Perhaps, but should X3 be a success I have no doubt that a Magneto film will actually happen.
I imagine it's still not a foregone conclusion. There has to be a good script, a director, etc, and I would be willing to bet we'll see WOLVERINE first to gauge the waters on an X-Men spinoff. And who knows what FOX's plans are for the X-franchise, period?
So are you saying that if Marsden wasn't commited to Superman Returns Cyclops would not get sidelined? Doubtful. The character was barely in X2.
I'm saying who knows? It's moronic to assume there's one reason Cyclops role in X3 is what it is. Why would they just sideline a character they bothered to include in two films in an important arc? Why not just write him out entirely?
Those minor things don't bother me in the least.
Oh, so there only certain LEVELS of characterization inaccuracy that can be bothersome? You're a step away from hypocritical.
A WOLVERINE film would be based on the same version that we have seen in X-MEN, X2 and X3. You do know the definition of the word "perfect", right? It's not possible if they're basing it off this version.
It appears that the only purpose Scott has within the trilogy is to play the jilted boyfriend of Jean and rival of Wolverine, but I wouldn't say Scott's character has been explored, how did you come to that conclusion?
Scott's purpose in the trilogy was clear: The introduce Cyclops to the movies, and to establish a character with his specific powers and relationship to both Jean, Xavier, and Wolverine.
Your, and other fans misinterpretation of Scott's role in the franchise amuses me. "Jilted" implies that he was discarded by Jean in favor of Wolverine. He wasn't. She clearly chose him over Wolverine.
How did I come to the conclusion that he has indeed been explored? Because I watch the movies, and I saw what happened in them and how that relates to his character and his characters part in the mythos.
For instance, I saw that Scott was clearly the leader of the X-Men in X-MEN (because he led, and they took orders from him and followed his leadership), and that he didn't take orders from Wolverine. I saw that he greatly cared about Jean. I saw that he didn't like Wolverine, his attitude, or Wolverine's intentions toward Jean. I saw that he had tremendous power that he had to control or risk hurting other people, and tactical abilities that allowed him to formulate plans and best use his powers. I saw that Xavier trusted him in X-MEN and X2. I saw that Jean loved him to death, if not perfectly. These, my friend, are explorations of the Scott Summers/Cyclops character. These are also ALL aspects that are found in the comic book version. In X3, we will see that when Jean Grey dies, her death hits him hard, and he questions the meaning left in his life, and even withdraws from his and Xavier's mission. And we will see that he still loves her deeply. Again, something found in the comics.
Again, your misinterpretation amuses me. I can cite lines, actions, and story elements that all bear out that this is indeed quite close to the Cyclops we have seen in the comics. The only real major difference is "screentime", and the fact that he doesn't fight Wolverine for no good reason.
But my whole point is that he doesn't need to be, nor is he supose to be.
I don't really care what "supposed to be", because you're still cli nging to your "this is what happened in the comics" way of thinking. "Supposed to be" is in the eye of the beholder. These creative teams have chosen to tell the story of the X-Men, at least Xavier's students and his dream, from the point of view of a newcomer, Wolverine. It is a method that has worked quite well thus far, and will likely continue to work. This isn't the comic book. It never set out to be. The comics still exist, where you can read issue after issue of Cyclops giving commands and blasting things and putting Wolverine in his place. These are the movies.
Sure many Wolverine fans don't see a problem with it, but what about those that may want other characters explored?
Other characters HAVE been explored. This is the point.
I am in agreement that Jackman has done a great job in potraying him, but his character exposure is pure overkill, especially if he is bound to get a solo flick.
Why is it overkill? Through Wolverine's point of view, we are seeing the X-Men mythology. But you all act as if we're ONLY seeing him. That's not the case at all. Are you really incapable of breaking down a movie into moments?
But Wolverine is not is not the only interesting and complex character, there are plenty of more characters that are just as interesting.
Please. Regale me. Of the X-Men, whose basic characterization is more complex and interesting (and cinematic, in terms of driving a franchise) than that of Wolverine? Scott, who has the trademark "I was an orphan" origin? Storm, the outcast goddess? Rogue, the outcast? Jean Grey could be argued, but her arc and relevance to the mythology has and will be explored.
The writers are merely banking on Wolverine just because he is the most recognized character from X-Men, they no doubt feel that if he wasn't in the movie then people would not flock to see it, but I'm sure others would watch it regardless.
They're banking on Wolverine because he's the most interesting, and because he's played by one of the best all-around actors to come along in the last decade or so.
Pardon me but this whole statement is adsurd.
Which statement? That the other X-Men have been factored into these films? Or that we've seen numerous scenes from them? Both statements are true.
Wolverine has been in all 3 films, he has been the lead character in all 3 films AND he will get his own set of films. Numerous scenes?!......
Yes, numerous scenes about other characters (Remember, Wolverine being in the scenes does not negate the other characters part in them). Shall I list them for you?
