Best 3rd movie in a CBM franchise so far?

[Anno_Domini]

Oh, my lol friend, far from it. It was there during the whole movie. The spine of the story in X2, on the other hand, was Wolverine going to look for his past. After two hours and so... nothing happened with it.

The spine of the story was never Wolverine looking for his past, but Stryker trying to destroy the mutants. Wolverine's past was only a subplot as it related to Stryker, nothing more and nothing less. But hey, at least X2 gave us all that time to appreciate. Can't say the same for X3 though...

It gave Magneto new followers too and it did because it had a new way to put a perspective into his plans. Now it's not just one senator, it's a whole re-definition of what they are, and a re-definition that suggests they should be, as any other disease, eliminated.

And like I said, only gave Magneto more ammo. And once more, a part that could've been expanded on as well. Magneto raging war, if only longer, would have been the perfect ending to such trilogy.

Probably because the relationship between her and Bobby (and the problems of its) was properly developed during the film. One relationship that went nowhere, on the other hand, was that of Wolverine and Jane in X2, lol.

I'm clearly on the side where I never found the Logan/Jean relationship to be at all interesting, but something of Rogue speaking to Bobby, getting his advice would've been stellar. Instead Rogue only gets ******** when Bobby hangs around Kitty and is cured.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The spine of the story was never Wolverine looking for his past, but Stryker trying to destroy the mutants. Wolverine's past was only a subplot as it related to Stryker, nothing more and nothing less. But hey, at least X2 gave us all that time to appreciate. Can't say the same for X3 though...

Ah yes. I myself have said that the story here is the average bad guy alone vs group of superheroes, doesn't matter if they're mutant or what. The Wolverine subplot went nowhere in two hours+ of movie.

X-Man 3, on the other hand, was something else that went right into the core of what being a mutant is. Not only the way Magneto reacted to it, but also Rogue and also Beast who for a second tasted what would be to be normal and probably was tempted to re-define himself

And like I said, only gave Magneto more ammo.

And once again you fall short. It was more than that.

And once more, a part that could've been expanded on as well. Magneto raging war, if only longer, would have been the perfect ending to such trilogy.

And it kind of happened that way.

I'm clearly on the side where I never found the Logan/Jean relationship to be at all interesting, but something of Rogue speaking to Bobby, getting his advice would've been stellar. Instead Rogue only gets ******** when Bobby hangs around Kitty and is cured.

Jean and Logan's relationship remained uninteresting as Singer decided to keep it stretching towards nowhere during X2. And if you can reduce a growing pain marvelously enhanced into a mutation as a ********, then everything could be obscenely reduced the same way.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Ah yes. I myself have said that the story here is the average bad guy alone vs group of superheroes, doesn't matter if they're mutant or what. The Wolverine subplot went nowhere in two hours+ of movie.

Hey, at least you now accept that Wolverine's story wasn't the main plot, lol.

I found the film so much more better than X3, and that's all I have to say about X2 now.

X-Man 3, on the other hand, was something else that went right into the core of what being a mutant is. Not only the way Magneto reacted to it, but also Rogue and also Beast who for a second tasted what would be to be normal and probably was tempted to re-define himself

X3 was the same time length as the first film and felt like things were moving at a much faster rate than the first film, giving zero development on all the bigger elements such as the cure and the Dark Phoenix arc. It was a joke of a film that goes into the ranks of Batman Forever and Spider-Man 3.

And once again you fall short. It was more than that.

Not at all.

And it kind of happened that way.

You're not reading a few words I mentioned. If it was only longer, it would've been satisfying when the final product wasn't, imo.

Jean and Logan's relationship remained uninteresting as Singer decided to keep it stretching towards nowhere during X2.

We agree on something it seems.

And if you can reduce a growing pain marvelously enhanced into a mutation as a ********, then everything could be obscenely reduced the same way.

Of course I reduce it down to being ******** when it seemed that they were just fine in X2 in their relationship of Rogue having her abilities. Instead of having a conversation too about Rogue's feelings and wanting to be "normal", we only see her becoming jealous and THAT'S her main reason of taking the cure. No other reason of showing a Bobby/Kitty tease than to make Rogue go overboard and take the cure. The film made it seem like Rogue did it for a boy, and not for herself. And it doesn't bode well when mutants are such an allegory when it comes to real life problems like racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera, when the film has Rogue just go ahead and take the cure to be "normal".

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Hey, at least you now accept that Wolverine's story wasn't the main plot, lol.

Difficult to discern what's the plot in a movie where not much happens.

I found the film so much more better than X3, and that's all I have to say about X2 now.

Not much more can be said, apparently, to defend the movie.

X3 was the same time length as the first film and felt like things were moving at a much faster rate than the first film, giving zero development on all the bigger elements such as the cure and the Dark Phoenix arc. It was a joke of a film that goes into the ranks of Batman Forever and Spider-Man 3.

It gave a lot of development but yes, it should have been longer. The cure was all over the movie and made the action start and keep going. Phoenix should have had more time though. But nothing as shameful as what they did to the villains in both BF and SM3. Well, in the case of SM3 they also put the hero to shame with that emo Parker fingergunning, an obscenity of such proportions that only aberrations such as the Bat-visa card are to be comparable to it. Those movies wish they had a solid idea such as the cure to keep things going on.

You're not reading a few words I mentioned. If it was only longer, it would've been satisfying when the final product wasn't, imo.

It was the opposite of X2 problem, where the movie was long enough but they wasted the time in minor or boring facts such as having Xavier under hypnosis for half the movie or having him explaining what Cerebro is for, something he had done fully in the first movie. Or well, that Nightcrawkler chatracter that was an excuse for a CGI-plagued first scene and held no relevance through the rest of the movie.

