I never said it was more valid. However, a lot of film critics actually have studied film and filmmaking so they can criticize a film based on objective criteria. Again, this is not an indicator of whether or not you will like it, but an indicator of the quality of the filmmaking.
Let's be honest. Critics haven't been all that objective with this film, period. They're comparing it unfavorably to X2 because of certain "flaws", when X2 had many of the same flaws. The pacing and so forth wasn't even what most critics had a problem with. Most critics were going "lack of character development", which made me wonder if they even remember X-MEN and X2, which, like X3, had character development, but not tons of it.
Ah. You ARE biased but not in the biases you mention. And sorry but the first 2 films actually had scenes that worked for the stories they wanted to tell.
Could you provide an example?
They may not have been perfect to the comics but then again they were never meant to be. They were meant to work in the context of the film.
Ditto the scenes in X3, really.
Each scene actually helped flesh out each character, whether it was Cyclops monologue to Xavier, Wolverine's monologue to Rogue, or Storm's scene with Kelly in X1 or Storms scene with Nightcrawler in X2. Each character became vulnerable and were able to distill human emotion as they dealt with the issues they faced. We got very little of that in X3. We had the moment where Magneto chastises Pyro. We got a moment when Beast was seeing his human hand. We got it with two of Angel's scenes. But where else?
Angel's scenes, as you mentioned, clearly showed vulnerability. Cyclops showed vulnerability bigtime. An entire scene dedicated to Xavier not being perfect (thus, vulnerable), Wolverine has a mini-monlogue with Rogue before she leaves to take the cure. Clear vulnerable moment for Rogue there. Storm had obvious vulnerable moments in line with her charactrerization from X-MEN and X2, AND they grew her as a character, made her stronger, more decisive, and made her act on those decisions. Pretty much any Magneto scene showed his vulnerable nature, especially the scene with Jean in the forest. And I think it's pretty obvious that Jean's scenes showed her vulnerability. There were several scenes with Beast that indicated his arc and vulnerability. And Leech's was even shown. Hell, even Mystique's were touched on. Were these moments as LONG as they were in X-MEN and X2? No, but they were no less potent or valid for it. There were MORE characters vulnerabilities to show.
Did we really get to see why Rogue chose to take the cure and did it really have nothing to do with Bobby? Storm was constantly in "chastise/angry" mode.
It's strongly hinted that Rogue takes the cure because she cannot touch people without hurting them. Bobby was only a part of it. And Storm being in chastise/angry mode kinda makes sense, since that's pretty much how Singer set her up. Vulnerable and angry, and somewhat strongwilled.
Wolverine was Cyclops and completely unlike his character in either the movies or the comics.
Extremely untrue. Extremely. I just read a classic-era X-Men comic, and there's Wolverine talking about teamwork. And I have yet to see Cyclops laugh off a Danger Room session, disobey Xavier's orders to the extent Wolverine did, or do the whole "forest tracking" thing. Did Wolverine assume a leadership role? Yes, but it was well within the character set up in X-MEN and X2, and being a leader doesn't make him "Cyclops".
What about Jean? When she wasn't crying or trying to get up on Wolverine, she was a zombie. Yes. Fantastic characterization there.
Valid, in the context of the movie.
Here's the problem. You and many other pro singer fans are so starved for any kind of GENIUNE character development and growth in his films that you'll just about eat up any scene where they're talking to someone other than Wolverine.
If that was true, pro-Singer fans would be eating up X3.
Scott talking to xavier while he was unconscious in bed is meaningless because the film had never really established their bond.
How is it meaningless? That scene ESTABLISHED their bond, and made it known that it existed as part of Scott's characterization. That's a a great scene.
At least not in the way it did with him and Wolverine by the sequel.
Show me where Wolverine says "You've taught my everything in my life worth knowing. And if anything happens...I'll take care of them."
Compare Cyclops' scene with prof x or even jean with that of a visibly upset Wolverine after Xavier is blown to bits. See the difference?
No. Since Cyclops was clearly upset when Xavier got hurt, and even more upset when Jean was using Cerebro, and I imagine, had he BEEN there to see Xavier get blown to bits, he'd be even MORE upset than Logan was. You can't just go "Wolverine has a stronger bond with Xavier" because Cyclops isn't in the movie.
One is meaningful, the other just falls flat. That's because Cyclops as a character was never geniune and nothing more than a plot device, just like Jean, Storm and Professor X. You could give a rats ass about any of them except for Rogue and Wolverine. This is the magic of Singer.
I suppose if you do't bother to think about the characters and how they relate to the story and each other, you might not care about them. But I've cared about every X-Man since X-MEN, and even some of the Brotherhood members.
don't think so. Cyclops' monologue was not even a plot device as it did not even forward the plot at all, which is one of the reasons why the scene DOES work. You're so busy complaining about the fact that Cyclops wasn't the lead character and that's fine. I realize he wasn't the lead and I realize exactly why they focuses on both Rogue and Wolverine. However, Singer had the smarts to actually include scenes that revealed different sides of the characters whether or not it had something with direct relation to the plot.
Ratner (and his writers) also had those smarts. Why else would we be seeing a vulnerable and feral and violent Wolverine in X3? A Wolverine who questions Xavier even as he mourns his death? Why else do we get to see both Cyclops distaste for Wolverine, and his grief and relief at seeing Jean Grey? Why do we get to see Xavier help, but also that he is capable of harming? Why do we get to see Magneto's absolute hatred of Xavier's dream and his respect for Xavier? And, like X-MEN and X2, not every single scene we see in X3 is intergral to the plot, though most of them do have something to do with it.
That's because these are character moments that exist out of the plot and this is the reason why Ratner's film fails in character development.
Why, exactly? Who said character moments can't happen that have something to do with the plot? What about Xavier's funeral sequence? That's not terribly intergral to the plot. Ditto Bobby and Kitty's scene, and Magneto's talk with Pyro. And Cyclops/Wolverine's sequence wasn't that important to the plot, either. Ditto Xavier and his students and the talk about responsible use of power (though it may prove to be so).
Of course, if all you want is going by the numbers with nuances as subtle as sledgehammers, then all of this is going to fly over your head
There's nothing all that subtle about Singer's character development. No more so than X3, at least. I mean, his characters, like X3's, come right out and say how they feel, amidst obvious messages, etc.
Except what she DID say previously at least had her showing different emotions. The scenes with her and Kelly are completely different than the ones she has with Wolverine or with Nightcrawler. She's actually has other emotions other than angry.
The scene with Kelly was about fear. That element is, thanks to Halle Berry, once again found in X3 when she reacts to the cure. There's obvious fear/anger there. But that's not all Storm was in X3. Remember the sequence where the school stays open? That didn't strike me as an angry scene. At all.
No. Wolverine was NOT fine. He was Cyclops in Wolverine clothing.
Why was Wolverine "Cyclops" in "Wolverine clothing"? It's not like his character changed. His ROLE changed, but within the parameters of Wolverine's character. He still had all his attributes. Cyclops was never a sarcastic *******. He never disobeyed the rules. He never killed anyone in this franchise, as far as I know. And he definitely didn't fight with Xavier and spar with Storm like Wolverine did. Go read the recent X-Men arc "Planet X". He's decidedly in character from what I've seen of Wolverine over the years in regard to his relationship with Xavier, Jean, and the X-Men.
I dont think anyone is trying to argue that X3 wasnt entertaining. We're trying to argue that it's not a quality film. Quality is not as subjective as entertainment, the problem with most of the general public is to them entertainment = quality. I dont believe that. I very much enjoyed Armageddon, but is it a quality film? Hell no.
