Addressing some concerns, and X3 as a film

[XCharlieX]

Holy Jesus lol Longest post ever. And i agree

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I'm sorry, Guard, but you really are turning into an apologist. Just accepting whatever they throw at you because it's what they gave you. And it's ridiculous.

You talk about the inaccuracies of the first 2 films. Were they there? Yes. But they aren't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

So Wolverine is taller than he is in the comics. Big ****ING DEAL! He's still the SAME CHARACTER. Adapted, with some changes, yes. But he is still the SAME CHARACTER. He's still the nomadic loner, who finds a home and a purpose with the X-Men. He's the one who will do his own thing, but will do whatever is neccesary to protect the ones he loves. I don't see much in the way of inaccuracies in his character, save for some stupid crap like his height, or the fact that Hugh Jackman is considered a handsome man. I don't think Jackman looks all that classically appealing with his "everyday is a bad hairday" do (taken from Premiere magazine) and those long sideburns.

Changing the uniforms? Oh, big whoop dee do, because we all know that these characters are ALL ABOUT THEIR COSTUMES and nothing deeper than that. And yes the change was made for the better of the movie. More colorful costumes were tried out, and they JUST DIDN'T WORK on a real life human being.

Rogue hasn't been changed that much. She always has been insecure about herself, and her powers, and even in her sassy invulnerable, flying, super strength form, she STILL would consider the cure, because she can never touch the people she loves.

Sabretooth wasn't that bad. He didn't have enough time to develop into the fuller character that he really is, but what was there was pretty accurate; a merciless, viscious, brutal, killing machine.

Here are the changes that I will agree with:

Storm: WTF is she angry about? The comic Storm I know doesn't run around talking about how anger helps you survive. She has a purpose, and is a soldier willing to fight for that purpose. And she is also a very compassionate person, who wouldn't tell a dying man that she hates humans sometimes... she'd give him the insight of what mutants are really about, and why she fights the fight she does, to enlighten those uninformed about mutants.

Iceman: He's not a jokester at all in the movies.

Lady Deathstrike: In appearance, all Yuriko Oyama. But character-wise, no resemblance at all.

But wait a minute, Guard... weren't you the one arguing with me a long time ago about how these characters WEREN'T inaccurate? About how someone like Storm should rightfully, and justifiably be angry? And all that? Yes... you were. Make up your mind, man. Don't start flipping your arguements when it suits you. These characters are either all done justice, or inaccurate from the beginning. Not one when it suits you, only to go to the other in another arguement later on.

You can make your excuses all you want. But Bryan Singer was not as inaccurate as people want to make it out to be. The reason why his vision was "perfect" (and that's in my opinion, mind you, and I have the right to think something is done perfectly if I damn well please), was because he found the balance between comic book accuracy, and bringing it to the big screen in a believable way for the masses. And the way I see it, his serious take on the X-Men, and making these world seem as believable as possible, is a very respectful thing to the source material and it's fans.

I think making such a major deviation, like what's being made with Cyclops and the Phoenix Saga, is not respectful. And yammer on and on as much as you want about how this isn't the "PHOENIX SAGA" it's just "The Dark Phoenix appearing in the movies"... there is still a storyline to how the Phoenix / Dark Phoenix comes about. And there is still a story to how it's resolved. And unlike something like the cure storyline, or something like that, the entire story arc is totally character driven... it's what these characters feel for each other, their relationships with one another, that drives the story, and brings it to it's resolution. It's not just some "Oh ****, there's some pissed off ***** that wants to blow up the world" storyline. And that's why it's so well loved. Because of it's depth.

Throw the planets and galaxies and suns and Shi'Ar Empires out the window. Bring it down to earth. Ground it in reality. It gives it more emotion that way.

But don't ruin the essence of what this story is about... the undying love and unbreakable bond between a man and a woman; Cyclops and Jean.

The essence of this world, and the characters, has never been in question in this franchise up until this point. Cosmetic changes may have been made to the characters, and some very minor, non defining character traits maybe left out. But the foundation for this world is the foundation for the comic books. The foundations of who these characters are are the same foundations of who they are in the comic books.

But now, all of a sudden, the movies decide to break that foundation, and make up a totally new story. These may be different takes, a different universe, on the X-Men and it's characters, but it's STILL THE X-MEN! You lose the foundation of the characters, and it ceases to be the X-Men anymore. Do you mean to tell me that Batman & Robin is a perfectly valid take on Batman, just because it's a "different" take and was never meant to be the comic?

Because that's what you're saying in your arguement. That it's okay to change, and forsake the source material, just because it's "not the comic", which is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

Watch it and accept it for what it is, yes. But if it's BASED on something, keep it accurate to what you're basing it on. Are you saying that Peter Jackson shouldn't have gone through the trouble of remaining true to the Lord of the Rings movies, just because it's a different take? Give me a ****ing break.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

BTW, I just want to say that I am still totally pumped for this movie. I'm gonna see it Thursday night for a midnight showing, and when I get back, I'm posting my review. And I'm positive that at the end of all things, my review will say this was the best one in the franchise.

They got 99% of this film right, I think, from what it looks like. But that 1% they got wrong was the biggest 1% to get wrong. I'll use an analogy... I'm a huge football fan, so go with me here...

The X-Men franchise is a football team.

X-Men was the regular season. They had a winning record, and got to the playoffs.

X2: X-Men United was the playoffs. They won in the playoffs, and got to the Super Bowl.

X-Men: The Last Stand is the Super Bowl.

Now, it's time for the game winning drive. The team is down, and needs a touchdown. They are backed up at their own goal line. They have to drive the entire field.

They drive down the entire length of the field, and get to the opposing goal line. Goal line stance, 4th and goal...

They punch it in for the touchdown!

But they are down by a touchdown... a 7 point game. The TD gives them 6, and instead of going for the extra point to tie, they go for a win, for the 2 point conversion; and fail.

They lose... by a point.

That's what Cyclops' death is to me.

A great, exciting run. Even, an exciting finish. But they were one point short of winning it all.

 

[bosef982]

Nell, Guard, I'm not going to interject to strongly here. However, I want to give perhaps a measure of rule to use when analyzing this stuff.

David, you have said that the previous X-Men films are not "perfect." As you know, like Nell, I do regard at least X2 as a near, if not a, perfect film. It's really a piece of art in many ways. Now, all films have flaws, like humans, thus when using the word perfect we're essentially rounding up to the most realistic denominator. I'm sure if neccessary Nell could find one or two things he'd prefer were different in X2. But this is the thing, imperfections are sometimes acceptable, hell sometimes they're good.

What you're essentially talking about is X3 as an imperfect movie. David, you're talking about it as an imperfect movie with acceptable imperfections. Nell, you're talking about it as an imperfect movie with unacceptable imperfections. And there in is the rub: you cannot blanket flaws or mistakes under one category of a film's inevitable imperfection. You have to take into account that there are some imperfections that are accpetable and some that are not. However, this is largely a matter of opinion, and thus long, verbose posts arguing back and forth are never going to accomplish much.

For example, I can, to a degree, accept bad CGI in a film. However, I despise unneccesary CGI in a film (i.e. Spider-Man 2 and Spider-man launching out of the window towards Doc Ock). I find an overbearign score to be an acceptable imperfection as long as its good, however I cannot accept a nonexistent score in any form. These are all matter's of opinion, taste, and subjectivity.

