Addressing some concerns, and X3 as a film

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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

Exactly.

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.

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?