Addressing some concerns, and X3 as a film

[The Guard]

I'd like to point out that Ebert and Roper didn't ***** about pacing, lack of characterization, lack of emotion...

 

[millennium movies]

I hate to sound like a newbie, but i haven't been following X3 production at all. All i know is what i got from the trailers and some TV spots. Im shure this has been asked time and again, but this place is a mess to look for some answers as there are more gossip and questions then there are answers. I'll ask anyway, if someone is kind enough to send me in the right direction, i would appreciate it. So my questions are;

-Does Cykes die?
-whatever happened to Toad and Sabretooth? (its like they were forgotten)

People that had small cameos in X2 came back, but not the major players from X1? I dont know about you guys but im sick of "Storm's" demands to have a bigger role. Who is she to ask that anyway? Because of her and her mediocre acting , seems like alot of people had to take a backseat! Some apparently permanent?!

 

[Speedball]

WOW you've missed alot.
Toad and Sabretooth, don't come back. but Sabretooth is the final boss in the X-men game, so it's ok. and Halle seems to be better this time. She gets to kick ass and take names this time.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

while this is all well and true all you've basically done is sum up every complaint we've already herd into one thread(for better i assume)

but by no means are any of these movies perfect, in my honest opinion i think X1 is the worst comic to film translation to date, it pales in comparison to spidermans and batman begins, and hell boy even, but does it work as a movie? yes,

you have to have a main character in a movie, all ensamble movies do, they chose they're most popular character(and i've herd it be argued he is the 4th most recognized comic book character of all time) so you can't really blame them, if it where me i would do stuff differently, yes...for starters i would have made magneto and xavier the main characters and have the xmen work as a team, because i for one belive magneto is one of the best characters in all of literature, but i also don't have a choice

and nether does any one but about 4 people right now, Brett Ratner, Laura Donner, Simon Kingberg, and Zak Penn, so i am more the happy to roll with what they are giving us and it looks great, not everyone can be a 100 percent happy, but i am about 85-90 and that is just fine with me

 

[Kurosawa]

I hate to sound like a newbie, but i haven't been following X3 production at all. All i know is what i got from the trailers and some TV spots. Im shure this has been asked time and again, but this place is a mess to look for some answers as there are more gossip and questions then there are answers. I'll ask anyway, if someone is kind enough to send me in the right direction, i would appreciate it. So my questions are;

-Does Cykes die?
-whatever happened to Toad and Sabretooth? (its like they were forgotten)

People that had small cameos in X2 came back, but not the major players from X1? I dont know about you guys but im sick of "Storm's" demands to have a bigger role. Who is she to ask that anyway? Because of her and her mediocre acting , seems like alot of people had to take a backseat! Some apparently permanent?!

Spoiler

Cyclops dies in the first 15-25 minutes of the movie and is barely mentioned after that. No Toad, no Sabretooth. Halle demanded and got a much bigger part for Storm. Wolverine basically takes Cyclops place in the Dark Phoenix story. The entire thing is a train wreck.

 

[grey_jeanie]

Spoiler

Cyclops dies in the first 15-25 minutes of the movie and is barely mentioned after that. No Toad, no Sabretooth. Halle demanded and got a much bigger part for Storm. Wolverine basically takes Cyclops place in the Dark Phoenix story. The entire thing is a train wreck.

Concise explained/ranted, and rightly so.

 

[Iceman]

I agree with your ideas Guard

 

[The Batman]

Nice essay, guard

i still wont see the movie though...

 

[Iceman]

Nice essay, guard

i still wont see the movie though...

Is that a definite or could you be swayed by surprisingly good reviews?

 

[The Batman]

Nope. Definite.

Nice to see its getting nice reviews, though.

 

[Iceman]

Nope. Definite.

Nice to see its getting nice reviews, though.

DVD?

 

[The Batman]

Nope

 

[lordofthenerds]

Nope

TV?

 

[Speedball]

The Batman. You are the strangest man i've ever heard of. Are you sure you are human?

 

[The Batman]

TV?

most likely

 

[The Batman]

The Batman. You are the strangest man i've ever heard of. Are you sure you are human?

I believe i was last time i checked. But, things change...

 

[PhoenixRisen]

Nice essay, guard

i still wont see the movie though...

Your loss.

 

[The Batman]

Not really. why support a movie that butchers classic storylines, and has a production team that lies to the fans?

 

[LEX]

Nice essay, guard

i still wont see the movie though...

Ah, well.

 

[XCharlieX]

I'd like to point out that Ebert and Roper didn't ***** about pacing, lack of characterization, lack of emotion...

This is true.

 

[The Guard]

Not really. why support a movie that butchers classic storylines, and has a production team that lies to the fans?

