Fine like wine: how well have superhero films aged?

[Thebumwhowalks]

Emphasis on the word "unintentional". Technology dates movies. Unless they are intentionally set in a time period, like say, First Class, the advancement of society and technology, dates them.

But you were using the term period piece, which is not applicable, I see you have stopped using the term now, so must agree with me as i have now changed your opinion on that, even though you will not admit it.

But, how does the tech difference change the superman movie in any significant way that dates the film? answer: It doesn't.

Speaking of walls, ever try talking to one?

this conversation is dated actually, talking to you about film is like talking to one of those people who saw that footage of the train, and freaked out cause they thought it was coming through the wall.

edit: haha, i catually edited that gag out of my last post cause i thought it was a bit cheeky, so here it is again, i guess you were referring to that, anyway, you started the cheek with that Home alone ref.
we're not talking about Home alone anyway.

 

[CConn]

I do, when I wear my leather jacket I make sure to stick the lapels up.

You can't make a lapel giant by adjusting it, it needs to be tailored giant-sized.

 

[CConn]

People are not imprressed by the Gioconda or Beethoven either. But they know they're great.

That's the thing; outside of Reeve, no one really thinks its great.

I probably have the most respect for it of anyone I've talked to, and I don't even really like it.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

You can't make a lapel giant by adjusting it, it needs to be tailored giant-sized.

They are big in the first place, that's why they're able to stand up.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

That's the thing; outside of Reeve, no one really thinks its great.

I probably have the most respect for it of anyone I've talked to, and I don't even really like it.

Well, that is out of your circle of friends right? Bryan Singer and Chris Nolan appreciate the movie, and hold it in high regard, I guess you don't hang out with them.

 

[The Morningstar]

All those things being only two plotlines. And 104 minutes for two plots that went somewhere was far better than 133 minutes of things that barely changed throughout the whole X2.

Two plot lines that require a movie dedicated to each thing, not stuffing both of them in.

So, her being unable to touch his boyfriend, his boyfriend becoming increasingly interested in other girl, Rogue having to see that and then, as a consequence, making the decision to become a normal person is no development.

Yea, then what happened? She went to get cured... then vanished. That is the last we see of her. We don't see her come back to Iceman.

So, no pay off.

I'll tell you what's no development: Rogue not being able to touch his boyfriend and then her being still unable to do it. That's all what happened to her in X2.

Because she was conflicted. She was conflicted about her mutant power being a gift or a curse, and whether it is worth giving up that gift.

And then Wolverine knowing little about his origin just to end up knowing little about it. Or him and Jean talking about how they kinda like each other but had better not do anything about it because of Cyclops. Which we already knew in the first movie. That is called no development.

Wolverine did learn about his past. He found out who Stryker was, who told him more about the experiment and what he was like. He also found out that Jean chose Scott over him.

Then you have Mystique, in one single line of believable and natural dialogue to Nightcrawler we get a real insight into her character. No need for monologues and speechifying like certain other comic book movies...

Also Pyro, with one glance at Iceman's family photo in his house we get an insight into his character. This is called development. Just because it doesn't have Pyro say "Oh i wish my family life was as good as yours" and be all emo about it doesn't mean the development isn't there. Through this great piece of character work (and other parts of the movie that tell us what kind of person Pyro is, without spoon feeding it with unnatural dialogue...) we come to understand and believe him joining Magneto makes sense.

Strange. She acted and looked different than when she was Jean. She was a different person (aka character). But sure, when you have dozens of super-powered beings, like in every X-Men movie, then you cannot probably develop everyone as much as you want.

She was under developed and barely a character. She was just some zombie looking nigh on mute woman who doesn't actually do... anything, apart from kill Charles in a really anti climatic and unemotional scene. And get stabbed at the end.

On the contrary, they were able to develop both stories pretty well, unlike in the previous movie were nothing went anywhere. Ah, okay, Jean died in the last scene, that's the only true change I saw in any character of X2.

Nope. You're wrong on both counts, friend-o. Honestly can't believe someone is suggesting X-3 is superior to X-2. It genuinely boggles my mind.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Honestly can't believe someone is suggesting X-3 is superior to X-2. It genuinely boggles my mind.

The thing is though, a lot of members are mind boggled by your opinion on TDK, and Ledger's peformance. I guess a lot of us just have those unpopular opinions for one thing or another.

