Entertainment Quality

[chaseter]

LOL Those were the good old days. Times have changed now.

What did you think of the movie LS?

 

[kah]

And my reasoning was the reason I think you judge X3 so harshly.

Quoi? You think I'm judging the film harshly because I'm not considering the constraints of the production crew? I knew nothing about the constraints as I watched the film. I only knew of them after I had come here and read about them.

I judge X3 harshly because I judge everything harshly. It's who I am. I didn't like the movie based solely on what I saw.

I do feel badly for the director given everything I've read about what he went through. But that has nothing to do with my opinion about the quality of the film.

 

[chaseter]

Quoi? You think I'm judging the film harshly because I'm not considering the constraints of the production crew? I knew nothing about the constraints as I watched the film. I only knew of them after I had come here and read about them.

I judge X3 harshly because I judge everything harshly. It's who I am. I didn't like the movie based solely on what I saw.

I do feel badly for the director given everything I've read about what he went through. But that has nothing to do with my opinion about the quality of the film.

I said nothing about the "constraints"...I said it about the "style". Although constraints had a huge impact on it. Ratner and companie's X3 was different than Singer's X2 and X1 in so many ways that some people could not adapt to that change in style, story, etc.... So, they think it's an inadequate movie and judge it harshly according to their preconceived notions and expectations.

 

[kah]

I said nothing about the "constraints"...I said it about the "style". Although constraints had a huge impact on it. Ratner and companie's X3 was different than Singer's X2 and X1 in so many ways that some people could not adapt to that change in style, story, etc.... So, they think it's an inadequate movie and judge it harshly according to their preconceived notions and expectations.

My apologies, I misread your words. Bad kah, bad kah .

But I also didn't know it was a new director, or new writers. I was purposefully ignorant of these things in order to enjoy, or not, the film based on it's own merits. My only expectations are for things to make sense internal to the film I'm watching, and when based on source material, to stay true to the spirit of the source material. I don't mind little changes, but significant deviations from the source do bother me.

There are a lot of things I didn't like about X1 and X2, but at least they felt true to the spirit of the books. Somehow, for me, X3 doesn't. It felt like I was watching someone play an X-Men video game.

 

[chaseter]

My apologies, I misread your words. Bad kah, bad kah .

But I also didn't know it was a new director, or new writers. I was purposefully ignorant of these things in order to enjoy, or not, the film based on it's own merits. My only expectations are for things to make sense internal to the film I'm watching, and when based on source material, to stay true to the spirit of the source material. I don't mind little changes, but significant deviations from the source do bother me.

There are a lot of things I didn't like about X1 and X2, but at least they felt true to the spirit of the books. Somehow, for me, X3 doesn't. It felt like I was watching someone play an X-Men video game.

When you say books...do you mean the novelizations or the comics? I still think the reason why many people on here don't like X3 is because of how they were so ingrained and use to Singer's X world that when we got the view from another set of people...they freaked out and said it sucked. I think X3 was more comic related and relevant than X1 or X2.

 

[BMM]

When you say books...do you mean the novelizations or the comics? I still think the reason why many people on here don't like X3 is because of how they were so ingrained and use to Singer's X world that when we got the view from another set of people...they freaked out and said it sucked. I think X3 was more comic related and relevant than X1 or X2.

I don't. That's the exact reason I don't like X3 as much.

 

[chaseter]

I don't. That's the exact reason I don't like X3 as much.

What???

 

[BMM]

I was responding to the last part of your previous post. The sentence where you said you thought X3 was more comic related and relevant than X1 or X2.

 

[kah]

When you say books...do you mean the novelizations or the comics? I still think the reason why many people on here don't like X3 is because of how they were so ingrained and use to Singer's X world that when we got the view from another set of people...they freaked out and said it sucked. I think X3 was more comic related and relevant than X1 or X2.

comics, from Giant Size #1 to Uncanny #321 (and all X titles during this time).

You've probably got a point. When Claremont left, I wasn't happy with the writing for a while. When Lee left, I wasn't happy with the art for a while. This kind of difference gets magnified in a movie.

There were a lot of little bits I did like in X3. And for the bits I did like, I REALLY REALLY liked them. But there were serious continuity problems (Sentinels in the Danger Room?), serious "such and such character would NEVER do that" issues (Charles would NEVER take over another body to save his life) and things like Psylocke not really being Psylocke for the ten seconds she was on screen and maybe being killed. Too many, WTF?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

comics, from Giant Size #1 to Uncanny #321 (and all X titles during this time).

You've probably got a point. When Claremont left, I wasn't happy with the writing for a while. When Lee left, I wasn't happy with the art for a while. This kind of difference gets magnified in a movie.

