Addressing some concerns, and X3 as a film

[The Guard]

I have no further interest in discussing why the nature of Cyclops' role in the mythos has ended up different than the comics, at least in this thread. I've said my piece on that, and I'm sure I'll say it again when the film is released. It seems pretty obvious to me that a huge part of that is James Marsden's SUPERMAN RETURNS scheduling. I will address some other points, though.

. . . 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?"

The thing is, X3 does not change the essence of the characters, or even the essence of their relationship (after all, it's not like they neccessarily "end up together" after the Phoenix Saga in the comics). What has gone before (which did fit into the essenceof their relationship) does not just get erased by the events of X3. Jean still sacrificed herself for Scott and her friends. Scott grieved over her, to the point where he became unfocused, and was ready to give up the life of an X-Man, at least for a while.
What X3 changes is the characters' relationship to the mythos. Which has been done since X-MEN, and since these aren't the comics to begin with, what's the point in worrying about how close their character's role in the movie franchise comes to his/her role in the comic book mythology if the essence has been the same, which is supposedly what people want to see?
I suspect some people simply want to see something more faithful in terms of character role in relation to the comic books, and that's fine (albeit unrealistic at this point).
I've answered the "what's the point of "translating it at all" question. Because there are elements that ARE being translated (as you've pointed out, fairly faithfully, at least to the essence of the characters), and because there is value to what IS being translated, and how it relates to the movie franchise.

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.

Whoever said she kills him on purpose? As I understand it, it's played like an accident, or her powers going out of control.

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).

That's true. And with Cyclops gone, what is she anchored by? Nothing. Hence, she becomes Dark Phoenix. Hence, she was clearly anchored by his love in his mythos Aha! Therefore, that element of the mythology remains intact in this franchise.

The overall essence of their love, their story, is gone.

And by essence you mean the fact that Scott plays a part in the hunt for Phoenix, and the final "psychotic killing machine, please stop killing people. I love you." speech where she changes back to Jean? Because if you're saying that Scott being her anchor has disappeared, that's not correct. Obviously he IS her anchor, because when he dies, she goes psycho.

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.

I don't think X3 "champions" anything. If Wolverine was ending the movie with Jean Grey having declared her love for him over Scott, I would agree. If Wolverine was ending the movie marrying Jean, I'd agree. Is he replacing Scott as a leader? Yes...since Scott is dead. Which strikes me as a fairly logical move, and kind of neccessary with Marsden unavailable. It's not that hard to see Storm and Wolverine as the leaders of the X-Men in this franchise. Is it a deviation from the comics? Yes, but that's what this entire franchise has been. And nothing says it's permanent.

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 don't know if fans need "accept" it, but I don't think they need to poo poo every aspect of it, simply because it's different than the comics. I don't believe I ever indicated that Scott's role in this franchise is a small deviation from the comics, or that it should be viewed as such. It's an enormous one. It's also, and forgive me for saying this, because I know how this will be seen, but considering the way Cyclops has been written and portrayed thus far, while not the most welcome scenario, a logical one. I.E, what has been done with Scott can absolutely work in the context of THIS mythology, where he and Jean are essentially tragedies. But while his ROLE has changed, the essence of his role has remained and will remain intact. He was the leader of the X-Men. He loved Jean Grey, and she him, to the point where she sacrificed her life for him and the others. He loved Xavier's dream, and wanted to carry on with it. And it's not like he might not be back in the future. I continue to wonder why this franchise that isn't THAT faithful to the comics to begin with keeps getting judged on how close it is to them. These are good movies. With logical storylines (rare in a comic book film), and modest character development.

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.

See, if one has no attachment to the original source material, then this kind of helps prove my point: Why the COMPLETE lack of acceptance? I'm not saying "Don't wish it had been different". I think we all wish that.

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.

Yes. Very well said. And again, this is what my point is based on. If you make exceptions for every other "expected placement/dominance", why is this one the one that you can't handle?

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.

Exactly. It's not the way it happened in the comics, but a LOT of those elements have been seen, albeit not in the same order. This is why I keep saying "This is not the Dark Phoenix Saga".

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?