We agree on something it seems.

Yes, X2 did little with plenty of time.

Of course I reduce it down to being ******** when it seemed that they were just fine in X2 in their relationship of Rogue having her abilities.

Yes, instead of a boring steadiness, X3 went back for what makes good drama: conflict.

Instead of having a conversation too about Rogue's feelings and wanting to be "normal", we only see her becoming jealous and THAT'S her main reason of taking the cure. No other reason of showing a Bobby/Kitty tease than to make Rogue go overboard and take the cure.

Excellent, instead of explaining it verbally, they showed. That's basics for a good writer. Show, don't tell.

No other reason of showing a Bobby/Kitty tease than to make Rogue go overboard and take the cure. The film made it seem like Rogue did it for a boy, and not for herself. And it doesn't bode well when mutants are such an allegory when it comes to real life problems like racism, sexism, homophobia, et cetera, when the film has Rogue just go ahead and take the cure to be "normal".

Exactly. Instead of becoming just another symbol of what's right and the always successful "be yourself" theme, the movie, through Rogue, once again questions everything and doesn't just leave it all with an easy way out. Yes, what if minorities had a possibility to be "normal." Sure, most of them would remain the same but everyone? Excellent questions that are all far away from the reach of a conventional average superhero movie such as X2.

 

[Snow Queen]

Or well, that Nightcrawkler chatracter that was an excuse for a CGI-plagued first scene and held no relevance through the rest of the movie.

Actually, Nightcrawler's mind-controlled attack on the president was planned by Stryker to stir up tensions so that he would get the go ahead on the raid on X-Mansion. So, it did have relevance throughout the film as it was Stryker setting up the mutants so that he could attack, kicking off the main plot.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Difficult to discern what's the plot in a movie where not much happens.

Actually, when something doesn't happen to move the film forward, it's easier to conclude when it's NOT the main plot. As in this case, Wolverine's past.

Not much more can be said, apparently, to defend the movie.

Especially when you've defend enough but someone just doesn't care to listen.

It gave a lot of development but yes, it should have been longer. The cure was all over the movie and made the action start and keep going. Phoenix should have had more time though. But nothing as shameful as what they did to the villains in both BF and SM3. Well, in the case of SM3 they also put the hero to shame with that emo Parker fingergunning, an obscenity of such proportions that only aberrations such as the Bat-visa card are to be comparable to it. Those movies wish they had a solid idea such as the cure to keep things going on.

Fully disagree that there was "a lot of development", but I do agree that the film needed more time.

It was the opposite of X2 problem, where the movie was long enough but they wasted the time in minor or boring facts such as having Xavier under hypnosis for half the movie or having him explaining what Cerebro is for, something he had done fully in the first movie. Or well, that Nightcrawkler chatracter that was an excuse for a CGI-plagued first scene and held no relevance through the rest of the movie.

You need to watch X2 if you thought the Nightcrawler scene had no relevance to the plot. It had everything to do with the plot as Nightcrawler was used by Stryker to stir up the wasps and get the president to okay Stryker into infiltrating the X-Mansion. And the other things you mention...they were not boring at all and only enriched the film.

Yes, X2 did a lot with plenty of time.

Fixed.

Yes, instead of a boring steadiness, X3 went back for what makes good drama: conflict.

Rogue's idea of being "normal" for a boy is conflict in your eyes?

Excellent, instead of explaining it verbally, they showed. That's basics for a good writer. Show, don't tell.

When it's as simple as a mutant wanting to be "normal" for her boyfriend, yes, the simplest way is the best way for sure I guess

Exactly. Instead of becoming just another symbol of what's right and the always successful "be yourself" theme, the movie, through Rogue, once again questions everything and doesn't just leave it all with an easy way out. Yes, what if minorities had a possibility to be "normal." Sure, most of them would remain the same but everyone? Excellent questions that are all far away from the reach of a conventional average superhero movie such as X2.

And that totally contradicts the previous two films when they made a point of how a mutant shouldn't fear the idea of being different, so there's that. Rogue taking the cure to be "normal" is a slap to the face, not only for the cowardly mutants afraid of being different, but to the X-Men because of what they stand up for.

 

[batfreakforever]

The Dark Knight Rises is by a milestone the greatest and best 3rd movie ever in a Comic Book franchise. Every time you watch it you get something great from it. I will never tire of it.

 

[batfreakforever]

I own all 3rd parts of comic books movies. Blade, xmen,ninja turtles, spider-man,super-man, batman, M.i.b, transformers etc And I enjoy them all.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I think my order would definitely be, and I think this is now different than before, -

1.) The Dark Knight Rises
2.) Iron Man 3(and this is a very low 2nd)
3.) Men In Black III
4.) Batman Forever
5.) X-Men: The Last Stand
6.) Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III
7.) Spider-Man 3
8.) Superman III
9.) Transformers: Dark of the Moon
10.) Blade: Trinity
11.) The Crow: Salvation

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Actually, Nightcrawler's mind-controlled attack on the president was planned by Stryker to stir up tensions so that he would get the go ahead on the raid on X-Mansion. So, it did have relevance throughout the film as it was Stryker setting up the mutants so that he could attack, kicking off the main plot.

Yes. One scene that started the action. Then the character had little to do with the plot. He was there in the story, sure, but he wasn't relevant anymore to it.

Actually, when something doesn't happen to move the film forward, it's easier to conclude when it's NOT the main plot. As in this case, Wolverine's past.