X3 will mark the first appearance of Beast and Angel, X2 was Nightcrawlers only appearance, Xavier has limited screentime throughout the trilogy, the next set of characters that get to much screentime is Storm, Jean, Magneto and strangely Mystique.
You're making me laugh. I'm seriously going to start listing stuff.
Well I'm far from the fanboy type, however when making a film about a superhero team centering the entire trilogy on just one individual that is only a small part of that team isn't practical.
Wrong. From a writing standpoint, it's INCREDIBLY practical. It provides the audience with a focal point, and a protagonist, which is immensely important in a story like this. Then you surround said protagonist with antagonists, a mentor, a love interest, etc. It's how literature has always worked, and in your average comic book story, you will find the same themes occurring.
This isn't a sitcom, where you have show after show to continuously develop many characters. It's a movie. For the same reason that Frodo was the "main character" in THE LORD OF THE RINGS, Wolverine is the "main character" in these films. That does not mean that only he affects the films. And that has not been the case at all.
Also from an audience standpoint I would automaticlly assume that X-Men was about Wolverine and him only by the direction they have taken the series, the writers need to leave some stuff left to explore, instead they are using up a good potential cast by misusing Sabretooth and Deathstrike.
Then as an audience member, I'd say you weren't very bright. Because X-Men has much larger themes and story than "This is about Wolverine". It's like saying STAR WARS was all about Luke Skywalker or that the prequels were all about Anakin Skywalker.
I'm sorry, misusing Sabertooth and Deathstrike? There isn't exactly time to go into Sabertooth's background, or Yuriko's, without it seeming incredibly forced, and expositionary. What exactly did y ouw ant to see? And more importantly, what part of X-Men (or an actual character) would you have been willing to sacrifice to see that from those characters. It's not as simple as you think it is.
I agree, but that is not the point I'm making. X-Men is about a team of heroes and it should focus on those heroes not just on ONE particular character because of his popularity.
I'm not stupid. I know what the X-Men are about. And the films have done that (not as much as the comics, obviously, but that's not possible). X-MEN does focus on those heroes at different times. You continue to miss this point. If what you mean is "X-Men should give everyone equal time", then say that. Nevermind that that would make for an incredibly poorly structured film and story that was mostly origins and exposition.
Fantastic 4 was able to focus on the entire group as a whole and individually. One character doesn't have to take center stage for 3 straight movies, one is fine, but 3 is just pure overkill.
FANTASTIC FOUR featured four main characters and one villain. None of them were fleshed out any more than say, Cyclops and Storm have been. They just had more screentime and more exposition. Notice, when compared, FANTASTIC FOUR is clearly considered inferior in terms of writing and as an adaption to X-MEN and X2. One wonders why.
Its easier for the comics to do this than it is for a film. Heck even in comics every writer +wants to write about Wolverine.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying, it's impossible to translate half of what Cyclops, Storm, Jean, Rogue, Iceman, Beast, Angel, Nightcrawler, Gambit, Xavier and Wolverine are to film and make it work structurally and storywise. Let alone Magneto, Mystique, Pyro, Sabertooth, Toad, Deathstrike, and Juggernaut.
Personally Wolverine could easily take a backseat to another character for a film or 2 and it really wouldn't matter, especially if he will be getting his own movie. Keep in mind that I am a Wolverine fan myself, but even his fandom can get tired of the over exposure.
Odd that audiences haven't. Must be because they haven't read years and years and years of comics featuring him, and haven't begun to tire of a character they're still meeting. The curse of being a comic book fan.
The love triangle has never served any purpose but to make Cyclops look inferior.
Because you say so? It's provided conflict, tension, and drama...I don't see Cyclops looking inferior in any way. He hasn't been dropped by Jean in favor of Wolverine, and he hasn't looked immature or childish. It's Wolverine who has come across as those things.
They come across more like close friends. They make it clear that it's Wolverine who excites her.
No, they don't make it clear. This is simply how you interpret it. Which has no bearing on what is shown.
That's a completely different situation and you know it. What if they remade Return of The Jedi and had Luke get killed off in the first act?
Funny you should mention completely different situations...I mean, come on...the situation you describe is more like if Wolverine was killed off in the first act, since it is Wo lverine (and not Cyclops) who has had the Luke Skywalker-sized "lead" role in the X-Men franchise. Your analogy sucks even worse tha mine did. At least mine had the "something I don't care for has been done with the character" part to it. But hey, I'll bite. If Cyclops was the lead (like Luke was), and he was killed off in the first act, would I be pissed? You bet. He's not been the lead, though, has he?
Yes because studio politics never affect storyline decisions.
I didn't say they never affected storyline decisions. What you seem to forget is that it is not Tom Rothman who makes all the decisions about this franchise. Again, I seriously doubt what you imply happened. Studio politics and Tom Rothman sitting down and saying "Let's kill Cyclops in a humiliating manner and replace him with Wolverine" are two completely different things. You act like Tom Rothman hates Cyclops character so much that he's tried to sabotage his role from Day One.
Riiight.
.