I imagine she would have had to have been killed, either by Wolverine, or by Cyclops.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Yup. Especially when you take the events of X2 into account and how those relate to the overall mythology. The details have changed, as have the characters involved in them, not the essence or the themes. But then, many of the details have been changed about almost everything in this franchise.

In fairness, many other reviewers have.

Where? As I recall, most of those who *****ed about pacing were fanboys who were panicking over it.

Do you people honestly not understand the concept of "available for some scenes" and "not available for most scenes"?

Seriously...it's not that hard to grasp. Unless it can be proven that he was indeed not shooting SUPERMAN RETURNS when the "final battle" was shot, then the "scheduling" explanation absolutely holds water. Anyone know the dates of the shooting and so forth?

 

[BMM]

I’ve already responded to most of your agreements with X-Maniac in a subsequent post and don’t feel the need to do it again as I, like you, am growing tired of debating this issue. Also, the issue became more of debate about whether Cyclops and Jean’s love was a factor in the Dark Phoenix Saga (to which X-Maniac stated that Jean and Scott’s love for one another was not central to the Dark Phoenix Saga—to which I debated otherwise) and how this factor corresponds to the essence of the Dark Phoenix Saga.

Clearly, you and others are going to have a difference of opinion because you seem to feel this is not the Dark Phoenix Saga as noted by your statement:

Exactly. It's not the way it happened in the comics, but a LOT of those elements have been seen, albeit not in the same order. This is why I keep saying "This is not the Dark Phoenix Saga".

Whether you mean this as a literal translation or not, I don’t know. Regardless, others appear to feel that this movie is representative of the Dark Phoenix Saga in some form or another (regardless of order). That being said, I have already drawn parallels between X-Maniac’s examples and how they are representative of Jean’s actions in the Phoenix Saga and not so much the Dark Phoenix Saga.

Despite the events, and the order in which they occur, X3 appears to be translating the occurrences of the Dark Phoenix Saga (surely Ms. Janssen isn’t confusingly wasting her breath in press junkets referring to herself as the Dark Phoenix for no reason). That being said, I also noted that people are upset moreso over the essence of the relationship of Cyclops and Jean and how it transpires within the confines of the Dark Phoenix Saga . . . because you do not believe this to be the "Dark Phoenix Saga," you obviously will be approaching this notion from a different angle. Again, I’ve already gone over Cyclops and Jean’s relationship in a previous post and how it relates to the said story and don’t feel the need to go over it again.

You note that Cyclops serves as Jean’s anchor and that his death results in her going out of control (thus proving the essence of his anchor concept). I would agree with this except that it is shown that Jean is clearly already a different person when she wakes up in the infirmary and attempts to mount Wolverine while scratching him to death. She isn’t even aware that she has killed Cyclops until later reminded by Logan . . . even then she says she doesn’t want to go back to who she was because she has been set free . . . thus, Cyclops’ death appears to play little in her transformation into Dark Phoenix and her loss of control, as she is already out of control without even being cognizant of the fact that she has destroyed her one true love. In other words, she appears to be anchorless before even being knowledgeable of the fact that she has destroyed her one and only supposed anchor.

As noted earlier, I agreed with X-Maniac in believing that this translation maintains a vast amount of the same factors as the original story. There, however, is one central idea missing (which seems to not resonate with a lot of people), and that is this issue of Cyclops and Jean, and their love for one another and the lengths each is wiling to go to save the other. As I pointed out to X-Maniac, if you can honestly go through and re-read the Dark Phoenix Saga and remove Cyclops from every panel and everything entailing his involvement with Jean, and feel it still maintains the essence of the Dark Phoenix Saga, then kudos to you. I suppose that is, if you feel X3 is indeed representative of the Dark Phoenix Saga. If not, then it is obvious you and others are going to approach this issue differently and aren’t going to be able to reach common ground.

Also, you wanted a legitimate post regarding complaints concerning the pacing of the movie, so I present to you Variety . . . not simply an angry fanboy.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930584?categoryId=31&cs=1

“Where Singer brought a lingering resonance to even the series' quietest moments, Ratner seems primarily concerned with breadth and speed. (At 105 minutes, pic is a half hour shorter than its predecessor.) There's a rushed, disorganized feel to the narrative, which drops and picks up subplots at random, and has no compunction about bumping off veteran characters while introducing a host of new ones.”