What you're essentially coming down to is how these character's all fall into ideas of what are acceptable and unacceptable imperfections in a film. Nell, you hold that Logan and Scott ar unacceptable imperfections, and I'm fairly certain that you hold them as unacceptable not because you just don't like it, but because it seems unneccessary. David, you find these alterations satisfying and acceptable due to their creative unneccessary natures -- the writer's are taking risk. Neither of you are more right or wrong than the other.

It's all taste.

Nell, respect the fact that David can accept these changes, just as I'd expect David to accept me loving X3 as a perfect movie with acceptable imperfections (like Halle Berry). David, acknowledge that where as you find acceptable changes or imperfections, Nell does not and has not found himself at a lack of evidence or argument to at least defend himself, if not persuade you.

There is no right or wrong here. It's a matter of accpetable/unacceptable imperfections, that's all. Move on from there really...

 

[XCharlieX]

Yea this is true its all taste, but i am kind of glad im not coming from a background of religiously following the comic because my mind would already want special parameters to be put onscreen and its not guaranteed. Im all about scifi films: taking whatever source material and giving it a personality for film.

 

[bosef982]

Like, everyone should know my reputation as not being a overbearing Comic Dogmatist as I've called some. But I can certainly sympathize with Nell's concern. I am extremely saddened that from all the reviews we've seen, not one metions that ALL the X-Men will face off against their long-standing friend, Jean Grey.

Only Logan.

Seems to me to be suched a missed opportunity.

Or, for example, the gravest injustice to any character in the series:

The Sentinels.

 

[The Guard]

I'm sorry, Guard, but you really are turning into an apologist. Just accepting whatever they throw at you because it's what they gave you. And it's ridiculous.

"I'm sorry" he says, and calls ME an apologist.

As far as being the way I am, yes, I have always been more accepting of...well, pretty much anything, moreso than anyone I've ever met. In regard to film, I tend to "accept" things, provided it's well written, well-acted, and makes sense in the context of the film. That doesn't mean I like it. I just accept it.

That said, you do not know me. You do not know my thought processes. Until I say what I accept or do not, you have no idea HOW I feel about various aspects of this film. Mostly because it haven't SEEN it yet. Please do not assume how I feel about anything based on a few of my statements. It's not like I can NOT accept what happens to Cyclops. It's done. I can either watch it, or not watch it. Either way, I pretty much have to accept it sooner or later. Because it happened.

I can not LIKE it, but "accepting" it is another matter. If not accepting what has been done with Cyclops/Wolverine means I have to suddenly loathe the entire movie, then I refuse to do so. Why do I have to be "defined" as something? Why is it only "fan" or "apologist" because I'm capable of seeing why they did something storywise (even when I've said multiple times I'd like to see something else)?

What should I do if I don't like the fact that Cyclops dies in X3? Tell me. *****? Let it ruin the movie experience? Boycott the movie? Or...God forbid I ENJOY the scenes with James Marsden in them, and then enjoy Cyclops' death scene when it's well-acted and powerful, and recognize the drama that unfolds, even as I wish there was a different outcome because then (gasp) I'm not a "true fan", I'm an "apologist".

You talk about the inaccuracies of the first 2 films. Were they there? Yes. But they aren't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

I don't believe I made them out to be bad. I don't believe I made any value judgements on them, period. I'm simply pointing out: this isn't the comics.

So Wolverine is taller than he is in the comics. Big ****ING DEAL! He's still the SAME CHARACTER. Adapted, with some changes, yes. But he is still the SAME CHARACTER. He's still the nomadic loner, who finds a home and a purpose with the X-Men. He's the one who will do his own thing, but will do whatever is neccesary to protect the ones he loves. I don't see much in the way of inaccuracies in his character, save for some stupid crap like his height, or the fact that Hugh Jackman is considered a handsome man. I don't think Jackman looks all that classically appealing with his "everyday is a bad hairday" do (taken from Premiere magazine) and those long sideburns.

I don't particularly care how tall or handsome Wolverine is. I absolutely love Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. I'm just pointing out...these are changes to the comic book nature of the characters. In an effort to make you see that almost every element of the mythos has undergone such a change.

Changing the uniforms? Oh, big whoop dee do, because we all know that these characters are ALL ABOUT THEIR COSTUMES and nothing deeper than that. And yes the change was made for the better of the movie. More colorful costumes were tried out, and they JUST DIDN'T WORK on a real life human being.

And I much prefer the black leather look. Read my argument in context, don't just assume I take certain points of view. Did I say I didn't like the uniforms?

Rogue hasn't been changed that much. She always has been insecure about herself, and her powers, and even in her sassy invulnerable, flying, super strength form, she STILL would consider the cure, because she can never touch the people she loves.

I have never seen a version of Rogue this withdrawn and timid and, well, quiet. Regardless, it's another change I rather like. Still, it's a change.

Sabretooth wasn't that bad. He didn't have enough time to develop into the fuller character that he really is, but what was there was pretty accurate; a merciless, viscious, brutal, killing machine.

Except that Sabertooth is an intelligent merciless, brutal killing machine. And again, I did not make a judgement on the changes to Sabertooth. I simply said they existed.

Here are the changes that I will agree with:

I wasn't trying to get into which changes we do and don't agree with. I was making a point. It seems to be entirely lost, though.

Storm: WTF is she angry about?

Probably because she's been oppressed and hated simply because of who she is and what she does her entire life.

The comic Storm I know doesn't run around talking about how anger helps you survive. She has a purpose, and is a soldier willing to fight for that purpose. And she is also a very compassionate person, who wouldn't tell a dying man that she hates humans sometimes... she'd give him the insight of what mutants are really about, and why she fights the fight she does, to enlighten those uninformed about mutants.

True. But this isn't the comics. And the movie Storm reflects that.

Iceman: He's not a jokester at all in the movies.

Exactly. He also did very little with his powers through the first two films. Again, not the comics, movie reflects that.

Lady Deathstrike: In appearance, all Yuriko Oyama. But character-wise, no resemblance at all.

You continue to prove my point.

But wait a minute, Guard... weren't you the one arguing with me a long time ago about how these characters WEREN'T inaccurate?

No. I argued that even if they were essentially inaccurate (which I don't believe I denied, I denied statements that there were NO similarities to their comic book counterparts), some of their aspects had been translated well, and that these new interpretations had value in the context of this franchise.

About how someone like Storm should rightfully, and justifiably be angry? And all that? Yes... you were.

Yes, that was me. Because it makes perfect sense in the context of the world presented in this franchise. You'll recall I also admitted that she's not much like her comic book counterpart in that discussion.

Make up your mind, man. Don't start flipping your arguements when it suits you.

I'm not flipping my arguments. I wasn't even making one with my earlier post.

These characters are either all done justice, or inaccurate from the beginning. Not one when it suits you, only to go to the other in another arguement later on.

That's simply not true. It is clearly not a case of all or nothing with this franchise in terms of faithfulness (with you or with me). Because some of the characters and mythos elements have been done justice, and others haven't. And within that subdivision of those who haven't been done justice, some of them have had new and interesting aspects created for film versions of themselves. And I think we both recognize that. So, it's not one or the other.

You can make your excuses all you want.

What excuses am I making? For what?