Every comic book film ever made "butchers classic storylines". None of them seem to be actually based on a single storyline.

What did the production team lie about?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I see a lot of people comparing X3 to X-MEN, and X2. And that's going to happen, and it's inevitable. What I don't see is a lot of fair comparison. Either X-MEN and X2 get put on a pedestal, or they get trashed, and X3 ends up having to fall into some category because of it.

It's no secret that I am looking forward to this movie. I have my reasons: I find the concept wonderful, the themes fascinating, and the film is full of actors who have given solid to fantastic performances since X-MEN, and new actors who will only up the ante with their performances. And let's face it, the effects and action doesn't look bad at all.

But let's be honest with ourselves. While it might well rock, X3 is not likely to be a perfect film. Neither were X-MEN and X2. If we're honest with ourselves, X-MEN and X2, for all their good points, had a lot of flaws. Every movie does.

For every inconsistency X3 has, X-MEN and X2 set such inconsistencies up (inconsistencies in character, story, etc). There are a few major complaints, many of which stem from people who are apparently completely unwilling to compromise (despite the fact that someone ELSE paid millions of dollars to make this film, someone else wrote it, someone else directed it, and someone else decided YEARS ago where this film franchise would go). So many fans seem to think they have the RIGHT to certain aspects, or believe that it's possible to deliver ALL they want in a two hour movie. People, we are not going to see Colossus, Rogue, Iceman, Angel, and Beast get their "due". It's simply not possible. Even if Wolverine was abset from the film, it would not be possible. What we are likely to see is fantastic interpretations that fit right into the themes and approach of this franchise. So, addressing some of the major complaints:

Screentime, specifically Angel and Rogue: Not every character will get their "share" of screentime. In a cast this big, with what I would consider more important characters to find resolution for (Xavier, Jean, Magneto, Wolverine, Storm), it's simply not to be expected from characters like Rogue, Iceman, Colossus, etc. But that should hardly be news. Think about this: Nightcrawler had about 12 minutes of screentime in X2, and that's counting all those mini-blips of him looking around during the X-Jet falling and similar moments. What he had though, was quality screentime. Screentime with a purpose, both visually and thematically. Ditto Mystique over the course of this franchise, Stryker in X2 and Kelly in X-MEN. What you can expect from Rogue and Iceman then, would be similar: Quality, well-acted screentime from both of them, with relevance to the storyline and plot.

Wolverine: This franchise has been told from Wolverine's point of view since X-MEN. They continued his story into X2. If you bought into it then, and enjoyed it then, then X3 is not the time to go "I'm sick of Wolverine". He's been well-written, he's been well-acted, and we've seen a number of moments that are just CLASSIC Wolverine.

Cyclops: Cyclops has not gotten the character development or moments we all wanted to see. Neither has Iceman. Or Rogue. Or Colossus. Neither, in my mind, has Xavier, nor will Beast, Angel, etc. Not enough to "satisfy" (well, maybe from Beast). Many situations converged to create the Cyclops Situation, and I doubt anyone will be truly "satisfied" with his part in this franchise, but I don't think it's a stretch to appreciate what Marsden does with his role.

Rogue: Rogue might take the cure. I understand how it makes her look, but consider her character as she's been written. She's not been a fighter. She's been a character in conflict, and that conflict revolves around her powers and what they do to her. Realistically, she has every right to consider the cure in my mind. Being an X-Man doesn't mean you have to suffer. There's no obligation to live a miserable life just so you can drain other people of their powers in the occassional battle. Her reaction to the cure is very human, I think.

Phoenix: This is clearly not the Dark Phoenix saga. This is the element of Phoenix as it fits into the movieverse. I don't see it so much as a watered down version of the character, because while her scale has been lessened, her emotional weight has been amped up about tenfold. So while she won't eat planets, she will have emotional scenes to rival (surpass?) what is found in the comics.

Character development: Again, if you bought into these films, which have character moments, but not a whole lot of development in X-MEN and X2, now is not the time to ***** when the SAME THING HAPPENS.

Runtime: Yeah, it's a shorter movie than X2. It's going to move faster, and it probably will need to, given the plot. Things are going to escalate, and escalate quickly, not slowly, as they did in X2. But I've gone back and watched X-MEN and X2, and discovered something. They are composed (especially their intros) of mostly smaller character moments that form a whole, and padded with longer action sequences. I expect something very similar from X3. So when people whine about "minute long scenes" to kick off the movie, go look at X-MEN. Most of the scenes clock in between a minute and two minutes.

I suppose the point of this is: By and large, we know what you're getting from X3. What do you honestly expect?