I too prefer X1 and 2 to 3. 3 feels like 2/3 of the movie it should have been, but there is still quality in there, and I think Ratner gets too much of a bad rap for it.
He came onboard about 4 weeks before it started shooting and directed the script he was given, making one major change, shifting the Bridge sequence to the finale, as opposed to it being a part of Mystique's jailbreak in the middle of the film(this is why they changed it to the lab being based on Ryker's island), which was good idea.
He could have made an X-Men film as good as 1 and 2 imo, if he had the time and the right script, but the script was hamstrung by actor availiability, and the production by studio interferance.

I have to say that Xavier's death scene is one of the best moments in the film, that was up there with the best moments in x1 and 2. The music, visuals and action all come together *almost* perfectly, with only one wonky scene, when Juggernaught comes bursting through the wall, which has some unconvincing action going on at that moment.
Xavier bogged down the drama in the final act of X2, and was out of the loop for the finale in X1, so he was not missed when it came to the last act of this film imo. Part of the problem with the character in these types of films is that he is wheelchair bound and cannot be an on field member of he team.
It also gave the team a chance to 'graduate', and make decisions on their own.
Cyclops though, would have benefitted the film, unfortunately the actor jumped ship, so the movie suffered.

edit: The cure and Phoenix plots did actually mix well together, if they had been able to utilise all the characters and make a longer movie it could have worked really well.
But, y'know, I would also have liked to have seen a movie focusing on the Phoenix, and the hellfire club, like Singer was apparently originally planning. We would not have XMFC as we know it, if this had happened.

 

[The Morningstar]

I've never said anything negative about Ledger's performance as Joker. Apart from that he isn't the best cinematic villain ever, in my opinion. But i don't see that being that unpopular of an opinion.

I agree that Ratner get's too much hate for it. He isn't the guy who should shoulder all the blame for X-3. But, I don't think he could ever make a movie as good as X-1 and X-2.

I don't see how Xavier bogged down the drama in the final act of X-2. He WAS the drama of the final act of X-2. I thought Skryker's plot of using him and Cerebro to kill the world's mutants was great. Loved the mansion scene when they came after the kids and Wolverine went berserker on them. Also liked how Strker used his son and his mind/reality warping powers to make Charles use Cerebro.

Xavier's death in X-3 was ok. But I thought it was kinda ruined by the Wolverine Juggernaut fight in the background, like you said. And because i thought the Pheonix character was pretty weak. Jean became this entity of supposed rage and unimaginable power but i didn't really get that. She seemed to emotionless and like i said before, zombie like.

I think X-3 was bad but not atrocious. But X-2 and X-1 are definitely better films for me.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I've never said anything negative about Ledger's performance as Joker. Apart from that he isn't the best cinematic villain ever, in my opinion. But i don't see that being that unpopular of an opinion.

Ok, fair enough, I got the impression you weren't impressed by his performance.

I agree that Ratner get's too much hate for it. He isn't the guy who should shoulder all the blame for X-3. But, I don't think he could ever make a movie as good as X-1 and X-2.

Going by what was presented in X3, I think he could have if he was given the right script. He was more action based than Singer, people have said X3 was more like the comics or cartoon adaptations of the comics(the 90s adaptations of the Claremont material), and I think this is true.
He would have made a different kind of X-Men film, but it could have been just as good in it's own way. I'm just basing my impressions on this by the good parts of the film, it's actually well made, there just isn't enough of it.

I don't see how Xavier bogged down the drama in the final act of X-2. He WAS the drama of the final act of X-2. I thought Skryker's plot of using him and Cerebro to kill the world's mutants was great. Loved the mansion scene when they came after the kids and Wolverine went berserker on them. Also liked how Strker used his son and his mind/reality warping powers to make Charles use Cerebro.

I'm talking about all the mind manipulation scenes between Xavier and Stryker's son, they were a bit slow and uninterersting, and bogged down the pace of the film i felt.

Xavier's death in X-3 was ok. But I thought it was kinda ruined by the Wolverine Juggernaut fight in the background, like you said. And because i thought the Pheonix character was pretty weak. Jean became this entity of supposed rage and unimaginable power but i didn't really get that. She seemed to emotionless and like i said before, zombie like.

I didn't say it was ruined by the background fights, I actually liked the fights apart from that one unconvincing scene i pointed out, which was pretty quick, so it didn't ruin it.