But Bryan Singer was not as inaccurate as people want to make it out to be. The reason why his vision was "perfect" (and that's in my opinion, mind you, and I have the right to think something is done perfectly if I damn well please)

I'm not saying Bryan Singer was inaccurate. His inaccuracies have no bearing on my enjoyment of his films. You certainly do have the right to think something is perfect if you want, but that doesn't make it so. There is no such thing as perfection. The pursuit of perfection and the strain that results from failure to achieve such is the root of much human misery.

was because he found the balance between comic book accuracy, and bringing it to the big screen in a believable way for the masses. And the way I see it, his serious take on the X-Men, and making these world seem as believable as possible, is a very respectful thing to the source material and it's fans.

I feel exactly the same.

But don't ruin the essence of what this story is about... the undying love and unbreakable bond between a man and a woman; Cyclops and Jean.

I'm pretty sure the story's essence is about a woman who finds herself surrendering to her lust for power, and that the Cyclops/Jean aspects are secondary within the Dark Phoenix arc.

The essence of this world, and the characters, has never been in question in this franchise up until this point.

I thought you said Storm's essence was nothing like her comic book self.

But now, all of a sudden, the movies decide to break that foundation, and make up a totally new story.

This is my point. This franchise has been making up totally new stories for characters the entire time. I get it. "This isn't what happened in the Phoenix storyline in the comics". But you refuse to accept...this isn't the comics. Never was. Never will be. It hasn't been set up like the comics since X-MEN.

These may be different takes, a different universe, on the X-Men and it's characters, but it's STILL THE X-MEN! You lose the foundation of the characters, and it ceases to be the X-Men anymore. Do you mean to tell me that Batman & Robin is a perfectly valid take on Batman, just because it's a "different" take and was never meant to be the comic?

Of course BATMAN & ROBIN is a valid take on Batman. There was an era of Batman stories that it fits right into. It's just not a very good one, nor was it the take people wanted to see, nor did it have much continuity with the other Batman films.

Because that's what you're saying in your arguement. That it's okay to change, and forsake the source material, just because it's "not the comic", which is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

I do not recall saying any of that. At all. Where do you see me saying "It's ok to just change things"? I think you have to take the fact that this isn't the comic book into account, yes. I didn't say a thing about what is ok in my mind within the process of adaption itself. Two completely different points.

Watch it and accept it for what it is, yes. But if it's BASED on something, keep it accurate to what you're basing it on. Are you saying that Peter Jackson shouldn't have gone through the trouble of remaining true to the Lord of the Rings movies, just because it's a different take? Give me a ****ing break.

I completely agree. That's the approach I always take to adapting when I write. But I didn't write this movie. Someone else did, and it clearly wasn't as "easy" as just doing it the right way. They did not have that luxury. I choose not to ignore that, and to take that into account when I view these films.

Now, as a fan, armed with that knowledge, I choose to try to enjoy what is done with the mythos because of the obvious limitations, not ***** about it. Your major mistake in our discussions seems to be that you think I can not enjoy something and not like it totally at the same time, or wish it had been done better. If that is the case, then you simply do not know me.

Nell, Guard, I'm not going to interject to strongly here. However, I want to give perhaps a measure of rule to use when analyzing this stuff.

David, you have said that the previous X-Men films are not "perfect." As you know, like Nell, I do regard at least X2 as a near, if not a, perfect film. It's really a piece of art in many ways. Now, all films have flaws, like humans, thus when using the word perfect we're essentially rounding up to the most realistic denominator. I'm sure if neccessary Nell could find one or two things he'd prefer were different in X2. But this is the thing, imperfections are sometimes acceptable, hell sometimes they're good.

What you're essentially talking about is X3 as an imperfect movie. David, you're talking about it as an imperfect movie with acceptable imperfections. Nell, you're talking about it as an imperfect movie with unacceptable imperfections. And there in is the rub: you cannot blanket flaws or mistakes under one category of a film's inevitable imperfection. You have to take into account that there are some imperfections that are accpetable and some that are not. However, this is largely a matter of opinion, and thus long, verbose posts arguing back and forth are never going to accomplish much.

I know. There are also some imperfections that are more or less unavoidable, for various reasons. This is a big part of my point.

Here's the thing: I'm not trying to sway his opinion. That's not the issue at all. If he doesn't like what's been done to Cyclops, he doesn't like it. But simply because I might enjoy the scenes with Marsden and Cyclops, or see how it could work...I don't appreciate being labeled an "apologist". Any more so than anyone who likes certain elements of this film does. I'm pretty sure there will be stuff I do not enjoy in X3.

What you're essentially coming down to is how these character's all fall into ideas of what are acceptable and unacceptable imperfections in a film. Nell, you hold that Logan and Scott ar unacceptable imperfections, and I'm fairly certain that you hold them as unacceptable not because you just don't like it, but because it seems unneccessary. David, you find these alterations satisfying and acceptable due to their creative unneccessary natures -- the writer's are taking risk. Neither of you are more right or wrong than the other.

There is no right or wrong here. It's a matter of accpetable/unacceptable imperfections, that's all. Move on from there really...

I'm not arguing right or wrong. I'm just discussing WHY certain elements have occurred in the franchise.

And I would prefer not to be called an apologist, simply because of my stance on the Cyclops issue. It's rude, and there's really no basis for it. If he continues to call me one, then it shows a complete lack of understanding of me and my approach to things, and I will not bother further with someone who continues to deal in, as I mentioned before, ignorance and intolerance, on any level. Some things are black and white. Some things are not.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I apologize for the "apologist" comment.

It's just frustrating when I try to explain why certain changes are worse than others, in my opinion, and the only response I get back is "it's not the comics", as if one is out of place for expecting respect to be shown for the world and characters that are being adapted, just because it's a different medium.

I understand that these changes were made, and I will deal with them, and I won't let *this* ruin the rest of the movie for me.

What it will do, however, is disappoint the rest of the franchise for me.

Whenever I re-watch X2 (and trust me, it's quite often that I do so), the scene I anticipate the most is Jean's sacrifice. Because it pumps me up, because I know that something huge is coming. Something huge has been coming for 3 years.

And now, I've been *****slapped into next week with what's happening, and the events that will follow are not at all what I have been waiting for for 3 years.

Bosef hit it right on; it's not just that I don't personally dislike these changes... it's because, as he said, it's unneccessary. I HATED the change in Lady Deathstrike's character. Through the 1st 2 movies, it is the single worst inaccuracy in my mind. It still effects me to this day, and a billion viewings later, that Lady Deathstrike needs to be controlled to kill Wolverine... and that she has no past with Wolverine, whether through the comic origins or the cartoon origins.

Lady Deathstrike is a personal favorite of mine. I love the character, and was absolutley looking forward to seeing her in X2, only to be sorely disappointed. Utterly.

But I eventually got over it, because I see the reasoning for it, story-wise. It would add too much more to the plot to have to go back and explain her history with Wolverine, to explain why she had the procedure done, why she wants revenge, etc... It would have been amazing to have seen that arc play out (I prefer the cartoon version of them being former lovers), but it didn't, and I understand why.

But this, to me, is unneccesary storyline wise. There is already a very rich storyline to tell with the Phoenix... you don't need to dig and scratch and claw to find a reason to set Jean over the edge... it's already there. You don't need to dig and scratch and claw to find a good use of Marsden's limited time... it's already there. Probably enough to give him a lead role.

But I understand that in terms of B.O. #'s, Jackman > Marsden, and Wolverine > Cyclops

So I never expected Cyclops to be the lead character.

