I watch these movies, because they are about the X-Men. The X-Men is my favorite fictional universe, period. I love these characters. When these movies have come out, I have been totally open to any changes that need to be made to make the film work.
And you honestly believe every change made so far is just so " the film will work"? What about changes that have been made because the creative team simply wanted to, I.E, black leather with color piping, Wolverine being 6'foot and handsome, Jean Grey being older, Sabertooth not being terribly intelligent, Mutant 143, etc. None of these changes were neccessary, per se, they were just changes made to the material because a writer/director wanted to. The same applies to almost any change to a source material in any movie anywhere.
But at the same time, there is still a line. When you forsake the essence of the world and the characters, they cease to be the same characters, it ceases to be the same world.
What essence have they forsaken? Jean and Cyclops still love each other. The essence of the world of the X-Men is still intact, I.E, mutants in conflict with humans.
That is the problem with killing off Cyclops, turning Wolverine into a leader, and having him be Jean's savior. Because that is such an extreme deviation, that it ceases to be the same world.
That's the point. It's not the same world. Never was. From the time Bryan Singer got ahold of this project, it has been clear that while these films take elements from the comcis, it is not the same version seen there, or the same world.
Like I said before, it's as if Aragorn gets killed off in the war, and upon his return from Mt. Doom, Frodo is made the King of Gondor for his efforts in destroying the ring and restoring peace to Middle Earth. Such a deviation, and it ceases to be the same world, and the same characters.
Then it clearly wouldn't be the same world. As the X-Men franchise clearly isn't. But then, it hasn't been since day one. Why does this seem to surprise you?
THAT'S the problem with killing off Cyclops, making Wolverine a leader, and turning him into Jean Grey's savior. Jean Grey and Scott Summers are lovers, not Jean Grey and Logan. The love between Jean Grey and Scott Summers, from my knowledge of the Phoenix storyline, is really the only thing strong enough to bring her back from the Phoenix's control, and become herself again
Yes, that is how it is in the comics. This is not the comics. And in every other version of the story I've read other than the initial Dark Phoenix Saga, it's love, period, that Jean's friends have for her, that brings her back or makes her stop. Wolverine would seem to be Jean's friend, not her lover.
Wolverine has NEVER been a leader. He is too rebellious, too wreckless, too independant to be a leader.
Yes, in the comics. This is the movies, where this version of Wolverine has shown to be mellowing, to be realizing the value of family and mentorship as the films progress. As such, it's completely in character. For movie Wolverine.
As far as Wolverine not being a leader in the comics, I've seen many stories where he takes on the role of a leader. Didn't he fight it out with Cyclops once over the X-Men's leadership status? Not that Cyclops hasn't fought everyone over that at some point...regardless, Wolverine possesses leadership qualities. He just prefers not to use them.
By turning him into a leader, and the physical embodiment of Professor Xavier's dream, he ceases to be the same Wolverine character. He is something totally different.
Just like he's been since day one in the movieverse? Again, not the comics.
I anticipate, watch, and enjoy these movies for giving me adaptations of these characters, not totally changing them around. And that is exactly what is happening in the Phoenix part of this film.
Here's the thing, though. "Change" is inherent in "adaptation's" meaning. And change is what has happened to almost every single character in this mythos since day one. (Wolverine, Cyclops, Storm, Jean Grey, Rogue, Iceman, Mystique, Sabertooth, Toad, Pyro, and even Xavier and Magneto all show marked differences from their comic book counterparts. Granted, they also show a lot of similarities. But for most of them, their essence has changed somewhat. It's not just the Phoenix aspect getting this treatment...it's everything.
And to respond to your other point, this isn't even what's been set up in the previous films. Watch X-Men, and in particular, X2: X-Men United again. Wolverine is not leaning towards a leadership position in any aspect.
That's because becoming a leader is his character development in X3, not in X-MEN and X2. In X-MEN, his development involved simply working with others for his own ends (his relationship with Rogue), and in X2 his development involved working with them further, believing and becoming a part of their cause but remaining alone. X3 clearly has him assuming a leadership role based on the interactions he's had for the past two movies. It seems to be a reluctant one, but by the end of the film, he will have come full circle. He clearly possesses leadership capabilities in this franchise, and those have been seen in both X-MEN and X2.
And if you watch X2, you'll realize that Jean & Scott's connection was set up through both movies, especially X2. Jean Grey spent 2 movies rejecting Wolverine and telling him the 2 of them could never be. She spent the last part of X2, after Scott reammerged, talking about how much she loved him. Scott spent most of his time in X2 talking about how much he loved her, and would never let anything happen to her. Scott more than showed his affection for her when she sacrificed herself. And Wolverine made it clear to Scott that she chose Cyclops, NOT Wolverine. It was set up, and made clear, that Cyclops was who she was meant to be with, not Wolverine.
Exactly. Which is is why Scott will end up in love with Jean Grey (at Alkali Lake, I expect we're going to see the consummation of this romance between them and have it cemented that they do love each other.