So many things that didn't move on here.

Especially when you've defend enough but someone just doesn't care to listen.

Other than unexpanded declarations such as "Possibly the best X-Men film" or a summary of the film's premise, there's little to listen to about it from you.

Fully disagree that there was "a lot of development", but I do agree that the film needed more time.

Care to expand where the film did not develop the 'cure' element? I have a bunch of scenes to discuss.

You need to watch X2 if you thought the Nightcrawler scene had no relevance to the plot. It had everything to do with the plot as Nightcrawler was used by Stryker to stir up the wasps and get the president to okay Stryker into infiltrating the X-Mansion. And the other things you mention...they were not boring at all and only enriched the film.

Sure, Nightcrawler triggered the action and then had little no relevance in the plot. Appearing in the movie doesn't mean you're being relevant to the plot.

Fixed.

I take changing my posts is easier than explaining properly your point.

Rogue's idea of being "normal" for a boy is conflict in your eyes?

No. The process through which she makes that decision is.

When it's as simple as a mutant wanting to be "normal" for her boyfriend, yes, the simplest way is the best way for sure I guess

Exactly. Another lesson form good writing: keep it simple.

And still much more than anything Rogue had as a conflict in X2.

And that totally contradicts the previous two films when they made a point of how a mutant shouldn't fear the idea of being different, so there's that. Rogue taking the cure to be "normal" is a slap to the face, not only for the cowardly mutants afraid of being different, but to the X-Men because of what they stand up for.

A movie making a point doesn't mean - and I hope it never will - that the forthcoming movies can't question it. Specially when that point includes a lot of different characters that are, hopefully, rich and different, and not just functional to one single point. Characters that face doing what one day they promised never to do again: conflict. Good writing.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yes. One scene that started the action. Then the character had little to do with the plot. He was there in the story, sure, but he wasn't relevant anymore to it.

It had EVERYTHING to do with the plot. How else could Stryker have gotten permission to do something so radical as infiltrate the X-Mansion?

So many things that didn't move on here.

That's wrong, but okay. Or did you want something like X3 that moved way too quickly with its plots?

Other than unexpanded declarations such as "Possibly the best X-Men film" or a summary of the film's premise, there's little to listen to about it from you.

Just like your bogus claims about how X3 is so wonderful when it's crap, lol.

Hey, if you don't care about what I have to say about X2, why talk to me about it in the first place?

Care to expand where the film did not develop the 'cure' element? I have a bunch of scenes to discuss.

Why should I bother? I know you're all up in arms about a ridiculous film, and I'm just too worn out on the subject. Makes me hate X3 even more just talking about it. The film is too short as it piles the cure storyline with the Dark Phoenix conclusion and it's a total mess.

Sure, Nightcrawler triggered the action and then had little no relevance in the plot. Appearing in the movie doesn't mean you're being relevant to the plot.

Nightcrawler was needed in the third act, but what scene he was in, it started the entire plot. Nightcrawler is more effective in X2 than Colossus, Shadowcat, Storm, Angel and Cyclops combined in X3.

I take changing my posts is easier than explaining properly your point.

Changing your post makes it the truth, which makes it easer.

No. The process through which she makes that decision is.

And the process is looking at her boyfriend having eyes for another girl. Yep, that's some real damn conflict right there.

Exactly. Another lesson form good writing: keep it simple.

And still much more than anything Rogue had as a conflict in X2.

Keep it simple is good writing? Well hell, all of the films on this poll besides TDKR must be aces

Rogue had her arc settled in the first film and didn't need more in X2 and for sure as hell didn't need to be ruined in X3.

A movie making a point doesn't mean - and I hope it never will - that the forthcoming movies can't question it. Specially when that point includes a lot of different characters that are, hopefully, rich and different, and not just functional to one single point. Characters that face doing what one day they promised never to do again: conflict. Good writing.

Awful writing when it contradicts other points in previous films. Awful writing in the sense of not fundamentally keeping the same themes in the previous films. Many 3rd installments suffer from that and X3 is no exception and is probably at its worst. Your thoughts on good writing, and no offense, is baffling.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It had EVERYTHING to do with the plot. How else could Stryker have gotten permission to do something so radical as infiltrate the X-Mansion?

Yes, it started the action. The character himself nor his interactions had any relevance afterwards though.

That's wrong, but okay. Or did you want something like X3 that moved way too quickly with its plots?

Yes. A movie with a plot that moves is preferable to two hours of slow plots going nowhere.

Just like your bogus claims about how X3 is so wonderful when it's crap, lol.

On the contrary I have expanded my arguments properly and haven't, like yourself, rested on flat statements ('it's crap, period'). Which is, precisely, why we have been able to keep arguing.

Hey, if you don't care about what I have to say about X2, why talk to me about it in the first place?

I ask for them so much I keep asking you to expand your statements about X2. And somehow you keep unable to deliver.

Why should I bother? I know you're all up in arms about a ridiculous film, and I'm just too worn out on the subject. Makes me hate X3 even more just talking about it. The film is too short as it piles the cure storyline with the Dark Phoenix conclusion and it's a total mess.

So, you don't even want to develop your own arguments? So much for your case and ability to argue properly.

Nightcrawler was needed in the third act, but what scene he was in, it started the entire plot. Nightcrawler is more effective in X2 than Colossus, Shadowcat, Storm, Angel and Cyclops combined in X3.

Name the scene please, where Nightcrawler is fundamental to the plot, after his first scene. Or is this another case where you don't want to "bother"?

Changing your post makes it the truth, which makes it easer.

It scarcely makes any valid attempt to properly argue.