But I expected him to get some respect. To be able to play out his character arc with Jean, to see what he goes through over the course of her transformation. But ultimatley, we will never get to see him deal with it. It's not about wanting to see Cyclops bark orders, optic blast a Sentinel into smitherines, and snap Logan into order... it's about seeing what he goes through as he witnesses the woman he loves spiral out of control. And it was SO EASY!

And to do it, you still could have had the Famke & Hugh makeout scenes. You still could have had Dark Phoenix seducing Wolverine. You still could have had Marsden out for half the movie. Let Halle's Storm lead a bunch of X-Men against the cure (and of course have Wolverine tag along for the ride), and let Wolverine and Cyclops deal with Jean Grey.

Story-wise, it would have been very easy to incorporate, without making massive changes to what we have. Hardly anything major would have to be changed. Except for

Spoiler

Wolverine stabbing Phoenix to kill her

. And I'm more than sure that Marsden had enough time to shoot the scenes he needed to shoot.

But I won't get to see that. I won't get to see what was set up in X2. I'll see Cyclops killed as soon as Phoenix rises, and I'll see Wolverine dealing with her transformation. Not Cyclops.

Not only is it inaccurate to the source material, but it's inaccurate to the story that's been told in the previous movies. Jean's love was established many times over to be with Cyclops, and Wolverine even conceeded to Cyclops.

And the worst part is, that everything else, aside from Cyclops' treatment in X-Men 3, is perfect adaptation (again, in my opinion).

Wolverine is amazing. Magneto is easily my favorite character in the movies. Xavier is great. Cyclops was handled great (up to this point). Nightcrawler amazing. Beast appears to be amazing. The storylines told in this world were great stories.

That's what hurts so much, is that up to this point, everything has been the X-Men to a "T" in my mind, but this treatment is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and hamper the entire thing for me. The one thing, of all things in these movies, that probably should have had the most care in telling, as without a shadow of a doubt, the Phoenix Saga is the most beloved story that the movies have touched on. And yet, it's the most botched one.

The funny thing is, I'm not even a huge fan of the Phoenix Saga. The cartoons, it was never my favorite arc, and I think I own one issue that's part of the Phoenix Saga retconning.

So yea, this isn't even a personal favorite arc of mine. I just understand how important it is to the mythos of the X-Men, and how of all the stories touched upon, this shouldn't have been the one they botched.

 

[X-Maniac]

Nell, I think there has to be greater acceptance of change.

The movie version of Jean and Phoenix was never like the comics, not in X1 and X2, so it should come as no surprise that there are deviations n X3.

In X1, Jean was a doctor/geneticist (not in the comics) who was affected by either an unauthorised use of Cerebro (not in the comics) or by Magneto's machine (not in the comics). In X2, she fought a mentally-controlled Cyclops (not in the comics), and sacrificed herself to save the X-Men from a wall of water (not in the comics), while the novel had her going blind after the battle with Cyclops (not in the comics). Mastermind manipulated Xavier, not Jean, in X2 (not in the comics) and Mastermind died in the dam collapse (not in the comics).

In the comics version of the Phoenix saga, a manipulated Jean was ordered to attack Cyclops (she did, and said she could have killed him) and later Cyclops was 'killed' on the astral plane in a duel with Mastermind, an act which shocked Jean back to normality through the psychic rapport she had with Scott. When she went nuts as Dark Phoenix, she had no regard for Scott - she left earth, flew into space, then when she returned, it was Xavier who defeated her (aided by Jean's good side). Then they were beamed to the moon, where she killed herself when the Phoenix side of her emerged yet again. The point is that events have played out very differently every time they are told in another continuity.

Regrettably, Bryan took with him his ideas for X3 and then one of the actors who would have had a star part in it. That has created the one most controversial deviation in X3. With Cyclops out of the picture, something else was always going to happen. For Jean to sacrifice herself again would be a repeat of the end of X2, so we were always going to see something different to Scott's involvement (which was never really that strong in the comics) or Jean's self-sacrifice. I'm not justifying what has happened, but understanding the reasons for it. This could still be an excellent movie (seen in its own right as a film). Creative arguments do not stand up in the Cyclops debate because there were not creative reasons for what happened - they were practical and political.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I still have a hard time believing that these "parameters" (God I am starting to hate that word!) were to "Kill off Cyclops! We don't want him in our movie!"

Parameters, to me, implies "Wolverine is our most bankable character; Hugh Jackman our most bankable star. Keep him as the focus". Parameters, to me, says James can't be on set for the full length of the shoot, because he has other jobs he's working on. He'll need to take a cut in screentime.

None of that equals killing him off and giving him no role what-so-ever.

I believe that it was creative just as much (if not more-so) than it was political.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

And I'm just wondering why I keep being told I need to be more accepting of change...

I've made it VERY clear in my time on these boards this past year (at least I thought I did) that I've been VERY accepting of the changes the movies have made.

In fact, the whole Cyclops situation is the only change in the entire trilogy that I can't bring myself to fully accept. There may be other changes I don't neccesarily like (see Lady Deathstrike), but I accept them.

To me, this one is just too extreme. It's killing off a character who's never died. The leader of the X-Men. The physical embodiment of Xavier's dream. And in the movie in which the Phoenix is to be a part of... Jean Grey's lover.

I've already stated, since I saw X2 the very first time, for that midnight showing on the early morning hours of May 2nd, 2003, I have been waiting for X-Men 3 to see how Cyclops responds to Jean's resurrection.

When he says "You don't say that! We're gonna get her back!" I get a smirk on my face, knowing the destruction she's gonna cause, and the thought of him having to go through that as a character; witnessing the woman he loves die before his very eyes, only to be resurrected in front of his very eyes, and then witness her spiral out of control.

That's what X-Men 3 should have been in my eyes (along with a couple other things, that aren't nearly as bad, in my opinion), but it's not.

Scott is killed early, by the woman he lost, never to be mentioned again. He really is gone like a fart in the wind, and forgotten before he's even fully demolecularized.

And to add insult to injury, we were misled about the whole thing. We knew about the script review, we knew about Cyclops' death, but the writers still came to us and said "spoiler" when we asked about his fate. Instead of being honest with us and saying they killed him off, for whatever reason. They misled us.

Why keep saying "spoiler"? We KNEW it was going to happen! By not acknowledging it from the start, you only got our hopes up, and people like myself, and Worthy, began starting getting optimistic, after hearing them talk about how proud they were of Jimmy's performance, and how Cyclops fans will be proud, and how he has a few surprises, and seeing him in his uniform in promo shots, and even the contrivertial Cameron Bright photo.

All of it could have been avoided if they just acknowledged what we had already known since June of last year anyways

But, I of all people, as a Gambit fan, should have been prepared for it. I should have seen it coming.

Having had Gambit promised to me since X2, having the writers talk about him being "not a major character" (but still implies he is a character), and all the freaking secrecy they put us through for a character who supposedly was never in... only for it to be revealed that he was never in, I should have known that these people aren't beyond misleading us.

I should have know, after what I went through with Gambit, and all the deception surrounding his character, that it was all a smoke screen. That it was all damage control.

They knew they were doing a disservice to the fans, and so they misled us, to try to keep the negative attitude under control. They did it with Gambit, and now they did it with Cyclops.

I should have seen it coming.

 

[X-Maniac]

Parameters, to me, implies "Wolverine is our most bankable character; Hugh Jackman our most bankable star. Keep him as the focus". Parameters, to me, says James can't be on set for the full length of the shoot, because he has other jobs he's working on. He'll need to take a cut in screentime.

None of that equals killing him off and giving him no role what-so-ever.

