Days of Future Past Days of Future Past News and Discussion - Part 1

[wobbly]

As for Nixon, it may have been brought up jokingly when someone here mentioned the possibility of reuniting Frank Langella with Singer for just such a purpose, but, well, why not? Or is there some obscure copyright-schmopyright regulation that prevents actors from portraying even historical figures twice in two different movies? It's already enough to deal with studios's playing tug o' war with Marvel properties.

If he wanted Langella for Nixon it wouldn't be a problem (can't copyright a historical person), though I'd go with a better lookalike myself. I can think of a few actors/actresses who have played the same historical person in different films (James Garner played Wyatt Earp is different films, Bette Davis played Queen Elizabeth I twice, etc).

Some lesser known actors have made a living out of playing the same historical role (Michael Sheard and Billy Frick both played Hitler multiple times for example).

 

[JackMercy]

Singer and Vaughn worked pretty hard to move this franchise in a new direction, and I don't see how or why they would both suddenly go back on that.

...because FOX asked them to?

 

[SterlingDee]

The thing is, not every character needs to have character development. That's impossible with the limited time of a film and with this many characters anyway.

A film hasn't got the same abilities and possibilities in that regard as an ongoing comic book series, a book or a tv series.

Exactly. The original trilogy had very little character development for most characters. Most of the characters were just characterized by their powers and the rest was left to the nuance of the actor's performance.

 

[SuperT]

I don't have much faith in Singer these days. He's made comments how there won't be unnecessary mutants in this one, but every X-men movie has had them. Literally, characters who don't have any dialogue and are only there so all the protagonists have someone to fight in the end. Give me fewer characters and better development.

Huh? From Singers two X-Men movies he directed, what character didn't serve some purpose to the overall story or plot of the two movies? I think you'd be hard pressed to find one.

 

[Mad Ones]

Samsnee is probably referring to characters like Sabretooth and Deathstrike.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

i changed my avvie ...what do you guys think??

 

[marvelrobbins]

Samsnee is probably referring to characters like Sabretooth and Deathstrike.

Sabretooth's purpose was to be magneto's henchman.Tog grab rogue,and attack the X-Men and to go solo against Wolverine.

Deathstrike's purpose was to be stryker's mind controlled henchwoman and to go mano on mano against WOlverine.

They both served purpose.

 

[X-Maniac]

Exactly. The original trilogy had very little character development for most characters. Most of the characters were just characterized by their powers and the rest was left to the nuance of the actor's performance.

It's still possible to give people 'moments' though.

You make it sound like it's 'all or nothing' - that they have to be a leading man/woman or just wallpaper.

There is something between those extremes. The Storm/Nightcrawler conversation in the jet in X2, Nightcrawler's explanation of his tattoos in the church when Storm and Jean go to find him, Mystique's one line of dialogue in X1 on the helicopter, and even the expression on Deathstrike's face when she died implying something deeper and more tragic going on, and Beast's expression when he approached Leech and his physical mutation faded away.

Sadly, those little touches were absent for many other secondary characters in this series, but the above examples are not difficult to achieve and did not detract from the film in any way but enhanced it in each case. It just takes a bit of thought to give characters dimension and substance.

If I were writing a story/script, I certainly would not just be adding in people who had no motivation/purpose. The other X-Men apart from those chosen as the leads should not be treated as ciphers.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

For me its gotta be Jean's choice to limp her way out of the jet to save her friends, only to die in the process. I recently watched X2 this past week and every time I watch the scene, I get tears in my eyes watching Jean Grey make the choice she made so willingly. So it made me write some X-Men stuff in relation to Jean's death.

 

[samsnee]

Sabretooth's purpose was to be magneto's henchman.Tog grab rogue,and attack the X-Men and to go solo against Wolverine.

Deathstrike's purpose was to be stryker's mind controlled henchwoman and to go mano on mano against WOlverine.

They both served purpose.

You missed the part where I said "Give me fewer characters and better development."

Yes, they had a purpose. So does a rock. Doesn't mean I want to waste screentime on it. I want to care about characters, not just use them so we can see their power for a cheap special effect.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

Do you not understand Deathstrike was basically Anne Reynolds from GLMK

 

[SuperT]

Do you not understand Deathstrike was basically Anne Reynolds from GLMK

Was just about to come here and say that.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Do you not understand Deathstrike was basically Anne Reynolds from GLMK

Yep I know that.They turned her Into deathstrike so they could her fiece battle vs Wolverine.

 

[def28]

Still was a waste of Deathstrike besides a friggen sweet action scene. Her and Sabertooth were more worthy of large roles. Using them as lackeys with no lines is pretty weak.

 

[JP]

She was one of the films highlights.

 

[def28]

Cause shes hot and had arguably the best fight scene in pretty much any comic film. The character herself was wasted.

 

[marvelrobbins]

They made Deathstrike work In context of story In X2.And It gave us agreat kick ass fight sequenze.

 

[JP]

I disagree. She served a purpose. That's not a waste.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

Yeah Singer turned Anne Reynolds into Deathstrike and it was a good change/adaption...it served a purpose.

 

[def28]

If I didnt read the comics and have an interest in those villains being developed I would def agree. But I was bummed she was out of the franchise without a single line to Logan. Loved that fight!

 

[Angamb]

You missed the part where I said "Give me fewer characters and better development."

Yes, they had a purpose. So does a rock. Doesn't mean I want to waste screentime on it. I want to care about characters, not just use them so we can see their power for a cheap special effect.

I agree with you. Fox and the directors are using villains mainly for the fights. Thats really poor and kind of an insult to years of comics and stories.

If they include one or two known villains for the comics, even if they are secondary villains, at least give them a personality and some lines during the movie. Instead of using them as action figures more than actual characters

 

[def28]

I agree with you. Fox and the directors are using villains mainly for the fights. Thats really poor and kind of an insult to years of comics and stories.

If they include one or two known villains for the comics, even if they are secondary villains, at least give them a personality and some lines during the movie. Instead of using them as action figures more than actual characters

Yeah, I agree. The whole mute to few lines villain thing has been done to death in this series.

 

[samsnee]

Did Riptide in First Class even have a line? Or any of the morlocks in x-3 besides their leader?

 

[lordofthenerds]

Did Riptide in First Class even have a line? Or any of the morlocks in x-3 besides their leader?

He had a couple funny lines. Unintentional, but still funny.

 

[def28]

Still cant believe hes credited as Kid Omega hahaha.