Since you seem unable to develop your own arguments, you, instead, go down to some kind of infantile mockery where something is claimed to be truth out of a mere re-writing.

And the process is looking at her boyfriend having eyes for another girl. Yep, that's some real damn conflict right there.

It, actually, is. Once you take into account that she is not merely staring but internally suffering the pain of comparing her own disabled life, as she can't touch his own boyfriend, to someone who can. And, as a consequence she feels her boyfriend probably feels the need of physical contact and thus is attempting to obtain it from someone else.

Keep it simple is good writing? Well hell, all of the films on this poll besides TDKR must be aces

You surely must be intelligent enough to grasp that one rule about good writing is not the only one. Also you must be confusing 'simple' and 'lacking.' Your bad.

Humor won't develop your argumentations all you need to.

Rogue had her arc settled in the first film and didn't need more in X2 and for sure as hell didn't need to be ruined in X3.

If she wasn't needed in X2, she shouldn't have been included. A different angle: you don't include characters or elements you don't need in your story. Basics on good writing. Not the case of X2 according to your own words, if what you say is true.

For once, X3 did a lot better by giving her an arc as she was included. A mistake X2 couldn't avoid.

Awful writing when it contradicts other points in previous films. Awful writing in the sense of not fundamentally keeping the same themes in the previous films. Many 3rd installments suffer from that and X3 is no exception and is probably at its worst. Your thoughts on good writing, and no offense, is baffling.

No. In good writing, characters are not immutable as you suggest they should be. Many third movies suffer from the very things X2 suffered. Your thoughts on good writing are just lacking of any proper training or education about it.

 

[Doc Ock]

That Cyclops died or that he was cheapened in X3?

Both, it really is sad how the character was treated among other things. Beast was the only thing I really liked in X3, alongside the score and Ellen Page as Kitty. I recently got X2 on Blu-Ray and discovered the case was broken so I'm going to get X3 and switch the cover and discs and then give the broken X3 away.

 

[Human Torch]

The only thing I really hated was Scott's death.He was one of my favorite characters,but (arguably) apart from the first film,he never really got his due in this series.Of course,we could probably thank Superman Returns for his lack of screen time.

I really liked the battle between Prof X and Mag over Jean and the subsequent "house fight".That was probably the highlight for me.

It had great action.Beast was great.Juggie was cool.Some nice payoffs like Iceman vs Pyro.In all honesty,I was glad it wasn't quite as heavyhanded as Singer's films usually got.

 

[cloverfan98]

I too liked X3 but the biggest problem is how the introduce new characters they could never have enough time to fully flesh out never mind the original characters that have been around since the start. Plus there are some kinda lame character moments. I really hate STorm in this film and I hate how it basically became a movie pimping Halle's ego. One of the worst scenes for me is when Rouge asks if the rumors are true about a drug to cure Mutants and Storm tells her that there is nothing wrong with them and she doesn't need it. Easy for you to say Miss "I can do anything with weather and fly and by the end of this movie I will have everything". I REALLY hate Storm in this film.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The only thing I really hated was Scott's death.He was one of my favorite characters,but (arguably) apart from the first film,he never really got his due in this series.Of course,we could probably thank Superman Returns for his lack of screen time.

Well, I agree that none of the movies gave him the importance he had in the comics. If anything, his death deserved more relevance, like Xavier did.

I really liked the battle between Prof X and Mag over Jean and the subsequent "house fight".That was probably the highlight for me.

It had great action.Beast was great.Juggie was cool.Some nice payoffs like Iceman vs Pyro.In all honesty,I was glad it wasn't quite as heavyhanded as Singer's films usually got.

I also liked the scene with Magneto and Xavier in Jean's childhood house and the subsequent fight. The place was meaningful for her and the scene got good tension because what was at stake was quite important.

I too liked X3 but the biggest problem is how the introduce new characters they could never have enough time to fully flesh out never mind the original characters that have been around since the start. Plus there are some kinda lame character moments. I really hate STorm in this film and I hate how it basically became a movie pimping Halle's ego. One of the worst scenes for me is when Rouge asks if the rumors are true about a drug to cure Mutants and Storm tells her that there is nothing wrong with them and she doesn't need it. Easy for you to say Miss "I can do anything with weather and fly and by the end of this movie I will have everything". I REALLY hate Storm in this film.

Well, in movies where you have literally dozens of mutants that will always happen. Thing is that they didn't try to have a story for each of them. Except Angel, who should have had an extra scene or two.

And what you say about Rogue and Storm is true. But there you have two visions. Storm immediately assumes that Rogue's question is about how mutants should look at themselves, and wants them to hold the mutant pride high. Look at it this way, unlike the previous movies, at least this time Storm gets something to do and say.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yes, it started the action. The character himself nor his interactions had any relevance afterwards though.

Except being important in the part of finding out someone's been controlling mutants and how Nightcrawler did play an important role in the third act.

Yes. A movie with a plot that moves is preferable to two hours of slow plots going nowhere.

Moves too quickly to care you mean

I'll prefer a two hour plus film whose plot moves naturally, and I got that in X2 which pleases me.

On the contrary I have expanded my arguments properly and haven't, like yourself, rested on flat statements ('it's crap, period'). Which is, precisely, why we have been able to keep arguing.

Except that your arguments are not expanded on properly because you have no argument. Your idea that the cure brings up a political front or that it is any different than what we've seen before is why I claim your statements to be bogus. The first film already went the political route without having to use the cheapened cure storyline that in the end made one of the more popular mutants turn into a coward and totally takes away what the X-Men stands for when it comes to real-world problems.