I believe that it was creative just as much (if not more-so) than it was political.

But the reasons you gave are not creative - they were not what the screenwriters wanted, they were what they did within the confines they were given. Therefore, not creative. Political and practical, and also commercial - put Wolverine at the heart of it all (decided by Fox for commercial reasons), take Cyclops out of it because he's gone to SR (political) and will have limited availability (practical).

As you admitted you had not read the Phoenix saga in the comics, the changes should come as less of a jolt. X2 already set the scene for 'reduced Cyclops' and who is to know what Singer would have done (or been told to do, more than likely) with Cyclops in X3. Even if Singer had still been doing the movie, Fox might well have decided for commercial reasons to put Wolverine at the centre of the Phoenix saga. The fact that Wolverine did stab Jean in the New X-Men comics at least gives comic precedent for what he did - it's not completely out of the blue and invented, even if it does leave a sour taste with Cyclops fans.

 

[X-Maniac]

And I don't think we were 'misled' - they obviously weren't going to give vital plot details away. It's unfair to expect that. They were given strict terms to work with, and work with them is what they did.

Just a reminder:

Kinberg: As with every studio assignment, which is what this was, it wasn’t a spec script or something Zak and I dreamed up – it was an assignment to write the sequel to an adaptation of a comic book – we were given certain parameters about certain characters. Those parameters had to do with actor availability and/or studio politics. We worked within those parameters within the best of our ability to give those characters and those actors the best scenes we could write for them. And the most scenes we could write for them, because the truth is Zak and I more than anybody else – I can honestly say – more than anybody else in the process of making X3, Zak and I are the most religious fans of the comic books. We were looking not so much to protect the first two movies, although we wanted to honor the tone of those movies, but to protect the comic, and we were very precious about those characters because we have a different relationship to them than some people do.

 

[thegameq]

And I'm just wondering why I keep being told I need to be more accepting of change...

I've made it VERY clear in my time on these boards this past year (at least I thought I did) that I've been VERY accepting of the changes the movies have made.

In fact, the whole Cyclops situation is the only change in the entire trilogy that I can't bring myself to fully accept. There may be other changes I don't neccesarily like (see Lady Deathstrike), but I accept them.

To me, this one is just too extreme. It's killing off a character who's never died. The leader of the X-Men. The physical embodiment of Xavier's dream. And in the movie in which the Phoenix is to be a part of... Jean Grey's lover.

I've already stated, since I saw X2 the very first time, for that midnight showing on the early morning hours of May 2nd, 2003, I have been waiting for X-Men 3 to see how Cyclops responds to Jean's resurrection.

When he says "You don't say that! We're gonna get her back!" I get a smirk on my face, knowing the destruction she's gonna cause, and the thought of him having to go through that as a character; witnessing the woman he loves die before his very eyes, only to be resurrected in front of his very eyes, and then witness her spiral out of control.

That's what X-Men 3 should have been in my eyes (along with a couple other things, that aren't nearly as bad, in my opinion), but it's not.

Scott is killed early, by the woman he lost, never to be mentioned again. He really is gone like a fart in the wind, and forgotten before he's even fully demolecularized.

And to add insult to injury, we were misled about the whole thing. We knew about the script review, we knew about Cyclops' death, but the writers still came to us and said "spoiler" when we asked about his fate. Instead of being honest with us and saying they killed him off, for whatever reason. They misled us.

Why keep saying "spoiler"? We KNEW it was going to happen! By not acknowledging it from the start, you only got our hopes up, and people like myself, and Worthy, began starting getting optimistic, after hearing them talk about how proud they were of Jimmy's performance, and how Cyclops fans will be proud, and how he has a few surprises, and seeing him in his uniform in promo shots, and even the contrivertial Cameron Bright photo.

All of it could have been avoided if they just acknowledged what we had already known since June of last year anyways

But, I of all people, as a Gambit fan, should have been prepared for it. I should have seen it coming.

Having had Gambit promised to me since X2, having the writers talk about him being "not a major character" (but still implies he is a character), and all the freaking secrecy they put us through for a character who supposedly was never in... only for it to be revealed that he was never in, I should have known that these people aren't beyond misleading us.

I should have know, after what I went through with Gambit, and all the deception surrounding his character, that it was all a smoke screen. That it was all damage control.

They knew they were doing a disservice to the fans, and so they misled us, to try to keep the negative attitude under control. They did it with Gambit, and now they did it with Cyclops.

I should have seen it coming.

I feel for you man. Welcome to the pain of the comicbook fan.

 

[The Guard]

apologize for the "apologist" comment.

Apology accepted.

It's just frustrating when I try to explain why certain changes are worse than others, in my opinion, and the only response I get back is "it's not the comics", as if one is out of place for expecting respect to be shown for the world and characters that are being adapted, just because it's a different medium.

I don't think you need to get frustrated over my lack of understanding. I absolutely get your point. But in some ways, you're missing my point. It's not just "this isn't the comics". The response you're getting back from me is "I understand. And I agree. But there's nothing we can do about it, and we had no control over it in the first place, and there are reasons it happened beyond 'the writers and studio don't care', so be upset, but try to enjoy the movie and these aspects of the movie in the context of this franchise". And that context, is that this is not the comics, so expecting them to be slavishly faithful to their essence is just not realistic.

Whenever I re-watch X2 (and trust me, it's quite often that I do so), the scene I anticipate the most is Jean's sacrifice. Because it pumps me up, because I know that something huge is coming. Something huge has been coming for 3 years.

And now, I've been *****slapped into next week with what's happening, and the events that will follow are not at all what I have been waiting for for 3 years.

*****slapped how? Did you honestly not see it coming? This is a disappointment you're going to have to deal with. While I fully expected to see Dark Phoenix explored after X2, I didn't expect to see a certain storyline about Phoenix (as we hadn't seen a certain storyline of the X-Men), or Cyclops to play a certain role in the film. I'd hoped he would, obviously, but I also realized he would have a smaller role due to Beast, Angel, Gambit, and whoever was introduced in X3 along with the story.

But this, to me, is unneccesary storyline wise. There is already a very rich storyline to tell with the Phoenix... you don't need to dig and scratch and claw to find a reason to set Jean over the edge... it's already there. You don't need to dig and scratch and claw to find a good use of Marsden's limited time... it's already there. Probably enough to give him a lead role.

Absolutely it's unneccessary. There are reasons it's happening, and they go way beyond "Wolverine is the star".

So I never expected Cyclops to be the lead character. But I expected him to get some respect. To be able to play out his character arc with Jean, to see what he goes through over the course of her transformation. But ultimatley, we will never get to see him deal with it. It's not about wanting to see Cyclops bark orders, optic blast a Sentinel into smitherines, and snap Logan into order... it's about seeing what he goes through as he witnesses the woman he loves spiral out of control. And it was SO EASY!

Again, had Marsden been AROUND, this would be a valid expectation. But it's not easy when your Cyclops actor has schedule conflicts, obviously.

And to do it, you still could have had the Famke & Hugh makeout scenes. You still could have had Dark Phoenix seducing Wolverine. You still could have had Marsden out for half the movie. Let Halle's Storm lead a bunch of X-Men against the cure (and of course have Wolverine tag along for the ride), and let Wolverine and Cyclops deal with Jean Grey.

Absolutely. That's how I would have done it, too. And had James Marsden been available for filming, this might have been possible. I'm pretty sure that when they say his schedule didn't allow for it, his schedule didn't allow for it.