Now, Dark Phoenix will tempt Wolverine, but that is not Jean Grey. That is Dark Phoenix. And, as Bosef has pointed out, Phoenix is essentially doing it to be cruel. To trick Wolverine into getting what she, a power hungry god, wants. Because Wolverine has wanted her thus far, he will still want her in X3: that's how a love triangle works. However, he will not GET her. As we all know, Wolverine won't end up being with Jean. Scott will.
. Assuming Jean doesn't go straight to hell for her crimes against humanity and mutantkind.
And so we have X-Men 3: The Last Stand, which has her rising from Alkali Lake, and killing Cyclops on the spot.
Pretty sure there's an emotional romantic scene that cements their relationship before that happens.
And it seems even more likely that she's already been overwhelmed with her powers, and gone a bit towards the "dark side" before she kills him, so it's not killing him that sets her off.
Ah, but the "What happened to Scott?" clip in the X-Mansion makes it pretty clear that realizing what she did does have a lot to do with her believing she has no home, no place, etc. And it does seem to set her off.
And whether it is or isn't, there are still other things that could set her off. Like Xavier, the person she looked up to like a father, and probably trusted more than anyone, the fact that he manipulated her, and basically chained her down (power-wise), and decieved her all those years.
So who says it has to be one thing? The events with Scott send her off, lost. And the event with Xavier seems to increase her anger, and her "I can't turn back" qualities.
I understand that James Marsden isn't a top bill actor like Jackman or Berry. And I understand that Marsden didn't have a lot of time considering he was filming Superman Returns. But he did get more time for X-Men 3 than originally anticipated, and definatley enough time to shoot a role bigger than him dying after 2 scenes in the movie.
As I've said before, him having a month off SUPERMAN RETURNS doesn't neccessarily mean that his scheduling allowed for him to shoot much more in regard to X3's schedule and script. You can't schedule an entire film or script around a supporting actor, especially if they aren't the lead. Marsden may have had a month to shoot, but by that time, they may have already realized there was no way to shoot the Phoenix scenes and the final battle and anything in between, given X3's schedule.
You could keep your "lead role" focus on Wolverine and Storm. Let Cyclops be unconcious and injured for part of the movie, only to head out to the final battle at the end and fulfill his role in the Phoenix Saga by being her savior, not Wolverine.
That's my point. They may have planned to shoot the final battle at a time when Marsden wasn't available to do so.
You already stated that the Phoenix Saga isn't the whole movie... and if Cyclops doesn't have a lot of time to shoot (Marsden-wise, obviously), then don't make him a major player in the cure. Make that Storm's spot, with Beast and Angel and some other supporting characters to headline that. Let Cyclops come at the end, when it's money time for the Phoenix Saga.
See above. Even though it was done in X2, I'm pretty sure if the writers/Ratner could have done that, they would have. I don't think the schedule allowed for that.
But no, such a major deviation, like this is, it ceases to be the same characters, the same world, and the same story. All of a sudden, it just becomes a soap opera with special effects.
It's not the same world. It's not the same characters. It's a near-complete re-imagining of the X-Men mythos and the X-Men's world, based on elements from the comics.
And why is it just a "soap opera" now? Not that the X-Men comics, and comics in general, have not always shared various elements with soap operas...
And in terms of Gambit, you can accept it all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it's bull****.
Then it's bull****. What do you want me to tell you? I know what I can tell you when he appears in a future film: I told you so.
-Gambit was promised to us for X2... he didn't make it in. Don't believe me? I can't provide proof, but I remember reading on accurate websites (much like this, in fact I believe it was comingsoon.net or whatever) that Gambit was going to be in X2, for sure. We all know how that turned out.
ComingSoon.net was never THAT accurate.
-Numerous people involved, from Bryan Singer (who later departed) to producers, who are still on board, promised Gambit for this installment. And again, we all know how that turned out.
Yes, but do you know why? Because mid-way through X2's planning stages, FOX realized they had an enormous hit franchise on their hands. Gambit was to appear in a cameo-style role when his powers went haywire during the Dark Cerebro situation. So were several other well-known mutants. But when FOX realized X-Men could go three, four, five films, they pulled ideas for scenes involving Gambit, Beast, Angel, and a number of others. Realizing that, like Nightcrawler, these classic X-Men could be worked into the story in a much better, and much more marketable way in future films.
They use the whole "we didn't want to use him in a cameo role because he's better than that" justification, but it's utter bull****.
Why? Because you insist on seeing him? Why can't it be taken as exactly what it is...a valid reason not to shove Gambit into a cameo style role, but instead, flesh him out? The writers/FOX obviously have plans for Gambit. It's my personal belief that he's going to be Wolverine's replacement at some point. I do not know why Gambit hasn't been seen yet, other than the explanation that would appear to be most logical: Someone doesn't want to see him "thrown away".
Again, what do you want me to say? Do you want me to simply believe the writers/studio what, hate Gambit as a character and have conspired to keep him out of these films?
It's hypocritical. There's no way around it. And I am bitter about it. I've been waiting for Gambit for 6 years, and if I do get him, it's gonna end up being in some piece of **** "X-Kids" spinoff where he's fighting alongside ****ing Jones and Squidboy.