But, yes, in simplest terms...X3 was crap.

I ask for them so much I keep asking you to expand your statements about X2. And somehow you keep unable to deliver.

You're the one who jumps from one end saying a film needed to tell more in regards to Rachel's letter, then you say another film needs to be as simple as it can and only show, not tell. Your tactics change from one film to another and I don't have the time to elaborate why X2 is the better film when this debate has been made ever since X3 was released and was blasted away by critics and fans alike.

So, you don't even want to develop your own arguments? So much for your case and ability to argue properly.

Why should I bother when you said you don't care about listening? Answer me that and then I may actually enjoy this topic yet again.

Name the scene please, where Nightcrawler is fundamental to the plot, after his first scene. Or is this another case where you don't want to "bother"?

He plays a part in infiltrating Alkali Lake.

But, yes, read from above in the fact that I am quite tired of this subject.

It scarcely makes any valid attempt to properly argue.

Since you seem unable to develop your own arguments, you, instead, go down to some kind of infantile mockery where something is claimed to be truth out of a mere re-writing.

Develop my own arguments? I have told you everything for the past page and when you continue to try to shut them down, even when, imo, you're wrong, what more can I say?

It's a bit tiring furthering a debate when someone just doesn't want to see that another film is better than another when everything is against your side of the argument.

It, actually, is. Once you take into account that she is not merely staring but internally suffering the pain of comparing her own disabled life, as she can't touch his own boyfriend, to someone who can. And, as a consequence she feels her boyfriend probably feels the need of physical contact and thus is attempting to obtain it from someone else.

You're giving X3 credit for supposedly "showing" and not telling and gave grief to TDKR for doing the same. Shocking coming from you. And I never felt that "inner struggle" at all in X3 when she and Bobby were, as I mentioned, fine in their relationship in X2. They even had physical contact in that very same film.

You surely must be intelligent enough to grasp that one rule about good writing is not the only one. Also you must be confusing 'simple' and 'lacking.' Your bad.

Humor won't develop your argumentations all you need to.

Again, your contradicting your stance on TDKR when you wanted more from TDKR when it came to Rachel's letter but you're totally fine with what little we had of Rogue and why she wanted to take the cure. Humor isn't all I have, but it's quite necessary when I'm truly all out of words when it comes your statements.

If she wasn't needed in X2, she shouldn't have been included. A different angle: you don't include characters or elements you don't need in your story. Basics on good writing. Not the case of X2 according to your own words, if what you say is true.

For once, X3 did a lot better by giving her an arc as she was included. A mistake X2 couldn't avoid.

If only we think about the idea of if a character wasn't needed in X3, why is he or she even around...

Characters can have their arc completed in one film and stay around.

No. In good writing, characters are not immutable as you suggest they should be. Many third movies suffer from the very things X2 suffered. Your thoughts on good writing are just lacking of any proper training or education about it.

I gladly disagree. "Simple" is best, "show not tell" is best are two unworthy qualities when it comes to writing. Over analyzing something isn't necessary either, but enough detail is the best way to go with anything. To leave out and make the audience think of how a character is feeling when nothing is presented is the cheapest and most unflattering form of writing.

Both, it really is sad how the character was treated among other things. Beast was the only thing I really liked in X3, alongside the score and Ellen Page as Kitty. I recently got X2 on Blu-Ray and discovered the case was broken so I'm going to get X3 and switch the cover and discs and then give the broken X3 away.

All of the X3 discs should be broken from the start

But, I think Scott's death would be fine...if it were in the end and not right from the beginning. If Jean dies, then I'm fine if Scott dies. Him being underused is what gets me the most I think.

 

[henzINNIT]

This argument is dull, but hey at least I'm enjoying agreeing with Anno for once.

TLS sucks. The cure being a great plot doesn't save it when the device was wasted. "Gifted" was great, but in the film the cure basically triggers one reactionary conversation and then evaporates.

 

[Doc Ock]

All of the X3 discs should be broken from the start

But, I think Scott's death would be fine...if it were in the end and not right from the beginning. If Jean dies, then I'm fine if Scott dies. Him being underused is what gets me the most I think.

Scott dying would be fine if it was at the end and he wasn't underused, which probably would of happened anyways. Him being underused. Wolverine getting all the glory at the end anyways.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Except being important in the part of finding out someone's been controlling mutants and how Nightcrawler did play an important role in the third act.

That's my question... how did Nightcrawler play an important role in the third act?

Moves too quickly to care you mean

I'll prefer a two hour plus film whose plot moves naturally, and I got that in X2 which pleases me.

That's fine and all. But you have stated yourself how the plots in there rarely went somewhere.

Except that your arguments are not expanded on properly because you have no argument. Your idea that the cure brings up a political front or that it is any different than what we've seen before is why I claim your statements to be bogus. The first film already went the political route without having to use the cheapened cure storyline that in the end made one of the more popular mutants turn into a coward and totally takes away what the X-Men stands for when it comes to real-world problems.

The approaches to a subject are never something that you do once and then you just drop. That's why trilogies like Nolan's Batman don't mention themes like justice and in next movie they forget about it.

The cure did not play the same political angle that the first one did. X2, on the other hand, played the same good guys vs bad guys every superhero movie has done.

But, yes, in simplest terms...X3 was crap.

At least this time I made you fight for a proper articulation of your ideas. You're welcome.

You're the one who jumps from one end saying a film needed to tell more in regards to Rachel's letter, then you say another film needs to be as simple as it can and only show, not tell. Your tactics change from one film to another and I don't have the time to elaborate why X2 is the better film when this debate has been made ever since X3 was released and was blasted away by critics and fans alike.