I haven't read the rest of this thread, only this. But I wanted to respond to it. And I don't want to turn this isn't another session of Guardball. You have your opinion, and I'd like to state mine, and we'll leave it at that

I can't speak for everyone, only myself. But personally, I didn't have a problem with the character development in the first 2. I do understand that you can't possibly cram in 40 years worth of character development into a 2 hour movie (or 3 movies, as is the case with "X-Men"). I understand that you cannot include every character, and every story arc from the mythos. Unlike a novel, say like The DaVinci Code, or Lord of the Rings, a comic book is not a self contained story in which the plot and characters can be directly translated to film. And even Lord of the Rings, which is widely considered to be a very faithful adaptation, has it's changes.

Now throw 40+ years and 400+ comics in the mix, and you have a problem. And that's just off of 1 title of the comics. Not the various off titles and alternate universes.

So what Bryan Singer did was brilliant. Wolverine, whether people want to accept it or not, is the poster boy for the X-Men. He's the icon to the general public. He's the obvious "face of the franchise", so to speak. It's only obvious he'd be the main guy in the movies too. So that's one complaint that many fans seem to have that can be thrown out.

Except for a very small handful of exceptions, Bryan Singer was very faithful in his adaptations of the characters. Maybe they weren't the whole character they were in the comic books, but Singer nailed their most defining traits: Cyclops' leadership and loyalty, Jean's affection, Nightcrawler's faith, Xavier's pacifism, Rogue's insecurity over her powers, the list goes on and on. Despite everyone *****ing about never seeing the "real" Rogue, Anna Paquin's character is very much the "real" Rogue. Rogue didn't always have super strength, invulnerability, and flight. And before she did, she was a very scared girl. And even after she did get her powers, there were still always instances of insecurity and fear over her powers. It was one major obstacle in her relationship with Gambit. The way she treats Iceman in the films is very accurate to the way she treats Gambit in the comics and cartoons. So again, those arguements go out the window.

And with what we have here in X-Men: The Last Stand, the accuracy seems to continue. Beast is very accurate to his comic book self. We've only seen clips of Angel, so that's hard to tell. Storm is even being turned into the accurate adaptation that she wasn't in the 1st two movies.

So my complaint isn't about this petty stuff, that Rogue doesn't fly around sayin' "Sugah" or stuff like that.

My complaints aren't even about the fact that Colossus will probably only be a shell of his comic book character. His Russian heritage probably never touched upon. His love for doing a hard day's work without his steel skin, or his undying love for his sister, and loyalty towards Mother Russia. I find Colossus in the books to be one of the most emotional characters in the comics. And he won't be any of that in the movies. But that's not even my complaint.

My complaint is the total ignorance towards the characters of Cyclops, and Wolverine, in the Phoenix Saga.

First off, Cyclops shouldn't die period. The reason why it was okay for Jean Grey to die was because, that's part of her character arc, is to die, become the Phoenix, and resurrect. Cyclops isn't a character who's arc involves his death.

2nd, he shouldn't die in the Phoenix Saga of all adaptations. Granted, this isn't truly the Phoenix SAGA, but it is still an adaptation of it, and as such, should stick to the essence of that story.

The essence of that story is not Wolverine becoming leader of the X-Men, and being Jean Grey's savior. Wolverine is NOT a leader, and he doesn't have the romantic link to Jean Grey.

Bryan Singer was brilliant because, despite his deviations, he remained true to the essence of the world, and the characters that inhabited it.

By killing Cyclops, making Wolverine the leader, and Jean's savior, you are forsaking the essence of the story.

I've no problem with making Wolverine a focus again. And in fact, I think the love triangle arc should be a heavy factor in the overall story. But Cyclops should remain the leader. And it should be his love for Jean, and her's for him, that save her and bring her back... Not Wolverine's claws.

It's like killing off Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, and making Frodo the King of Gondor because he was the one who destroyed the Ring and freed Middle Earth from Sauron's evil... ignorant towads both characters.

My other complaint, which isn't as much, is that more known, more iconic characters, that are more vital towards the mythos, both in the eyes of the fans and general audience alike should be used over characters that even a percentage of the hardcore fanbase doesn't know.

I.E.: Gambit should be in over the likes of Arclight, Quill, Multiple Man, etc...

But that complaint is more of a personal bias towards a certain character, and not so much towards the important arguement, which is keeping the "essence" of the world and the characters alive.

And I think that's all I got for now. SNL is on now, it's the season finale, so I wanna go check that.

I don't intend to turn this into a segment of Guardball, but I'll be back after the show is over, and I just may respond if you have some legitamate questions you'd like me to respond to. But if it's just gonna be a back and forth, then I'll jsut watch the 7 minute clip again

 

[cookiva]

Or better yet, a nice supporting role in a great film-Superman Returns.

