taintedFB
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Kurosawa said:I don't know that he's a better actor than Jackman, but he's certainly capable. Still, had Caviziel done the part instead of Marsden, they would NOT have crapped all over Cyclops like they have. Of course part of what made Jackman a big star was X1 where he was a total bad ass while Scott was a total tool.
I don't think Caviezel would have been as likeable. I don't think he looks the part either. And let's be honest, he's not really a good looking guy. I think if he were Cyclops, we'd probably be rooting for Wolverine right now.
And Hugh has done what exactly (in film)? Kate & Leopold (disaster) or Van Helsing (disappointing is a kind way of putting it), Swordfish (people went for Halle's boobs, that's all). All were not very successful or acclaimed. At least he ahs a broadway career to fall back on.
The big problem with Cyclops in the films is that ALL of is character moments in X1 were cut. He was nothing more than an "opposite" to Wolverine. He had few lines, and was the but of alot of Logan's one-liners. Hence in X2, they felt he was expendable, and now...well, we'll see...

By the by, I've been a fan of Cyclops for a long time, practically the only character I play on X-Men Legends (a necessity to win, really) and I really dislike the treatment of Cyclops just to make room for Wolverine and Storm to shine because one is the money-maker and the other is played by a 'big' star.
but yea you have a point as bad as it may seem 