Again you don't quite grasp the difference between 'simple; and 'lacking.' Once you introduce an elements you must develop it. That doesn't mean it ends being simple. Your obscene reductionism just proves your inability to hold two different concepts in two different levels.

And you do have the time to discuss this, as your posts prove themselves. Please, don't be wrong about yourself too.

Why should I bother when you said you don't care about listening? Answer me that and then I may actually enjoy this topic yet again.

I haven't said you don't listen. You said that about me. Please, have a moment and agree with yourself before carrying on.

Your problem is not about listening but understanding.

He plays a part in infiltrating Alkali Lake.

But, yes, read from above in the fact that I am quite tired of this subject.

Your words and your action don't agree. Take a minute and have them in synchrony.

Develop my own arguments? I have told you everything for the past page and when you continue to try to shut them down, even when, imo, you're wrong, what more can I say?

It's a bit tiring furthering a debate when someone just doesn't want to see that another film is better than another when everything is against your side of the argument.

Your arguments in favor of X2 have been"
"Because it was, and possibly still is, the perfect X-Men film."
"And yet it was, and possibly still is, the best X-Men film."
"Who cares if some angle was lost out in X2."

Poor argumentation if you ask me. Well, actually no argumentation at all. Barely any significant idea there.

You're giving X3 credit for supposedly "showing" and not telling and gave grief to TDKR for doing the same. Shocking coming from you. And I never felt that "inner struggle" at all in X3 when she and Bobby were, as I mentioned, fine in their relationship in X2. They even had physical contact in that very same film.

Actually, it was YOU who proved that point of showing and not telling in X3. Thanks for that.

I don't remember saying TDKR didn't do the same. I wish I had seen some intensity in Bruce's face when he was told about Alfred's lie. TDKR, in that scene, neither showed nor told.

In X2 they had a physical contact that proved to be deadly. Great point to sustain everything was solved forever.

Again, your contradicting your stance on TDKR when you wanted more from TDKR when it came to Rachel's letter but you're totally fine with what little we had of Rogue and why she wanted to take the cure. Humor isn't all I have, but it's quite necessary when I'm truly all out of words when it comes your statements.

I already explained that. Acting is what Bale lacked of when doing the scene of the letter.

If only we think about the idea of if a character wasn't needed in X3, why is he or she even around...

Characters can have their arc completed in one film and stay around.

If they stay around, a good writer must have something for them to do, not keep them immutable. That's just lazy writing.

I gladly disagree. "Simple" is best, "show not tell" is best are two unworthy qualities when it comes to writing. Over analyzing something isn't necessary either, but enough detail is the best way to go with anything. To leave out and make the audience think of how a character is feeling when nothing is presented is the cheapest and most unflattering form of writing.

Enough detail is just another name for the same thing. One that you can grasp, I'm glad to see.

But I agree with you about not showing anything at all. Like Bale did in that letter scene.

This argument is dull, but hey at least I'm enjoying agreeing with Anno for once.

If X2 taught us something was that you need a common enemy to make a once unconceivable alliance.

TLS sucks. The cure being a great plot doesn't save it when the device was wasted. "Gifted" was great, but in the film the cure basically triggers one reactionary conversation and then evaporates.

On the contrary, it starts everything and keeps doing it as we see many of the main characters reacting to the very idea - or the actual effects - of it.

But yes, the cure was a great plot, as you say.

 

[Anno_Domini]

This argument is dull, but hey at least I'm enjoying agreeing with Anno for once.

TLS sucks. The cure being a great plot doesn't save it when the device was wasted. "Gifted" was great, but in the film the cure basically triggers one reactionary conversation and then evaporates.

Thanks for agreeing

And yes, "Gifted" should've been adapted into a film that actually respected the material. Man, imagine if Whedon did a X-Men film that was an adaptation of it!

Scott dying would be fine if it was at the end and he wasn't underused, which probably would of happened anyways. Him being underused. Wolverine getting all the glory at the end anyways.

That's sadly the only way you could have handled it, with Wolverine being the one to stop Jean. If Cyclops stayed around until the end and if he tried to stop her first and then died by Jean with Wolverine being the one to finally kill her...that would've been at least a better ending, imo.

That's my question... how did Nightcrawler play an important role in the third act?

He helped them get into the facility in Alkali Lake, helped Professor X while he was being controlled by Jason with Storm(where he also shared many thought-provoking scenes with Storm as well).

That's fine and all. But you have stated yourself how the plots in there rarely went somewhere.

I am fully aware that X3's went nowhere. Dark Phoenix's storyline went too fast to care as she went through two of the oldest members of the X-Men in a 90 minute timespan and the cure ended up showing how it'll revert by the fact that Magneto was slowly able to channel the chess piece.

The approaches to a subject are never something that you do once and then you just drop. That's why trilogies like Nolan's Batman don't mention themes like justice and in next movie they forget about it.

The cure did not play the same political angle that the first one did. X2, on the other hand, played the same good guys vs bad guys every superhero movie has done.

I'd prefer a subject be dropped then try to copy over and ended up looking like a very watered down version while trying to use the cure as some extra plot device that went nowhere and had no ramifications except for a war that Magneto was always going to start in the first place.

At least this time I made you fight for a proper articulation of your ideas. You're welcome.

Even though I've been saying that from the jump, but okay.

Again you don't quite grasp the difference between 'simple; and 'lacking.' Once you introduce an elements you must develop it. That doesn't mean it ends being simple. Your obscene reductionism just proves your inability to hold two different concepts in two different levels.

