lacking in energy.

Anyway, back to X-Men...

[Hawkingbird]

I love the hidden names in X2 on the screen when Mytique hacks into Striker's account. The fact that "Maximoff (2)" is seen may settle the whole "who owns Wanda and Pietro?" thing.

[X-Maniac]

Originally Posted by Hawkingbird

I love the hidden names in X2 on the screen when Mytique hacks into Striker's account. The fact that "Maximoff (2)" is seen may settle the whole "who owns Wanda and Pietro?" thing.

Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige already settled it: Fox and Marvel Studios each have the right to use the Maximoffs, but Marvel couldn't mention they are mutants or the children of Magneto.

In an ideal world, we'd get a crossover where they were introduced in the X-Men films and went on to the Avengers (which would be of benefit for both franchises) but that seems unlikely in this ultra-competitive marketplace.

[Hawkingbird]

Originally Posted by X-Maniac

Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige already settled it: Fox and Marvel Studios each have the right to use the Maximoffs, but Marvel couldn't mention they are mutants or the children of Magneto.

In an ideal world, we'd get a crossover where they were introduced in the X-Men films and went on to the Avengers (which would be of benefit for both franchises) but that seems unlikely in this ultra-competitive marketplace.

It's a shame we don't live in that world

[Filmboy]

Another thing they messed up, wasn't Banshee supposed to be Moira's boyfriend/partner/beau ??

At least, that was what I gathered and observed from watching X Men: the animated series 90s cartoon.

But in First Class, he was being reduced to a teenage boy, part of the X team.

So are they going to explore this awkward relationship between Moira and teenage boy Banshee in the sequel??

[Angamb]

they can leave that as fan speculation once this new trilogy? ends, I guess

At least the actor said he worked thinking about Moira, of course the audience didnt notice it, but its a possible future for both characters, even if Fox/Bryan adress it one day or not.

The same with Syrin. Now that Banshee is part of the origin of the x-men, at least for ME, she is Banshee's daughter.

To each their own

[747]

Originally Posted by Wolvieboy17

Martin Freeman is widely regarded as one of the best natural actors, that is, he's MEANT to act like himself. There's an entire school of acting around it, to play an engaging, relatable everyman character. That doesn't mean he's LESS talented than someone like Cate Blanchett, who plays very different characters, it's just his style of acting.

The fact that he may have sounded or looked similar to how he did in Sherlock (or anything else) should have absolutely no bearing at all on whether or not he is good at a different role.

I thought he was perfect for Bilbo as did a great many other people. But to say he 'wasn't doing much acting' is completely ignorant of the craft altogether.

So true!

And Martin Freeman is great. And was great as Bilbo.

[Filmboy]

They better do a great explaination on Xavier's ( and possibly Cyclops, Jean ) returning on Days of Future Past since we all know that after The Last Stand, the trio had been lying six feet under....