There were a lot of little bits I did like in X3. And for the bits I did like, I REALLY REALLY liked them. But there were serious continuity problems (Sentinels in the Danger Room?), serious "such and such character would NEVER do that" issues (Charles would NEVER take over another body to save his life) and things like Psylocke not really being Psylocke for the ten seconds she was on screen and maybe being killed. Too many, WTF?

really? prof would never do that? hmmm didnt he put his mind in proteus once? i believe so...

also the man kinda held the danger room captive when it became sentient.. as well as made everyone forget that moira's team was dead.. along with scott and alex's brother

 

[kah]

really? prof would never do that? hmmm didnt he put his mind in proteus once? i believe so...

also the man kinda held the danger room captive when it became sentient.. as well as made everyone forget that moira's team was dead.. along with scott and alex's brother

Did he do any of those things for no reason other than to save his own discorporated self? Didn't mean to imply he would never put his mind into another, just don't think he would do so simply for survival. Particulary after having lectured his students on the ethical questions of doing so. Felt really wrong to me.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Did he do any of those things for no reason other than to save his own discorporated self? Didn't mean to imply he would never put his mind into another, just don't think he would do so simply for survival. Particulary after having lectured his students on the ethical questions of doing so. Felt really wrong to me.

he was questioning the class if wether it was ethical to do so or not... not stating if it was good or bad. i think its very accurate in that charles would do that to the body in wich he did. plus we have no idea who that body really is...

 

[BMM]

really? prof would never do that? hmmm didnt he put his mind in proteus once? i believe so...

also the man kinda held the danger room captive when it became sentient.. as well as made everyone forget that moira's team was dead.. along with scott and alex's brother

When did Xavier put his mind in Proteus?

 

[Sparta*]

I really enjoyed this movie while I was in the theater. It was fun to watch and cool to see some of my favorite X-characters back on the screen. X-3 was an entertaining film, but what it was not, was a quality film.
The things that make a good movie (content, character development, engaging screenplay, good story telling, etc) were sadly absent from this film.
The movie was bad. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean it's not okay to watch.

You summed up my EXACT feelings Good job

 

[kah]

he was questioning the class if wether it was ethical to do so or not... not stating if it was good or bad. i think its very accurate in that charles would do that to the body in wich he did. plus we have no idea who that body really is...

Okay, we just REALLY disagree on that.

 

[zanos]

If that were true, then Cyclops' presence would have been required the entire film, which you like to point out was not the case. I could see how you could make the argument that he was a plot device for as a foil for Wolverine and Jean in their subplot, but again, the whole existence of scenes like his monologue over Xavier (which has nothing to do with the subplot) or his calling out commands to the team in X1 nullifies that argument. If his sole existence was as a plot device, then we wouldn't have those scenes.

Why do you feel Singer felt like he had to hide Scott in the sequel? Cyclops served his token role in the first film already. Foils don't work beyond that. The fact that he gave some commands and talked to Xavier while unconscious is irrelevant. Singer can't actually devote the entire film to Wolverine, he has to write some token scenes for the other members so it's not so blatant.

He's the Pro-Comic bias rearing its ugly head again. Cyclops is NOT the protagonist in either X1 or X2. No one ever argued that and you seem to be unable to let go of that fact. Cyclops also doesn't star in every issue he's in. Sometimes other characters take the forefront of the story depending on what the story calls for.

Again irrelevant since comic books are a completely different medium. We're talking about a film and I don't seem to recall any other characters taking the forfront in X2 except you guessed it, Wolverine again.

Again, please show me how Cyclops in his interactions with Jean, Wolverine, and Xavier in the films wasn't true to the character? Besides your obvious anger that he wasn't the star of the show, how did he not act like Cyclops? And how was showing different sides of Storm's personality not lead to a more three dimensional character. In the few scenes she had in X1 we saw doubt, determination, fear, and later even pity and kindness in the scene with Kelly. And in X2 we see frustration and anger with Logan, we see fear and bitterness in the scene with Nightcrawler on the X-Jet, and trust in the scene with him outside of Dark Cerebro. So how was she badly characterized? Or is your whole argument based on how they weren't the stars of the show? You are aware that characterization isn't limited to screentime or being a protagonist right? That just because a character is not the protagonist that they must be badly characterized.

No they were badly characterized because they were bad characterized. Even one dimensional characters can be made interesting and Singer even failed to do this much. As for Cyclops only the most elementary aspects of the character were covered. Any fool can look up cyclops' profile and write up the character the way they did. And even then they weren't very accurate in regards to his leadership skills or lack thereof.

So Cyclops never showed his care for Jean in either X-films? We never saw his devotion to Xavier and his dream? We never saw his antagonism with Logan? We got to see quite a few sides of Cyclops in his interactions with different characters. But of course, you overlook that because he wasn't a central character and he's "one of the most important members of the X-Men". Hey, Cyclops is one of my favorite characters and even I can understand and accept why he wasn't a central character. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the moments he did have where he did exhibit the characteristics I associate with Scott.