Story-wise, it would have been very easy to incorporate, without making massive changes to what we have. Hardly anything major would have to be changed. Except for Wolverine stabbing Phoenix to kill her. And I'm more than sure that Marsden had enough time to shoot the scenes he needed to shoot.

He may have had TIME to do so (a block of time). What he didn't have was the CORRESPONDING SCHEDULE. As I've said before, you do not schedule a film around ONE actor. It's incredibly silly. Generally, the actors fit the film into THEIR schedule, not the other way around. Now, James Marsden may have had a month off, let's say January (I know it didn't film then, but bear with me). Let's say that the Phoenix Rising scene (and all that was involved) was to be shot in January, and James was available in January only. Now let's say they scheduled and planned to shoot the final battle in March, when Ian, Hugh, Famke, etc were available but when James wasn't available, and couldn't shoot the final battle in January because they had to shoot several other KEY scenes with other actors in January. See what I'm getting at?

Not only is it inaccurate to the source material, but it's inaccurate to the story that's been told in the previous movies. Jean's love was established many times over to be with Cyclops, and Wolverine even conceeded to Cyclops.

How is it inaccurate to the stories told in previous movies? What makes you think we won't see Scott and Jean's love in this movie? From what I understand, their love still takes precedent. Dark Phoenix tries to seduce Wolverine, not Jean.

That's what hurts so much, is that up to this point, everything has been the X-Men to a "T" in my mind, but this treatment is going to stick out like a sore thumb, and hamper the entire thing for me.

Only if you let it.

In X1, Jean was a doctor/geneticist (not in the comics) who was affected by either an unauthorised use of Cerebro (not in the comics) or by Magneto's machine (not in the comics). In X2, she fought a mentally-controlled Cyclops (not in the comics), and sacrificed herself to save the X-Men from a wall of water (not in the comics), while the novel had her going blind after the battle with Cyclops (not in the comics). Mastermind manipulated Xavier, not Jean, in X2 (not in the comics) and Mastermind died in the dam collapse (not in the comics).

In the comics version of the Phoenix saga, a manipulated Jean was ordered to attack Cyclops (she did, and said she could have killed him) and later Cyclops was 'killed' on the astral plane in a duel with Mastermind, an act which shocked Jean back to normality through the psychic rapport she had with Scott. When she went nuts as Dark Phoenix, she had no regard for Scott - she left earth, flew into space, then when she returned, it was Xavier who defeated her (aided by Jean's good side). Then they were beamed to the moon, where she killed herself when the Phoenix side of her emerged yet again. The point is that events have played out very differently every time they are told in another continuity.

Absolutely. These stories are incredibly different in even basic plot points.

I'm not justifying what has happened, but understanding the reasons for it.

Exactly.

I still have a hard time believing that these "parameters" (God I am starting to hate that word!) were to "Kill off Cyclops! We don't want him in our movie!"

Parameters, to me, implies "Wolverine is our most bankable character; Hugh Jackman our most bankable star. Keep him as the focus". Parameters, to me, says James can't be on set for the full length of the shoot, because he has other jobs he's working on. He'll need to take a cut in screentime.

None of that equals killing him off and giving him no role what-so-ever.
I believe that it was creative just as much (if not more-so) than it was political.

You believe that the writers, clearly comic book fans, simply felt like killing of Cyclops because they were too lazy to come up with something else?
The "Wolverine needs a bigger role" thing is the political aspect. Now think about the practical. "Simon, Zak, there's no easy way to say this...James is only going to be available for shooting in January. He's shooting SUPERMAN RETURNS from December to April, and Bryan and WB have been kind enough to let us have him for January. Now, as you know, we planned to shoot Magneto's truck scenes, half of the Jean/Charles/Magneto stuff, and much of the middle of the movie during that month. So you need to find a way to get Jimmy into the movie in a decent role, but he unfortunately won't be available for the final battle, which, as you know, we're shooting in March".

To me, this one is just too extreme. It's killing off a character who's never died.

So it's...a change. A bigger change, but in essence, it's a change. One that seems to fit right into this franchise.

The leader of the X-Men. The physical embodiment of Xavier's dream. And in the movie in which the Phoenix is to be a part of... Jean Grey's lover.

I understand that.But he's been the leader of the X-Men. Nothing's going to change that. He's been Jean Grey's lover. Nothing's going to change that. And he's been the physical embodiment of Xavier's dream.Nothing's going to change that. All that is changing is the details of his "final" role in the movie version of the mythos (which may not be permanent), and they are changing because of James Marsden's scheduling conflicts.
.

And to add insult to injury, we were misled about the whole thing. We knew about the script review, we knew about Cyclops' death, but the writers still came to us and said "spoiler" when we asked about his fate. Instead of being honest with us and saying they killed him off, for whatever reason. They misled us.

Why keep saying "spoiler"?

Because they get fined if they reveal plot points. It's a standard studio contract.

We KNEW it was going to happen! By not acknowledging it from the start, you only got our hopes up, and people like myself, and Worthy, began starting getting optimistic, after hearing them talk about how proud they were of Jimmy's performance, and how Cyclops fans will be proud, and how he has a few surprises, and seeing him in his uniform in promo shots, and even the contrivertial Cameron Bright photo.

Much of that is controversy fans made for themselves, rather than looking at the facts. Thing is...Cyclops fans should be proud of James Marsden, and he probably does have a few surprises (to those who don't seek out every bit of spoilerish information about the film).

All of it could have been avoided if they just acknowledged what we had already known since June of last year anyways.

Would you like to be fined god knows how much for breaking the terms of your contract?

But, I of all people, as a Gambit fan, should have been prepared for it. I should have seen it coming.

Having had Gambit promised to me since X2, having the writers talk about him being "not a major character" (but still implies he is a character), and all the freaking secrecy they put us through for a character who supposedly was never in... only for it to be revealed that he was never in, I should have known that these people aren't beyond misleading us.

I don't think "changing their minds" equals "misleading".

I should have know, after what I went through with Gambit, and all the deception surrounding his character, that it was all a smoke screen. That it was all damage control. They knew they were doing a disservice to the fans, and so they misled us, to try to keep the negative attitude under control. They did it with Gambit, and now they did it with Cyclops.

Why is it "damage control"? Find me a quote where either of them says "Cyclops does not die, and he has a huge role in the film",, and I'll believe you about them trying to keep a negative attitude under control. There's nothing TO control. FOX doesn't care that much about us, or our "impact" on this film's market. I mean, do you honestly think the studio cares that much about how you or any other fan feels about Cyclops and Gambit beyond the tiny PR aspect it allows them? The writers aren't out there to do "damage control". They're there to answer questions about the nature of the characters within the limits of what they CAN answer, due to their contracts.

As such, they've been pretty straightforward about Gambit for almost a year now. And they've never lied about Cyclops. They've always said he had a smaller role, and that it was a potent one. They've simply not been able to divulge certain information. And have made it obvious that he had a small role, just not been able to provide the details of it.

 

[BMM]

Nell, I think there has to be greater acceptance of change.

The movie version of Jean and Phoenix was never like the comics, not in X1 and X2, so it should come as no surprise that there are deviations n X3.

In X1, Jean was a doctor/geneticist (not in the comics) who was affected by either an unauthorised use of Cerebro (not in the comics) or by Magneto's machine (not in the comics). In X2, she fought a mentally-controlled Cyclops (not in the comics), and sacrificed herself to save the X-Men from a wall of water (not in the comics), while the novel had her going blind after the battle with Cyclops (not in the comics). Mastermind manipulated Xavier, not Jean, in X2 (not in the comics) and Mastermind died in the dam collapse (not in the comics).