Any movie with Gambit would likely essentially be X4, and involve Storm, Beast, Angel, Rogue, Colossus and Iceman. That doesn't sound too bad to me.
"We're proud of Cyclops' role", "The fans will be happy", "There's many surprises in store for Cyclops", marketing him in his uniform...
What are they supposed to say? Yeah, he dies in the first few scenes. You're going to hate us. Not only are they not allowed to give away plot points like that, but can you imagine fan backlash? I mean, look at the few here that think it's Kinberg and Penn's "fault".
Angel in uniform, apparently he's in like 3 scenes and doesn't do ****.
I would not call having an entire arc where you go from hating what you are to learning to embrace it, and then going back to save your father, and having several flying scenes "doesn't do ****".
I love how Kinberg's responses went from "Gambit's not a major character" to "Gambit was never a part of the script"
It's entirely possible that early on, they wanted to have him as a cameo, or thought he might work as one, and then decided it wasn't a good idea. The evolving of a project changing a writer/director/studio's mind does not constitute "lying".
So it's an odd complaint to want to see these characters brought to life as WHO THEY ARE, and the world they exist in brought to life as the WORLD THAT IT IS, and these stories told with some basic respect for the heart and soul of these stories that made them so appealing in the first place, just so that these filmmakers can have enough creative freedom to ignore the source material in such a way that these adaptations cease to be the same characters and world and stories we've come to love?
Sigh...
No, the reason it is an odd complaint is that some of you accept quite a bit of change about this franchise, and justify it, until it comes to the one change you just don't care for, at which point all attempts at justification (which you buy into with most aspects) become "bull****". What makes it odder is that this attitude is being adopted about a movie franchise that hasn't been THAT faithful to the comic book mythos to begin with.
These characters are a re-imagining of the X-Men mythos. While they do share similarities and elements of their comic book counterparts, this is not the Xavier of the comics. This is not the Magneto of the comics. This is not the Storm of the comics. This is not the Wolverine of the comics. Or the Cyclops of the comics. Or the Rogue of the comics. Or the Iceman of the comics. Or the Pyro of the comics. Or the Mystique of the comics. Or the Sabertooth of the comics. Or the Toad of the comics. Or the Juggernaut of the comics. Etc, etc, etc. It has been apparent that this has not been the world of the comics since X-MEN. To expect it to be so now is just...foolish. You can WANT all you want. But look at it in context: that is not how this franchise began, and that is not how it developed.
Whoa whoa whoa, don't ever mix me up for a Singer basher. I love Singer's X-Men movies. His approach towards the comics was perfect; He found a perfect blend of adaptation to fit the world into a 2 hour big screen installment, while still remaining faithful to the source material that inspired it.
There is no such thing as perfect.
What's happening here is not the same. It's telling one of the most classic tales in the fiction, but completely forsaking the major components of what makes the story; Scott & Jean, and their undying love that is the only thing that can break the control of Phoenix.
No. It's not. It's not telling the story of the Phoenix Saga. It's making up an entirely new version of Dark Phoenix and inserting that storyline into the X-Men movie mythology. Why is that so hard to understand?
If you are going to deviate from the source material in such an extreme fashion, why even tell THAT story anyways?
Real life doesn't allow for perfection. Because things happen, in many respects, that make it impossible to stick with the essence of the story. And because, whether you like it or not, the X-Men mythology is strong enough that it can withstand change, simply because it's bare essence is so compelling.
So why bother even telling the story?
Because even if you can't tell ALL the essential elements of it, there are enough powerful and interesting elements to make it worth telling. For instance, why bother to tell Ra's Al Ghul's story in Batman's mythos if you're not going to include Bruce's relationship with Talia?
Because there is still value to the elements you are using.
But why is it so hard to keep the essence of the story that you're telling?
Because James Marsden had schedule conflicts. It's really quite simple.
It doesn't even keep that. It ceases to be anything even remotely close to the story it's trying to tell, it's a different story altogether. So why tell it, if you're not gonna tell the story right?
It's not that close to the Dark Phoenix Saga to begin with. Why bother to tell the story? Again, because there is still value to the elements you ARE using. And the story you are telling still works, and may even work as well, in context.
That's like me taking the story of Little Red Riding Hood, telling it to my daughter as I tuck her in at night, but totally changing the story around for my "artistic freedom" as a storyteller. Why even bother to tell her Little Red Riding Hood?
Because the version you might tell has value. Might entertain. Might have some inherent lesson worth learning. Might be powerful.
But this change is crossing the line. This isn't just adapting to help translate the film to the screen, this is a total ignorance towards the story being told, and a total injustice to about 3 characters in this movie.
"Ignorance" implies they aren't aware of it's significance to the comic book mythology. That does not seem to be the case. What seems to be the case is that circumstances prevented them from using Cyclops in his normal role in Phoenix's storyline. And when the witch hunt stops, and people get a little less uncompromising about a project they have no control over, they will figure out what those circumstances were.