Not really we're told that he cares about Jean thru some brief scenes but we're not shown why he ultimately feels that way. There's a huge difference. Read further and you'll find out why. It' the same thing when it comes to Scott's relationship with Xavier. We're just supposed to accept everything and It comes off empty because we're never actually shown why Scott has these feelings. Just that he does. With Wolverine it's the complete antithesis. We see him flirting with Jean, Xavier helping him recover his memories, etc. We can relate to him when he sees Jean and the professor die.

And yet you lambast X1 and X2 for not putting Cyclops as the main character? That you assume that characters aren't characterized well simply because they aren't sharing the spotlight?

Uh no. Cyclops not being the main character is hardly the reason why I had a problem with those films.

 

[Mr. Socko]

It wasn't bad. It just wasn't what you expected.

X3 is an action popcorn-flick. Like a good Schwarzenegger-movie. There's nothing wrong with that... only a lot of fans wanted pumped-up action AND good storytelling. X2 had the story. X3 has the action. Live with it.

This man speaks nothing but the truth.

 

[LongshotRules]

Too many of you who are critical of this movie are either overestimating Singer's impact on the movie franchise or too nitpicky on a movie that was rushed through production and had to endure many director changes. Remember Singer was the one who decided it was more important to do a Superman movie than finishing what he started with the X-Men movies. Ratner gave the fans who's been long clamoring for good action, better use of the mutant powers, and faster pace of the movie what they wanted. I for one is one of them. Singer brought good character development and great storytelling, I'll give you that. He's made the audience care for about the individual X-Men and treated the movies not as comic book adaptation than a good sci fi drama that happens to feature comic book characters. BUT I dislike some of the dialogoues (Storm to Toad being prime example), lame use of powers, and certain scenes are too played out. [SIZE=-1]Ratner did a admirable job of closing out the trilogy as well as providing great summer movie entertainment. I counted around 7-8 applauses during the showing today, there were many laughes during funny scenes and gasps during death scenes, and the kid next to me openly proclaimed he likes the movie a lot. In the end that's what's gonna count for Quality for this movie. Don't get too caught up in your love for Singer and what should or should not happen and just enjoy the movie for what it is. A movie.
[/SIZE]

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Too many of you who are critical of this movie are either overestimating Singer's impact on the movie franchise or too nitpicky on a movie that was rushed through production and had to endure many director changes. Remember Singer was the one who decided it was more important to do a Superman movie than finishing what he started with the X-Men movies. Ratner gave the fans who's been long clamoring for good action, better use of the mutant powers, and faster pace of the movie what they wanted. I for one is one of them. Singer brought good character development and great storytelling, I'll give you that. He's made the audience care for about the individual X-Men and treated the movies not as comic book adaptation than a good sci fi drama that happens to feature comic book characters. BUT I dislike some of the dialogoues (Storm to Toad being prime example), lame use of powers, and certain scenes are too played out. [SIZE=-1]Ratner did a admirable job of closing out the trilogy as well as providing great summer movie entertainment. I counted around 7-8 applauses during the showing today, there were many laughes during funny scenes and gasps during death scenes, and the kid next to me openly proclaimed he likes the movie a lot. In the end that's what's gonna count for Quality for this movie. Don't get too caught up in your love for Singer and what should or should not happen and just enjoy the movie for what it is. A movie.
[/SIZE]

btw i see supes fans replying with this already "but singer's always been a fan of superman" well guess what, he was a fan of the donner films THATS IT.. he never picked up a superman comic in his LIFE.. its front he uses.. in wich ive been told numerous times by people i know in hollywood

 

[Drago]

I don't know if I look at X1 and X2 as great stories, as much as I do great character-pieces. The first 2 movies were strictly character-driven, and I say not story-driven because there wasn't really a 3rd party (X1's plot really revolved around Mags, while X2's revolved around Logan).

While I still love X1 and X2 (X1 better, I think X2 is a bit overrated), I enjoyed having the movie be driven by that 3rd party (Worthington/Gov. with the Cure). Granted it didn't allow for the same character development as X1 or X2- but in exchange we get a lot of significant events that help close those arcs. A lot of X-Fans may not have been accepting of it, but I was pleased to see the x-verse finally expand and show us stuff like public outcry, government involvement, etc., as well as tackle issues that aren't black and white. As I said though, this means some different character-development since it isn't completely character driven; I was fine with it, but I can see where others wouldn't be.

Personally, I think the ideal thing to do would be to switch it up and have maybe the next film focus on events/issues again (for example, sentinels or a true villian.. wishing for a super-violent Pyro..), then one be strictly character-focused, and keep covering both ends like that. If anything, we were just in X3 introduced to the world divided over mutancy, and I doubt they would end it here when we are just introduced to it.