After watching X1 and X2 again recently.....

IMO, I do not think I would have liked Singer's version of X3 b/c I didn't like the first two films. I thought X1 was boring and it only show cased Wolverine & Rogue. As far as I am concerned Rogue has had her screen time so, she didn't need to be in the fore front anymore.

Therefore, I saw alot of problems with X2 as well. I had noticed that if Singer liked the actor then he made sure that they had a longer screen time. Example, Mystique had a larger role in X2 and I still cannot understand why she would need so much screen time. It is not like Rebecca is a good actress b/c we all know that she is just a ex-model turned actress.

However, the only thing I will agree with is the running time of the movie. I will admit that I am disappointed that the movie is only 1 hr 43 mins. I would have liked that movie to be at two hours but, I know some scenes were cut out so that will leave the running time under two hours.

Also, I cannot understand why everyone puts so much faith in Singer b/c I have never thought that he did a good job with the first two X films. I saw so many things that were not true to the comic book and it really turned me off towards the first two movies.

Futhermore, I think Singer is going too wish that he stayed with Fox when Superman is released b/c that movie is not going to do so well at the box office. As for my last comment if anyone has seen the trailers for Superman then I do not need to go on.
 
whats with all the singer praise?? he made the x-world real....
whats the FUN in that?! its a FANTASY!
there are of course good scenes within the first two movies, but as a whole i never felt like i was watching x-men. and it always seems like 'sequences' in the movies. here comes the nightcrawler 'sequence' the dam 'sequence.'
he really didnt care about the x-men going into it, as he has admitted, and he sure didnt seem to want to stay around to finish his story, like most directors i.e. spielberg-jurassic park,burton-batman,columbus-harry potter,cameron-terminator. they make two and leave, good and bad sometimes. but they werent responsible regardless.

now i do think, from how i judge ratner, he doesnt have a unique style, he's just the average director, and whether its the studios decision of not, this new movie truly sounds and looks more like the xmen movie ive been waiting for. its a story that shows the world within and around the xmen. not JUST focusing on 5 characters!
and everyone says, including singer, TOO many characters!
i call b.s. there.
its the story of GROUP of mutants, a TEAM! an alternate WORLD!
its supposed to be littered with MANY faces, and DIFFERENT looking and sounding ones!
as far as i can see the major mistakes of the 'last stand' are too much wolverine and storm, and short length.
blame whomever for those, i blame the studio.
but singer did NOT understand the themes i have pointed out. those Are the themes of X-Men. if they cant handle it in hollywood then dont bother.
but i HAVE seen it effectively done, i.e. robert altman, woody allen movies.
love actually, the family stone, the big chill, silverado, the lost boys, ensemble pieces. it does work!
the problem is ratner and singer as directors CANT handle multiple cast members! and the studio CANT handle the TIME issues. they use excuses like scheduling conflicts and budget limitations, i say dont try then. dont half ass my favorite characters and call it x-men. i wont sit here and just take it.
i want the real x-men movie and i want to see this week, no more excuses.
 
The only director IMO that could pull off a comic book film and give ample time to both action and story is Sam Raimi! His version of Spiderman series is excellent and I don't think even Superman Returns could come close to Spiderman! If Brett Ratner and Bryan Singer had taken a page from Raimi's book then maybe they could've made a quality X-men franchise that was a perfect blend of action and emotion! But I still think Singer comes close b/c he made a good quality comic film which is X2! Ratner I feel lost the plot a long time ago! I had confidence in him initially but after hearing the reviews he seems to have made the film all the naysayers were expecting him to make!
 
Canadian-beauty said:
Also, I cannot understand why everyone puts so much faith in Singer b/c I have never thought that he did a good job with the first two X films. I saw so many things that were not true to the comic book and it really turned me off towards the first two movies.

And this movie is really faithful isnt it? We have a Pheonix saga with no Cyclops, Logan becoming a leader,
Rogue and Magneto getting cured, Jean dying, Xavier inhabiting another body
, Callisto having superspeed and being able to detect mutants, and not being a Morlock along with Leech, and probably a few other things i cant think of but you say Singers movies were unfaithful!!!!!!
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Because he now would have had the budget to include more, and the end of X2 virtually set up Cyclops to be the focus in X3 along with Jean.

In X2, Cyclops was quickly pushed out of the way and Wolverine became the focus. We saw Jean and Wolverine talking by the X-jet (when she walks away), we saw Mystique imitating Jean and leaping on Wolverine, we saw Wolverine telling Cyclops Jean had made a choice (as though she had been torn somehow). In X1, we see Jean caressing Wolverine's chest in the infirmary.

