Sequels All in all the X-men movies were a sad interpretation.

Morgoth

Sidekick
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
4,838
Reaction score
1
Points
31
The series was a bland trilogy. They messed up alot of characters. It shouldn't have taken three movies to do the whole discrimination story. It was pathetic.

Horrible costumes to boot.

Just a pity. If it had been in more capable and imaginitive hands it could have been huge.

Just sad looking back at what they did to the X-men. The really didn't get brought to life, they got butchered.
 
I agree 100%.

If done correctly the X-men movies could've been as big as Star Wars the original trilogy.

Except for Prof. X the characters are poorly cast and the imagery isn't iconic like it should be.
 
Bad Character Cast???? :eek:
I don't agree with that.
Most of the characters were well cast.
Of course the movies had flaws every movie has flaws
 
Worst casting was magneto Prof.x was perfectly cast as was wolverine. They skipped too many xmen and retconed the rest into children. Angela Basset should have been storm. screwed up sabertooth, but I'm too tired to go on...
 
Hmmmmmm I had nothing to say about casting I loved everyone,
Yes we didn't get all characters but there are hundreds of characters in all X-Men comis and all.
We had the main characters ever except for Gambit, well to bad for him.
 
Weiser_Cain said:
Worst casting was magneto Prof.x was perfectly cast as was wolverine. They skipped too many xmen and retconed the rest into children. Angela Basset should have been storm. screwed up sabertooth, but I'm too tired to go on...

Haha...Magneto is the worst casting?! He and Xavier are the best casting in the entire movie.:rolleyes:
 
Yeah, I pretty much thank God every day that Ian McKellen was cast as Magneto. He was absolutely brilliant. Perfect casting.
 
Ian owns your soul. :mad:
 
Famke, Ian, Patrick, Rebecca, Kelsey
 
The first X-Men movie was better than I expected, but after that sad interpretation pretty much sums up my feeling. While I don't think the cast is the biggest problem, most of them were miscast.

Ian McKellan was okay for this version of Magneto. He was a bit too much of the villaineous Magneto (sort of the Fatal Attractions type Magneto), but that was probably direction more than casting.

Patrick Stewart was okay, but he's so identifiable as Capt. Picard.

Halle Berry was the worst casting. They should have just ditched her after how bad she was in the first film. She doesn't have the charisma to pull off the role and was an embarrassment to Storm.

James Marsden was the 2nd worst casting. He isn't Scott and by casting the wrong actor with the wrong looks and directing and writing him to make Scott an a-hole jock it ruined Scott even more. Marsden was too young, too much of a pretty-boy that you love to hate. I know they were running out of time to find someone after so many actors turned down the Cyclops role, but nearly anyone would have been better than Marsden.

Famke Janssen should have been cast as Moira MacTaggert. She's too old for the role and while she might have been okay for Moira, she's just not Jean.

Hugh Jackman was okay as Logan, but he's movie casting. He's not Wolverine.

Ellen Page. I like her okay as Kitty, since they could have been so much worse. She's a decent actress, but I wish they would have cast someone who was Jewish, since when Kitty was introduced it was such a big deal to have a female Jewish superhero, and that is important to a lot of people of that faith.

The other complaint I have is the movie just tossing out codenames on characters who aren't that character: Pyro, Colossus, Psylocke, Callisto, etc. Why couldn't Colossus be Russian? Why didn't they have the *real* Callisto and the Morlocks in X3 instead of some weird punk chick? Artie especially pisses me off, since he's a character that the old time fans love and just calling some random kid Artie is pointless. If they want to invent new characters, why did they tack on names that would piss off the fans?
 
Jesus people, for the umpteenth time: Angela Bassett turned down the Storm role in the first movie because the part SUCKED. No personality, no essentialness to the plot, shallow pointless, and terrible dialoge, so the part was GIVEN to the next most reconazable black actress Halle.

Seeing as how Halle was the second most reconizable cast member in the first movie, after Stewart, it was a marketable move to have Halle plastered nearly everywhere when the posters came out.

That's life, face it folks.

It was Fox's and Halle's representation's fault for not scoring the woman a dramatic part, seeing that's where her talent lies. Was she miscast, YES! It was a marketing move, not anything to do with the actual script.

But Jean, Scott, Deathstrike, Bobby, and other were terrible miscast too. So was the directer, and letting Whendon write anything for Storm, was a bad idea too.

James had the same problem. His agent should be fired for not reading the first script or suggesting that he stay on for the second movie. His character got dicked thrice. He shouldn't have stuck around. Let some other actor take the blow, again.

If Famke read the comics like she said she did, why was she so keen on being a worthless doctor. It was plain as day to see that "Dr" Grey did nothing in the medical field, except for be alone with Logan, which was obviously the point. As for the speech to the senate, Xavier himself or any other member of the X-men or Moria the actual genetisit could have done that. The add on to Jean's character was pointless and overall just plain stupid.


