Best Xmen Director????

[Lil_Flip246]

???????

 

[WorthyStevens]

I'm gonna have to go with Singer on this one.

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Why didn't you choose Ratner??? He didn't write the script. He wasn't responsible for making this movie so SHORT.

 

[J.Howlett]

Seriously? Is there even a question? And that's not a stab at Ratner. He was at a disadvantage while making this film.

Had Ratner given the proper time to develop, shoot, and perfect the film in post production, who knows.

So, this question is at a disadvantage to Ratner because of the circumstances he was under.

 

[X-Gal123]

I'm going with Singer because he set up the franchise, gave the characters screen time and although the action sequences weren't as cool as Ratner's I felt like the movie was better overall because the characters were given time to shine.

 

[crappymovie]

I voted Singer because I respect him. He is a filmaker with a vision, and gave the X-Men it's dark tone and relatively well developed characters. All I hate to say: Imagine if Brett Ratner had started the franchise...

 

[WorthyStevens]

Why didn't you choose Ratner??? He didn't write the script. He wasn't responsible for making this movie so SHORT.

I didn't say anything against Ratner. I just prefer Singer.

 

[Phoenix_Rising]

I'd have to go with Ratner because he made X3 really feel like a comic book movie and he took risks which helped tremendously to increase the drama and epicity of the film !

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Singer CHANGED THE CHARACTERS and made Wolverine the star...He had both movies based on Wolverine. Plus the action was lame compared to X3. If FOX gave the movie MORE TIME, Ratner would have perfected it. Why are people blaming deaths and cures to Ratner? Did he write the script???? Ratner made Storm lame and same with the rest of the Xmen. He made the movie about Wolverine, and the Xmen as supporting characters.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I choose Singer.

Ratner's film was great... but it did lack in some things.

Bryan Singer had better paced movies, that focused more on character development. I love the X-Men for the characters... the powers are secondary. Singer focused on the characters, and nailed it.

He also developed his stories better. They were also more intricate. It wasn't as simple as Ratner's was.

Although, here is the difference between the 2...

Singer was involved from the beginning, and had direct input on the stories in both films, and how they played out. Ratner came in late to the game, and the story was already laid out before him. He just switched the Golden Gate Bridge sequence from the middle to the end.

So honestly, it's kind of unfair to compare the 2 of them, because they had totally different circumstances.

The one thing that you can judge, is how they developed the story. Singer developed the story better, paced it better, and let stuff actually impact you. Ratner didn't do that, he just jumped from scene to scene.

Overall, together, they delievered an excellent X-Men trilogy. Overall, as a fan who's been wanting X-Men movies my entire life, I feel totally satisfied with them.

That's not to say I don't have my complaints, but anytime you adapt a piece of fiction from one medium to another, compromise has to be made. And all in all, I think that the sacrifices that were made didn't comprimise the integrity of the characters or the world, and didn't change what I love about them.

The only change I have a true complaint with is Cyclops in the Phoenix Saga. But even then, I still think it worked for the movie.

 

[Mary]

Singer. Always.

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Ratner could have perfected it if FOX made the movie longer. So don't blame Ratner for the time.

 

[Lil_Flip246]

The only change I have a true complaint with is Cyclops in the Phoenix Saga. But even then, I still think it worked for the movie.

Ratner did not write the storyline.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Flip, why did you even make this thread and poll if you can't handle the fact that people will be saying Singer?

 

[jusblaze21]

Singer

 

[liamoversion2]

Singer CHANGED THE CHARACTERS and made Wolverine the star...He had both movies based on Wolverine. Plus the action was lame compared to X3. If FOX gave the movie MORE TIME, Ratner would have perfected it. Why are people blaming deaths and cures to Ratner? Did he write the script???? Ratner made Storm lame and same with the rest of the Xmen. He made the movie about Wolverine, and the Xmen as supporting characters.

It wasn't Singer's fault that Hugh Jackman became the star of the franchise. He just used him as a fitting protagonist in X1 (which was a great decision as Wolerine is one of the best things about the first film)... after that, when Jackman's star really started to rise, the studio would have been pushing for him to be the frontman and Singer gradually would have lost control...

 

[The Batman]

and he was responsible for this movie being short....

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Don't you agree that Ratner would have perfected X3 if FOX made the movie longer?? Ratner did the best of what he could.. Of all three, which is the most entertaining?? My answer is X3. X1 was REALLY BORING. X2 was an improvement, but again Storm and them were cameos.

 

[The Kid]

Wolverine and Colossus hiding away from thrown cars... geez. fecking callisto with quicksilver's powers..

Singer of course.

 

[Lil_Flip246]

and he was responsible for this movie being short....

Fox was responsible for that actually.

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Wolverine and Colossus taking cover from thrown cars... geez.

Singer of course.

Blame the writers on that one. Not Ratner.

 

[HighVoltage]

Brett Ratner.

 

[eXperiment]

Yep

 

[Lil_Flip246]

Can people please explain why they chose who and not the other? Thanks.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Don't you agree that Ratner would have perfected X3 if FOX made the movie longer??

No.