And you do have the time to discuss this, as your posts prove themselves. Please, don't be wrong about yourself too.

Oh man, how wrong you are Race. Simple is what is shown in TDKR where Rachel's letter is brought up and Bruce can't even look at a picture of her anymore. Lacking is any development on why exactly Rogue is taking the cure besides the imaginative idea that she's having an internal conflict with wanting physical contact, and yet we see her having physical contact before in an earlier film.

You say they go the simple route with X3, I greatly disagree.

I haven't said you don't listen. You said that about me. Please, have a moment and agree with yourself before carrying on.

Your problem is not about listening but understanding.

Oh Lord I feel for comic book fans right now.

Your problem is both, but that's not here nor there with our topic. You're not listening to my reasons of why X2 is a better film just because you prefer a X-Men film that centers on the idea of mutants always having to feel like outcasts even when other topics and themes should be used. You're not understanding the point that X2 actually takes time and develop its plots. Having opinions is one thing, but having close-minded opinions when you think a 90 minute film treats its plots better is truly hilarious my friend.

Your words and your action don't agree. Take a minute and have them in synchrony.

Oh, trust me, I will be quitting this like a bad smoking habit sooner rather than later if you continue to act like an asshat bud.

Your arguments in favor of X2 have been"
"Because it was, and possibly still is, the perfect X-Men film."
"And yet it was, and possibly still is, the best X-Men film."
"Who cares if some angle was lost out in X2."

Poor argumentation if you ask me. Well, actually no argumentation at all. Barely any significant idea there.

Fine if you think so. I've been reading posts that has been in agreement, so that's lovely.

X2 is a film that tries to cover more themes and topics, and that's why sets it apart from the first film and X3, the film that had watered down topics the first film already analyzed.

Actually, it was YOU who proved that point of showing and not telling in X3. Thanks for that.

I don't remember saying TDKR didn't do the same. I wish I had seen some intensity in Bruce's face when he was told about Alfred's lie. TDKR, in that scene, neither showed nor told.

In X2 they had a physical contact that proved to be deadly. Great point to sustain everything was solved forever.

I know exactly what I proved, but it doesn't take away you being so different between X3 and TDKR when you're fine with one film being simple, but you're not when the other film isn't simple. I can admit TDKR did its simplest way with using Rachel's letter, but it was actually enough, which is not the case with X3 and Rogue's storyline.

And the physical contact was not deadly at all. Bobby just said they'll have to take it slow. Deadly is the physical contact Rogue had throughout the first film.

I already explained that. Acting is what Bale lacked of when doing the scene of the letter.

Even though that was hailed as one of the best scenes in TDKR. It's not my fault you want over the top emotions my friend.

If they stay around, a good writer must have something for them to do, not keep them immutable. That's just lazy writing.

That statement just hurts X3 more. What was the point of Storm? Of Beast? Of Angel? Of Colossus? Of Psylocke? Callisto? Omega Man? Multiple Man? Juggernaut?

Enough detail is just another name for the same. One that you can grasp, I'm glad to see.

But I agree with you about not showing anything at all. Like Bale did in that letter scene.

Again, that is wrong.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

He helped them get into the facility in Alkali Lake, helped Professor X while he was being controlled by Jason with Storm(where he also shared many thought-provoking scenes with Storm as well).

I remember Xavier under hypnosis, yes. Oh, and being shy to a woman is not thought-provoking, merely describing one of his characteristics. But I'm glad the character was at least functional.

I am fully aware that X3's went nowhere. Dark Phoenix's storyline went too fast to care as she went through two of the oldest members of the X-Men in a 90 minute timespan and the cure ended up showing how it'll revert by the fact that Magneto was slowly able to channel the chess piece.

The cure being reversible doesn't change the fact that it re-defined mutation as a disease which triggered the action and kept it moving. But Dark Phoenix did go many places, no matter how fast it did.

I'd prefer a subject be dropped then try to copy over and ended up looking like a very watered down version while trying to use the cure as some extra plot device that went nowhere and had no ramifications except for a war that Magneto was always going to start in the first place.

I'd agree if you had been able to understand the difference between being afraid of mutants (X-Men 1) and re-defining mutation as a disease (X3).

Even though I've been saying that from the jump, but okay.

I listed all your previous "arguments" and they sounded nothing like what you did when started to develop them properly after my insistent requests.

Oh man, how wrong you are Race. Simple is what is shown in TDKR where Rachel's letter is brought up and Bruce can't even look at a picture of her anymore. Lacking is any development on why exactly Rogue is taking the cure besides the imaginative idea that she's having an internal conflict with wanting physical contact, and yet we see her having physical contact before in an earlier film.

And once again, simple is not lacking of.

Not reacting at all at such an important lie is different from properly explaining the motivations of a character. Rogue craving physical contact and being desolated by the idea other girls can give her boyfriend what she can't are things well explained and stated so you should have understood it.

You say they go the simple route with X3, I greatly disagree.

No, you said that for the first time: "So you'd give X3 the nod just because it goes back to that outcast angle even when it's short, simple and cheap?"

And now you greatly disagree with yourself once again. I'll ask you again, do you care to take a minute and agree with yourself before carrying on?

Oh Lord I feel for comic book fans right now.

Your problem is both, but that's not here nor there with our topic. You're not listening to my reasons of why X2 is a better film just because you prefer a X-Men film that centers on the idea of mutants always having to feel like outcasts even when other topics and themes should be used. You're not understanding the point that X2 actually takes time and develop its plots. Having opinions is one thing, but having close-minded opinions when you think a 90 minute film treats its plots better is truly hilarious my friend.