The movies did ruin the characters, watching Evolution and Ultimate copy the movies is painful and just as stupid. Seeing people blindly accept Singer's subpar vision is alot like slow water torture, but alot less fun...
 
When I think of magneto I see this in my minds eye.
Magslee.PNG

Physically he was just too far from that for me to accept.
 
Weiser_Cain said:
When I think of magneto I see this in my minds eye.
Magslee.PNG

Physically he was just too far from that for me to accept.

It wouldn't have been believable to have him all muscular and built, because he is in his 60s at the very least.
 
:whatever: I disagree in so many ways, it's not even funny!!! I'll just leave it at that!!
 
Overall I found the X-Men trilogy to be really good, but had it's flaws. I loved Hugh Jackman as Wolverine but the character was used too much trough out the trilogy. We didn't get to see X-Men movies, more like Wolverine movies.

James Marsden would have been an amazing Cyclops if Singer used him right. Cyclops was not a leader in the movies. Cyclops is meant to be the soul of the X-Men. In the first movie he barely spoke, in the second he was only in it for 10-15mins tops and the 3rd movie he was killed in less then 20mins. I blame Singer for making **** of the character.

I had no real problem with the casting, just with how they were used.

X-Men 1 was short and lacked so much action.
X-Men 2 was a great movie but surround Wolverine way too much. Cyclops was not in it long enough for anyone to care for him.
X-Men 3 was just a fun popcorn flick for me.

If they plan on making X-Men 4 I have a feeling that too will be a fun popcorn flick.
 
oh man oh man...i'll have my mouth shut, since this is a thread for complaints, but i HAVE to say that i absolutely LOVE the concept Brian created. I love the movie X-men.
 
so basically, as a final word................ The 90s cartoon was probably the closest adapation of the comics as we're gunna get.

As far as the movies are concerned, they are the burdened product of 'money priority' studio interference, and the first movie's only purpose for existing was so that X2 could be made, and it was the best we were gunna get.

But hey, its X-men that sort started all these comicbook movies. So I guess X-men's sacrifice, is that the right word for this, was what helped the other movies 'live'.
 
^-- But but, Blade was the first multi-million big blockbuster comic book adaptation. It came out in 98 I believe, and it worked. It was a far better comic to movie version than ANY of the X-men movies were.

And didn't Spiderman come out before X-men did? I'm not so sure about it. Singer, the writers, and Fox screwed the fanbase long before premire night...:csad:
 
Goddessreicho said:
^-- But but, Blade was the first multi-million big blockbuster comic book adaptation. It came out in 98 I believe, and it worked. It was a far better comic to movie version than ANY of the X-men movies were.

And didn't Spiderman come out before X-men did? I'm not so sure about it. Singer, the writers, and Fox screwed the fanbase long before premire night...:csad:

But hardly anyone knew "Blade" was based on a comic book. It was "X-Men" that started the revival of superhero films. It was because of "X-Men"'s success that Sony gave the greenlight on "Spider-man".
 
What! Everyone knew Blade was a Marvel Super hero, if they didn't the full minute of the MARVEL logo gave it away. Besides Snipes went wild about being the first huge superhero movie. It was Blade's success that gave X-men a boost into the realalistic dark world.

It was also Blade's success that gave X-men a greenlight. If Blade had bombed I doubt X-men would have been released within such a short time period.

I totally agree with the first post. Xmen was a sleepy bore. X2 peed all over the source material, watered it down, then gave us a backwater rehash with unreconizable characters, and X3...well, nuff said.
 
Goddessreicho said:
What! Everyone knew Blade was a Marvel Super hero, if they didn't the full minute of the MARVEL logo gave it away. Besides Snipes went wild about being the first huge superhero movie. It was Blade's success that gave X-men a boost into the realalistic dark world.

It was also Blade's success that gave X-men a greenlight. If Blade had bombed I doubt X-men would have been released within such a short time period

Blade wasn't so much advertised as a Marvel comic book superhero film as much as it was an action, vampire movie. Also, I don’t believe it bears the Marvel Logo. The trailer doesn’t either. It just advertises Blade as a New Line Cinema picture. The Marvel logo wasn’t used until Spider-Man. X-Men was in pre-production before Blade's release. Spider-Man was released two years after X-Men, and had yet to be cast by X-Men's release. I believe only the producers of Spider-Man had been fully signed by summer of 2000.
 
Obsidian said:
It wouldn't have been believable to have him all muscular and built, because he is in his 60s at the very least.
Actually most bodybuilders are around forty and there's this 'new' guy that's fifty. I have no problem believing a crazy mutant would have the drive to hit the gym in his quest for mutant world domination. Plus it's a comic book.
 
Obsidian said:
It wouldn't have been believable to have him all muscular and built, because he is in his 60s at the very least.

Magneto isn't in his 60s. He was once reduced to infancy and then reaged, so he appears younger than he would need to be to have been a child during WWII.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"