Who is to say that that Fox wouldn't have ordered Cyclops to be out of the way in X3? There is no way in hell you can assume that Cyclops would have centre stage in Singer's X3 - just look at the evidence in X2. It's already obvious then that the studio bosses favoured Wolverine instead.

I am definitely curious about how Singer's X3 would have looked. How would he have followed up on Pyro joining Magneto and Mystique - if he was going to include the Hellfire Club, he wouldn't have had much room to develop the Brotherhood. Would we have had Sentinels - wouild Fox ever agree to the massive budget for them?

There is still scope for the Hellfire Club. But not involving Jean Grey.

I think curiosity about Singer's X3 is fine, but is it really healthy to keep wanting something we haven't got? Are you doing yourself any favours to keep wishing for what you don't have and to keep hating what we do have?
Some sense of acceptance and gratitude has to come at some point, for the things you do like in X3. Or are you going to immerse yourself in misery, depression, resentment and fantasy thinking?
 
X-Maniac, it is obvious to me that at the end of X2, Jean chose Cyclops and he was gonna be the one to bring her back in X3. And yes i am goign to dwell on what we could have had, becuase i think it would have been much better than what we have got, sure i'll get over it, and i wont lose any sleep as it is only a movie, but as a fan and a good customer to Fox, i expect the best, do i not have the right to? Are some people so happy that we have an X3 that you dont care about the quality?
 
I get the distinction that singers X3 would be vastly better than what we're getting.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Because he now would have had the budget to include more, and the end of X2 virtually set up Cyclops to be the focus in X3 along with Jean.

Um...huh?
I don't know about this one. I personally don't think Singer would have ran with Cyke as the main character. Singer liked and identified with Wolverine. I think Cyclops would have had a LARGER ROLE, maybe even 3rd largest role in Singer's X3. But I do NOT see it ever possible for Scott to out-shine Logan on screentime.

Singer's X3 IMO and in my Estimated Guess would have kept Logan as the front-man. Xavier and Magneto would have kept large roles. Cyclops would have had a larger role. Jean would have had probably the second largest role. Rogue would still be around the same role-size. Same with Iceman. Storm would have all but disappeared, showing up to use her powers probably twice. Colossus would probably have about the same screentime as he does now in X3. There would have been NOWHERE NEAR the amount of action.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE X1 & X2. I really do. They are flawed, but solid films. X3 would still have been good IMO, but certain things would have never really improved, only just carried on. Not saying Ratner is better...cause I think it's stupid to say who's better at this point. I think X3 will feel like the second-half of X2 and will work well with it. Just the styles of directing and how the film flows will be different.

EDIT:
Oh and YES there are SEVERAL things in X3 I know I'm gonna HATE. But that comes with the job description of being a fan and avid movie-goer. Even if Singer did X3, there would still be things I'd view as flaws and thigns I'd hate.
 
Maybe we would not have got as much action, but i think we would have, as Singers would have been a longer movie, about 135mins i reckon, so he could have had as much action as well as a lot more characterisation. Some of the action in X2 was great, and that was with a budget of about $90 million less than X3.
 
blind_fury said:
Compare that to the Star Wars Original Trilogy. Every movie has an awesome climax. That's the difference between a forgettable movies and classics.

Umm...don't look now, but Variety already has:

so "X-Men: The Last Stand" suffers from the same coarsened writing, diminished imagination and occasional bursts of self-parody that plagued "Return of the Jedi."

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117930584?categoryId=31&cs=1
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
X-Maniac, it is obvious to me that at the end of X2, Jean chose Cyclops and he was gonna be the one to bring her back in X3.

Given Fox's preference for Wolverine, there is no way you can predict Cyclops' role in a Singer X3. Cyclops was shoved out of the way for most of X2. You don't know what Singer wanted to do - or more to the point, what he would have been allowed to do - so you cannot state with any certainty what would have happened in Singer's X3. It would still have been a Fox movie.
 
The Batman said:
I get the distinction that singers X3 would be vastly better than what we're getting.
Singer might have done some thing better than Ratner but I'm sure Ratner does other things better than Singer as well. Each director has his strong points. Try to focus on Ratner's strong points instead of only looking at his weak points and Singer's strong points. That's simply unfair.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Maybe we would not have got as much action, but i think we would have, as Singers would have been a longer movie, about 135mins i reckon, so he could have had as much action as well as a lot more characterisation. Some of the action in X2 was great, and that was with a budget of about $90 million less than X3.

I'm tired and not slept yet...maybe I put too much emphasis on Action here.

I think Singer's X3 would have had better overall character development, been a lot slower-paced movie, possibly dragging a bit...and have less action scenes we the fans would have wanted to see. I also don't think Dark Phoenix would have been as impressively-destructive and psychotic. Which could have been a good or bad thing, we'll never know.