I wouldn't go so far as to include additional changes in the novelization as determining effective deviations between the actual film and the source material--because the deviations used in the novel don't even apply to the film and therefore don't apply to the argument that the film itself is different from the source material . . .

. . . but I agree with the crux of your argument (of course the movies won't be exactly like the comics), although I think your example deviates from Nell's original contention. To me, his argument seems to be more about changing the essence of the character rather than simply changing plot points or minor details--and I think for him, therein lies the problem with the Cyclops/Wolverine/Dark Phoenix Saga issue. It changes or disregards the essence of the characters. Yes, the changes may work, but once you start to discount the essence of the characters and who they are, then it kind of becomes a question of, "what's the point of translating it at all?"

For instance Jean being called Dr. Grey doesn’t change who the character is or what she represents. Likewise, whether or not Jean’s becoming the Phoenix is a result of Cerebro or Magneto’s machine, Jean still becomes Phoenix and maintains all the qualities that are both Jean Grey and Phoenix. Again, the battle between Cyclops and Jean never occurs in the comics, but the purpose of the battle is simply to demonstrate that Jean’s powers are growing beyond her (like in the comics). Also no, in the comics, Jean does not sacrifice herself to stop a wall of water from destroying her friends, but she does sacrifice herself to stop a wave of radiation from destroying her friends. Regardless, both demonstrate the essence of Jean’s character—that she is willing to do whatever it takes, including giving up her life, to save the ones she loves—and she does this in both the films and the comics (and in a faithful display, both result in her rising as the Phoenix from the water).

I think the difficulty in the acceptance of some of the changes in X3 is more because it begins to deviate from the essence of who the characters are and their relationships with one another. The essence of the Dark Phoenix Saga ultimately revolves around the love between Jean and Scott, and the question of how far a person is willing to go to save the one he/she loves. Jean’s love for Cyclops is her anchor and always has been—not her love for Wolverine (this notion is even present in her conversation in X2. She loves Scott not Logan—“I love him [Cyclops]. Girls only flirt with the bad guy Logan, they don’t take him home). Her undying love for Cyclops is the reason she was never able to kill him in the Dark Phoenix Saga—i.e. her rapport that keeps him alive even when he is stabbed on the Astral Plane, her freeing him at the Hellfire Club despite the fact that she is overwhelmed by her power, and ultimately it is her love for Cyclops (and his love for her) that makes her realize that she must be stopped and that she is the only one who can stop herself.

In X3, however, this is essentially gone. Contrary to the essence of her character, Jean’s love for Cyclops is of the extent that she is simply willing to kill him without a second thought. She is hardly anchored by his love, as his undying love via his actions is no longer there (His actions, the essence of his character, are gone and can't be there because he’s dead). The overall essence of their love, their story, is gone. Instead, X3 serves to champion Wolverine and his love for Jean. Wolverine has effectively replaced Cyclops, and therein (I think) lies the problem. Of course fans expect that there be changes between the comics and the films. I think this change, however, is a bit more significant to some, than simply adding the title “Dr.” to Jean Grey.

Should fans accept it? Perhaps. But this doesn’t mean that their concerns are unfounded, or along the same lines of simple plot deviations that do little to change the nature of the character (a la Jean in X-men and X2). I think the writers even acknowledge this notion as well, via their apologies concerning parameters and their acknowledgements of the messy studio political system sometimes wanting to say, “‘We agree with you. **** the system, this is ****ed up!. I would be pissed too.’” So overall, I don’t think the magnitude of deviations are quite the same. Maybe there should be a wider level of acceptance, but I think for some, it appears there’s only so much you can compromise before what you like stops maintaining the essence of what you liked about it in the first place—and I think for some the loss or deviation of the essence of Cyclops and Jean’s story seems to be it.

 

[Cyclops]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's going to take one hell of an awesome movie not to have the whole thing ruined by the senseless killing of my favorite character.

 

[x3xCyclopsx3x]

I agree with Cyclops

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I wouldn't go so far as to include additional changes in the novelization as determining effective deviations between the actual film and the source material--because the deviations used in the novel don't even apply to the film and therefore don't apply to the argument that the film itself is different from the source material . . .

. . . but I agree with the crux of your argument (of course the movies won't be exactly like the comics), although I think your example deviates from Nell's original contention. To me, his argument seems to be more about changing the essence of the character rather than simply changing plot points or minor details--and I think for him, therein lies the problem with the Cyclops/Wolverine/Dark Phoenix Saga issue. It changes or disregards the essence of the characters. Yes, the changes may work, but once you start to discount the essence of the characters and who they are, then it kind of becomes a question of, "what's the point of translating it at all?"

For instance Jean being called Dr. Grey doesn’t change who the character is or what she represents. Likewise, whether or not Jean’s becoming the Phoenix is a result of Cerebro or Magneto’s machine, Jean still becomes Phoenix and maintains all the qualities that are both Jean Grey and Phoenix. Again, the battle between Cyclops and Jean never occurs in the comics, but the purpose of the battle is simply to demonstrate that Jean’s powers are growing beyond her (like in the comics). Also no, in the comics, Jean does not sacrifice herself to stop a wall of water from destroying her friends, but she does sacrifice herself to stop a wave of radiation from destroying her friends. Regardless, both demonstrate the essence of Jean’s character—that she is willing to do whatever it takes, including giving up her life, to save the ones she loves—and she does this in both the films and the comics (and in a faithful display, both result in her rising as the Phoenix from the water).

I think the difficulty in the acceptance of some of the changes in X3 is more because it begins to deviate from the essence of who the characters are and their relationships with one another. The essence of the Dark Phoenix Saga ultimately revolves around the love between Jean and Scott, and the question of how far a person is willing to go to save the one he/she loves. Jean’s love for Cyclops is her anchor and always has been—not her love for Wolverine (this notion is even present in her conversation in X2. She loves Scott not Logan—“I love him [Cyclops]. Girls only flirt with the bad guy Logan, they don’t take him home). Her undying love for Cyclops is the reason she was never able to kill him in the Dark Phoenix Saga—i.e. her rapport that keeps him alive even when he is stabbed on the Astral Plane, her freeing him at the Hellfire Club despite the fact that she is overwhelmed by her power, and ultimately it is her love for Cyclops (and his love for her) that makes her realize that she must be stopped and that she is the only one who can stop herself.

In X3, however, this is essentially gone. Contrary to the essence of her character, Jean’s love for Cyclops is of the extent that she is simply willing to kill him without a second thought. She is hardly anchored by his love, as his undying love via his actions is no longer there (His actions, the essence of his character, are gone and can't be there because he’s dead). The overall essence of their love, their story, is gone. Instead, X3 serves to champion Wolverine and his love for Jean. Wolverine has effectively replaced Cyclops, and therein (I think) lies the problem. Of course fans expect that there be changes between the comics and the films. I think this change, however, is a bit more significant to some, than simply adding the title “Dr.” to Jean Grey.