Ha, ya....great to see you here.....

 

[The Guard]

I'm tired of arguing about Cyclops death, why he doesn't play the role he does in the comics, and the omission of various things (Rogue's superpowers, Gambit, Sentinel battles, etc). There's an obvious choice that has to be made about these films: we can accept that some things must be compromised on, and that there are reasons to do so, or remain uncomprising on principle, and whine because this franchise has not gone the way we wanted it to go (which I find kind of arrogant, because we aren't the ones doling out the money, doing the work, etc). I choose to compromise, because there are good reasons to do so. For everything the filmmakers have gotten wrong, they've gotten that much more right. One negative (or several) does not, to me, outweight all the positives about this franchise, and this take on the X-Men. And that's what it is...a take on the X-Men. Not a literal transation of the comic books.

Clearly, Cyclops' death/disappearance can be seen as a negative. Absolutely. I think we'd all like to see more of him, and see his character flourish, and play the role we're used to seeng him playing, both in the mythos, and in the Phoenix Saga. But I think, as a moviegoers and fans, we have to be realistic about a couple of factors. One, James Marsden/Cyclops was never going to be a HUGE player in this mythology with all the characters yet to be introduced, and the name recognition aspect, and two, Marsden doing SUPERMAN RETURNS pulled the rug out from any chance Cyclops had to play his true role in the Phoenix Saga. It's not neccessarily ignorance on the creative teams parts: the producers, writers, director, etc absolutely know the role Cyclops played in the comic book mythos. But because Marsden went to SUPERMAN RETURNS, he simply cannot play that role in this franchise. It's just not doable on any realistic level, unless they wanted to cast a complete unknown or a star to replace him, which would be disaster for the chemistry between Phoenix and Cyclops and Wolverine and wreck what has been a fairly strong continuity between films, with a few small exceptions.

As far as concerns about the role each character plays in the Dark Phoenix Saga compared to this film...this is not "The Dark Phoenix Saga". It just isn't. This is a movie about the X-Men, based on characters found in the X-Men comics, that has chosen to show the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix ELEMENT of Jean Grey's character from the mythology because it is an extremely interesting concept (and they are not only drawing from the Dark Phoenix Saga storyline, but from Phoenix: Rising and Phoenix: Endsong and other sources). Much like the filmmakers chose to use The Cure storyline, but not actually use most of it, or altered most of it. Or the way they used elements of the God Loves, Man Kills storyline in X2, but again, altered much of it for the film's purposes.

This is not The Dark Phoenix Saga. I don't know how many times I can say that. It's the appearance of Dark Phoenix in X3.

By killing Cyclops, making Wolverine the leader, and Jean's savior, you are forsaking the essence of the story.

Forsaking the essence of the comic book? Yes. But not forsaking the essence of the story that has been told in movie form since X-MEN, where Wolverine has been the main player, who was clearly building toward a leadership role at some point, and had a relationship with Jean Grey. Everything that happens in this franchise, and in X3, seems to makes sense in the context of what has gone before it. At some point, fans are going to have to realize...this isn't the comics.

As such, whether you think they should be or not, they are not bound by any set of "rules" about the comic book mythology.

My other complaint, which isn't as much, is that more known, more iconic characters, that are more vital towards the mythos, both in the eyes of the fans and general audience alike should be used over characters that even a percentage of the hardcore fanbase doesn't know.

I.E.: Gambit should be in over the likes of Arclight, Quill, Multiple Man, etc...

In what regard? Should he be seen? Yes, but not in the fashion Arclight, Quill and Multiple Man are being used in: EXTREMELY small roles. As cannon fodder (I.E, they will be killed so the war doesn't appear as a sham). Is that really what you want to see from Gambit's character? If all you want is to know he exists in this franchise, look no further than X2 (Stryker's computer screen).

I have said this before, as I said it about Angel and Beast during X2 and beyond. Much like their omittance in X2, "The Gambit Situation" is obvious. It has been obvious since X2, when Beast and Angel and Gambit did not show up, why this was occurring. It is not that they do not like Gambit, and do not want to use him. When they say "We don't want him to be a throwaway cameo", I see no reason not to believe them. Gambit has enormous character potential to be popular with moviegoers. It is obvious that Gambit WILL BE SEEN in a future X-Men film. Probably X4 or GENERATION X. FOX has a plan. They have had a plan for X-Men since X-MEN was a hit. They know exactly what they have. This is not likely to be the last stand.

 

[cookiva]

I dont want to say hell yes for every sentence just now, Guard, but thats what I think...