I do think the character development for Wolverine, Xavier, Jean, Magneto, Cyclops, and Beast (if he made the cut) would have been better than what we will get in Ratner's X3. (NOTE: I don't know that for fact, obviously) And that is good and solid. But I also don't think fans would have got any major fan-******* moments of action or side characters in Singer's X3 either.

It would be a very different give-n-take. We'd have probably been more satisfied with certain characters and elements, but would have still not gotten many fan moments and certain other characters like Storm, Kitty, and all would have gotten side-lined more.
 
blind_fury said:
Singer might have done some thing better than Ratner but I'm sure Ratner does other things better than Singer. Each director has his strong points. Try to focus on Ratner's strong points instead of only looking at his weak points and Singer's strong points. That's simply unfair.


Ratner is a yes man with no vision of his own. Ratners strong points are basically the studios. Singer would have been much better for this movie, and if Fox didnt screw this flick up, this thread would not exist.
 
Even if Steven Speilberg directed this movie, this thread would exist. Why? Because some people can't imagine an X-men movie without Singer and that's a shame.
 
I have been reading X-Men since the late 70's and I do not think that the first two films did justice to the X-Men as a Team. Whether that was Fox or Singer, I don't know. If some of you are disappointed with Ratner being on the film, imagine my fellings with the comparison between the Byrne/Austin/Claremont run on x-men in the 70's with what we saw in the first two movies. These characters are not even close to what they where then. That being said, I still like the first two movies and I am happy that a version of the X-Men made it to the big screen, but I have to put an emotional distance between what I know the X-Men to be and what we actually received in the movies.
For me in the third movie I want to see some action and not only that, I want some team action. It appears that we will get that this time around and I am not sorry to see someone different directing to make that happen.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Because he now would have had the budget to include more, and the end of X2 virtually set up Cyclops to be the focus in X3 along with Jean.
Ratner had a bigger budget but less time and control than Singer did.
 
I agree with Walkingdead. As someone mentioned earlier, it is not fair to compare Singers strong points against Ratners weak points. I feel Singers X3 would have been the same as X2. Lots of character developement that was already done in the first 2 movies. Im sorry, but if this is the Last Stand I want all out warfare! I don't want dialogue on how Charles and Mags will challenge eachother to a pillow fight. I want it to be off the chart insane. I want to be in awe of their powers, of the action. While X2 was certainl a good movie, it had 1 great scene, and that was the white house.

Singers version of the Last Stand with the cure would have had Storm not even seen in the movie and some mention of her being elsewhere. Iceman, Rogue, Kitty, would have gotten the same treatment. Pyro slightly larger role that would compare to Mystique. Magneto and Charles would have same role. Jean would have same role as X2. Cyclops would have same or less role as X2. Wolverine would have been the star, obviously, to finish out his movie series. That would include him being given the cure, curing the cure, and then taking out the army and over throwing the US government by himself. Of course the only action scene would be Wolverine taking out the army and over-throwing the US government.

Honestly, it doesn't matter who would make the movie. People will find something to whine about.
 
Cyclops would definately have got more screentime than X2, i can guarantee that.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Cyclops would definately have got more screentime than X2, i can guarantee that.

No, you cannot guarantee that unless you are really Brian Singer and had your own script ready.
 
I'm pretty sure Singer said that Cyke would get more screen time when he was developing X3 still. And watch the end of X2m it screams of a bigger role for Cyke.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
I'm pretty sure Singer said that Cyke would get more screen time when he was developing X3 still. And watch the end of X2m it screams of a bigger role for Cyke.

It would still be a Fox movie. You cannot state he would have had a bigger role. You don't know.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
Cyclops would definately have got more screentime than X2, i can guarantee that.

Sorry, but...you can't. None of you can.

And it amazes me to see some of you guys bashing Ratner for the coulda-woulda-shouldas when none of you even seen the film yourselves. Isn't that quite a presumptuous stand? :confused:

"Cyclops woulda had this"

"Cyclops woulda had that"


You mean Cyclops would suddenly have a role he never had in two films straight? Come on. Both of the productions for X1 and X2 were rushed and troubled, as it has been for X3. Studio politics manipulated all three productions--that also cannot be denied. And what if James Marsden had opted to do SR under another director at the same time? Can you vouch that the studio wouldn't have reacted differently? Would Logan have suddenly taken a backseat in this franchise to...James Marsden?

Too many coulda-woulda-shouldas.

So to be honest, there is absolutely no "guarantee" that things would have been much different from what we have now. None whatsoever.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
I'm pretty sure Singer said that Cyke would get more screen time when he was developing X3 still. And watch the end of X2m it screams of a bigger role for Cyke.

yeah...Singer did mention how Marsden was enthusiastic about being part of the Phoenix Saga, since Cyclops has a substantial role in it
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,815
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"