Should fans accept it? Perhaps. But this doesn’t mean that their concerns are unfounded, or along the same lines of simple plot deviations that do little to change the nature of the character (a la Jean in X-men and X2). I think the writers even acknowledge this notion as well, via their apologies concerning parameters and their acknowledgements of the messy studio political system sometimes wanting to say, “‘We agree with you. **** the system, this is ****ed up!. I would be pissed too.’” So overall, I don’t think the magnitude of deviations are quite the same. Maybe there should be a wider level of acceptance, but I think for some, it appears there’s only so much you can compromise before what you like stops maintaining the essence of what you liked about it in the first place—and I think for some the loss or deviation of the essence of Cyclops and Jean’s story seems to be it.

Get out of my head!

You took the thoughts right out of my head and put them into words better than I ever could.

Here is my favorite part right here:

"Maybe there should be a wider level of acceptance, but I think for some, it appears there’s only so much you can compromise before what you like stops maintaining the essence of what you liked about it in the first place—and I think for some the loss or deviation of the essence of Cyclops and Jean’s story seems to be it. "

 

[Octoberist]

I want to write a novel in this thread

 

[Jager X]

all i have to say is this movie has more rape bruises than tina turner:

 

[X-Maniac]

I wouldn't go so far as to include additional changes in the novelization as determining effective deviations between the actual film and the source material--because the deviations used in the novel don't even apply to the film and therefore don't apply to the argument that the film itself is different from the source material . . .

Yes...and no... The novelization deviations show that there are several versions of events. In fact, we have versions that differ in: Uncanny X-Men, New X-Men, Astonishing X-Men, Ultimate X-Men, Fox 90s cartoon, X-Men Evolution cartoon, X-Men movies, X-Men novelisation, X-Men graphic novel of movies...

. . . but I agree with the crux of your argument (of course the movies won't be exactly like the comics), although I think your example deviates from Nell's original contention. To me, his argument seems to be more about changing the essence of the character rather than simply changing plot points or minor details--and I think for him, therein lies the problem with the Cyclops/Wolverine/Dark Phoenix Saga issue. It changes or disregards the essence of the characters. Yes, the changes may work, but once you start to discount the essence of the characters and who they are, then it kind of becomes a question of, "what's the point of translating it at all

Nell doesn't know the original comicbook story. He said so on here. He just doesn't want Jean's love to die like that and not be in the movie for longer.
But from the moment Rogue stepped on screen as an insecure teenager in X1, you knew we were in for changes all the way. Big changes. And this is nothing to do with 'essence' of characters - Cyclops in X3 appears to have the same 'essence' he had beforehand. Dark Phoenix totally has the essence of that character. This isn't to do with essence, this is to do with desired/expected placement/dominance in the storyline.

The love between Jean and Scott was not central to the Phoenix saga in Uncanny X-Men. It was a tale of one person's power, manipulation and corruption. Jean briefly snapped out of 'Black Queen' mode when Cyclops was psychically killed by Mastermind on the astral plane, then she went off into Dark Phoenix mode and attacked all the X-Men. Eventually, she sacrificed herself on the moon - she told him she loved him and thgat her death was the only way. We got the essence of that at the end of X2. After that he left the X-Men, which is what we get at the start of X3.

His death is shocking, yes..... But studio politics and actor availability were behind that. How would it have played out if he hadn't died? Jean couldn't just sacrifice herself again - we had that at the end of X2?

For instance Jean being called Dr. Grey doesn’t change who the character is or what she represents. Likewise, whether or not Jean’s becoming the Phoenix is a result of Cerebro or Magneto’s machine, Jean still becomes Phoenix and maintains all the qualities that are both Jean Grey and Phoenix. Again, the battle between Cyclops and Jean never occurs in the comics, but the purpose of the battle is simply to demonstrate that Jean’s powers are growing beyond her (like in the comics). Also no, in the comics, Jean does not sacrifice herself to stop a wall of water from destroying her friends, but she does sacrifice herself to stop a wave of radiation from destroying her friends. Regardless, both demonstrate the essence of Jean’s character—that she is willing to do whatever it takes, including giving up her life, to save the ones she loves—and she does this in both the films and the comics (and in a faithful display, both result in her rising as the Phoenix from the water).

I don't think the scene with the wall of water is meant to be equivalent only to the solar radiation. The radiation in the comics (which evolved her) becomes the radiation from Magneto's machine. Jean didn't sacrifice herself to the solar radiation - she was trying to get everyone back to earth safely, her shields failed, the radiation seeped through, it was an unintended sacrifice which she survived, re-emerging as Phoenix. The movies have taken certain elements and mixed them into an entirely new storyline. The movie version of the Phoenix saga is entirely different.

I think the difficulty in the acceptance of some of the changes in X3 is more because it begins to deviate from the essence of who the characters are and their relationships with one another. The essence of the Dark Phoenix Saga ultimately revolves around the love between Jean and Scott, and the question of how far a person is willing to go to save the one he/she loves. Jean’s love for Cyclops is her anchor and always has been—not her love for Wolverine (this notion is even present in her conversation in X2. She loves Scott not Logan—“I love him [Cyclops]. Girls only flirt with the bad guy Logan, they don’t take him home). Her undying love for Cyclops is the reason she was never able to kill him in the Dark Phoenix Saga—i.e. her rapport that keeps him alive even when he is stabbed on the Astral Plane, her freeing him at the Hellfire Club despite the fact that she is overwhelmed by her power, and ultimately it is her love for Cyclops (and his love for her) that makes her realize that she must be stopped and that she is the only one who can stop herself.

Not really. Her love for Cyclops has nothing to do with why she kills herself. The Phoenis begins to emerge again on the moon, and she realises her power cannot be rstrained, that it is destructive and unstoppable.

In X3, however, this is essentially gone. Contrary to the essence of her character, Jean’s love for Cyclops is of the extent that she is simply willing to kill him without a second thought. She is hardly anchored by his love, as his undying love via his actions is no longer there (His actions, the essence of his character, are gone and can't be there because he’s dead). The overall essence of their love, their story, is gone. Instead, X3 serves to champion Wolverine and his love for Jean. Wolverine has effectively replaced Cyclops, and therein (I think) lies the problem. Of course fans expect that there be changes between the comics and the films. I think this change, however, is a bit more significant to some, than simply adding the title “Dr.” to Jean Grey..

But is she willing to kill him without a second thought? Surely this is portrayed as an accident, that she thinks she can control his optic blasts, but her onw control is unstable and unpredictable.

Should fans accept it? Perhaps. But this doesn’t mean that their concerns are unfounded, or along the same lines of simple plot deviations that do little to change the nature of the character (a la Jean in X-men and X2). I think the writers even acknowledge this notion as well, via their apologies concerning parameters and their acknowledgements of the messy studio political system sometimes wanting to say, “‘We agree with you. **** the system, this is ****ed up!. I would be pissed too.’” So overall, I don’t think the magnitude of deviations are quite the same. Maybe there should be a wider level of acceptance, but I think for some, it appears there’s only so much you can compromise before what you like stops maintaining the essence of what you liked about it in the first place—and I think for some the loss or deviation of the essence of Cyclops and Jean’s story seems to be it.

I think many of the essential elements are there - mutation, corruption, lack of control, sacrifice, redemption... She looked like Phoenix in X2 and seems to look like Dark Phoenix in X3. Given the studio politics, we are getting a fairly representative story.

 

[Avalanche]

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

In fairness, many other reviewers have.

 

[thegameq]

all i have to say is this movie has more rape bruises than tina turner:

LOL!........oh wait that's sorta not funny. Doh!

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

No, Guard, I said I didn't -read- the story.

I still know the basics of the story, even if I haven't read it myself to know the details.