This is about the first time I hear you properly articulating an argument in favor of X2, so it's the first time I have the chance to listen/agree/disagree with something about that specific subject.

And you can't be serious about the length of a movie being defining in terms of how well a plot is developed. That said, I have said multiple times one of the problems of X3 is that it needed more time. I hope now you can retain that piece of information.

Oh, trust me, I will be quitting this like a bad smoking habit sooner rather than later if you continue to act like an asshat bud.

I can bet my hats that you won't anytime soon.

Fine if you think so. I've been reading posts that has been in agreement, so that's lovely.

Well, they have been able to explain in far less space far more valid points than you have, so for once I agree it has been refreshing.

X2 is a film that tries to cover more themes and topics, and that's why sets it apart from the first film and X3, the film that had watered down topics the first film already analyzed.

X2, indeed, try to cover a lot. And it's unexplainable how it solved or developed so few of them.

I know exactly what I proved, but it doesn't take away you being so different between X3 and TDKR when you're fine with one film being simple, but you're not when the other film isn't simple. I can admit TDKR did its simplest way with using Rachel's letter, but it was actually enough, which is not the case with X3 and Rogue's storyline.

It's not certainly the case, because in X3 it was properly set and solved whereas in TDKR, Alfred's trust being broken in such a way barely ahd any reaction from Bruce.

And the physical contact was not deadly at all. Bobby just said they'll have to take it slow. Deadly is the physical contact Rogue had throughout the first film.

Physical contact, as very well stated multiple times, proved to be a barrier between them, even if only in Rogue's insecure mind (she's a teenager after all). They can take it as slow as they want, but her super powers won't go anywhere... at least there was a cure? And so, the story can have further development.

Even though that was hailed as one of the best scenes in TDKR. It's not my fault you want over the top emotions my friend.

Where is this crowd hailing. This is just another of your needs of having someone else's approval to hold your ideas as valid.

That statement just hurts X3 more. What was the point of Storm? Of Beast? Of Angel? Of Colossus? Of Psylocke? Callisto? Omega Man? Multiple Man? Juggernaut?

Act as a leader now Xavier is dead. The rest, as much as they did in previous movies, that's why, unlike Rogue or Nightcrawler, there was no attempt to give them a background.





I'll tell you what though: I'll watch X2 again with my best disposition and will say the best things I can about it. You can trust Senator Pleasury on that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Cool beans.

If I'm up enough when I get home from work tonight, I'll reply

 

[Anno_Domini]

I remember Xavier under hypnosis, yes. Oh, and being shy to a woman is not thought-provoking, merely describing one of his characteristics. But I'm glad the character was at least functional.



The cure being reversible doesn't change the fact that it re-defined mutation as a disease which triggered the action and kept it moving. But Dark Phoenix did go many places, no matter how fast it did.



I'd agree if you had been able to understand the difference between being afraid of mutants (X-Men 1) and re-defining mutation as a disease (X3).



I listed all your previous "arguments" and they sounded nothing like what you did when started to develop them properly after my insistent requests.



And once again, simple is not lacking of.

Not reacting at all at such an important lie is different from properly explaining the motivations of a character. Rogue craving physical contact and being desolated by the idea other girls can give her boyfriend what she can't are things well explained and stated so you should have understood it.



No, you said that for the first time: "So you'd give X3 the nod just because it goes back to that outcast angle even when it's short, simple and cheap?"

And now you greatly disagree with yourself once again. I'll ask you again, do you care to take a minute and agree with yourself before carrying on?



This is about the first time I hear you properly articulating an argument in favor of X2, so it's the first time I have the chance to listen/agree/disagree with something about that specific subject.

And you can't be serious about the length of a movie being defining in terms of how well a plot is developed. That said, I have said multiple times one of the problems of X3 is that it needed more time. I hope now you can retain that piece of information.



I can bet my hats that you won't anytime soon.



Well, they have been able to explain in far less space far more valid points than you have, so for once I agree it has been refreshing.



X2, indeed, try to cover a lot. And it's unexplainable how it solved or developed so few of them.



It's not certainly the case, because in X3 it was properly set and solved whereas in TDKR, Alfred's trust being broken in such a way barely ahd any reaction from Bruce.



Physical contact, as very well stated multiple times, proved to be a barrier between them, even if only in Rogue's insecure mind (she's a teenager after all). They can take it as slow as they want, but her super powers won't go anywhere... at least there was a cure? And so, the story can have further development.



Where is this crowd hailing. This is just another of your needs of having someone else's approval to hold your ideas as valid.



Act as a leader now Xavier is dead. The rest, as much as they did in previous movies, that's why, unlike Rogue or Nightcrawler, there was no attempt to give them a background.





I'll tell you what though: I'll watch X2 again with my best disposition and will say the best things I can about it. You can trust Senator Pleasury on that.

Well, I am home, but I'm not in the mood with continuing this subject.

I find X2: X-Men United as the better film and you apparently do not. I find X2's length drove its plots with careful pacing while you don't. I find X-Men: The Last Stand to drive its plots way too quickly in a 90 minute time frame and while you somewhat think the same(I presume), you also find what X3 to be better, but I do not.

I'm also tired of this back and forth of you assuming I know nothing about writing and I'll be honest when I say I've been acting the same way. So, yah, this is the end on my behalf. Also, I'm too much in a bad mood because of tonight to even think about continuing this topic any longer.

 

[Lantern Venom]

TDKR, but IM3 is pretty close. IM3 is better than the first two installments of its franchise, which is rare for any trilogy.