And Jean was enraged in that scene because she was confronting Xavier about what he had done to her mind, 'Get out of my head!'. After that, she seemed to have lost her sense of self and didn't really care about anything, not a very interesting characterisation to watch, she should have been written better in the last half of the film for sure, we didn't get much at all from her.
They did actually have stuff written for her, where she was revelling in her power, but the one of the writers said he took it all out as it made her sound silly.
What they needed was something along the lines of the comic, where she was being manipulated by another psychic, and was battling between siding with the enemy and the X-Men.

I think X-3 was bad but not atrocious. But X-2 and X-1 are definitely better films for me.

This is what happens when a film production goes awry for many and varied reasons, X3 is the epitome of damage control, the film could have been a lot worse, and could only have been better if those problems had not been there to hamper creativity and the actual physical act of making the film.
I followed the progress of the film's production on aicn, and there were a few people who knew things about the behind the scenes drama, that made them feel the movie we got was amazing, considering it's problems, not an amazing movie, but amazing that it was any kind of a decent movie at all. Drew McWeeny aka Moriarty was one of those folk who was amazed at how well it turned out, all things considered, he was one who actually liked the film.

 

[El Payaso]

Two plot lines that require a movie dedicated to each thing, not stuffing both of them in.

Yeah, like Two-Face needed his own movie and everything. Well, no, two plots can be merged nicely into one movie.

Thing is when you have your personal expectations about how something should be done and then it doesn't happen that way.

Yea, then what happened? She went to get cured... then vanished. That is the last we see of her. We don't see her come back to Iceman.

So, no pay off.

Now I get your point of view: you're plainly ignoring scenes...

Rogue DOES COME BACK TO ICEMAN.

But if you ignore facts then it's easy to hate stuff.

Because she was conflicted. She was conflicted about her mutant power being a gift or a curse, and whether it is worth giving up that gift.

She was conflicted about that all over the first movie. What new happened to her in X2? Not a thing.

And yes,conflict about her mutant power being a gift or a curse, and whether it is worth giving up that gift is what happened nin X3, when the character could have some developemnt again.

Wolverine did learn about his past. He found out who Stryker was, who told him more about the experiment and what he was like. He also found out that Jean chose Scott over him.

After two houyrs and a half he barely knew something else about himself. And, once again, he knew Jean prefered Scott over him in the first movie. X2 was nothing but "But Jean, are you sure-sure you prefer Scott?" "Yes."

Repetitive, boring and no development there again.

Then you have Mystique, in one single line of believable and natural dialogue to Nightcrawler we get a real insight into her character. No need for monologues and speechifying like certain other comic book movies...

Great, there's one good line in X2. Never said it was the worst movie ever.

Also Pyro, with one glance at Iceman's family photo in his house we get an insight into his character. This is called development. Just because it doesn't have Pyro say "Oh i wish my family life was as good as yours" and be all emo about it doesn't mean the development isn't there. Through this great piece of character work (and other parts of the movie that tell us what kind of person Pyro is, without spoon feeding it with unnatural dialogue...) we come to understand and believe him joining Magneto makes sense.

That's no development but one good moment. We have one good line and one good moment.

She was under developed and barely a character. She was just some zombie looking nigh on mute woman who doesn't actually do... anything, apart from kill Charles in a really anti climatic and unemotional scene. And get stabbed at the end.

Yeah, killing Scott, Xavier, that's not doing anything, I get your concept of "something" happening.

And then again I already told you that he interacted with Magneto, Wolverine and Xavier, so he wasn't just a zombie. But you need to stop skipping/deleting scenes in your mind. That or you urgently need to call tech service for your dvd player.

Nope. You're wrong on both counts, friend-o. Honestly can't believe someone is suggesting X-3 is superior to X-2. It genuinely boggles my mind.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm openly saying it. X3 is better than X2 in about every department. Things happen, action happen, characters change and things change, which barely happened in X2.

I agree that Ratner get's too much hate for it. He isn't the guy who should shoulder all the blame for X-3. But, I don't think he could ever make a movie as good as X-1 and X-2.

Well, he did with X3. X1 will be always my favourite, but X2 was a story that involved the mutant condition in no way, except for a couple for moments in Iceman's family which was more of a personal thing - that, once again, led to nowhere: Iceman didn't live in his ouse but now.... he abandons his house.

I don't see how Xavier bogged down the drama in the final act of X-2. He WAS the drama of the final act of X-2. I thought Skryker's plot of using him and Cerebro to kill the world's mutants was great. Loved the mansion scene when they came after the kids and Wolverine went berserker on them. Also liked how Strker used his son and his mind/reality warping powers to make Charles use Cerebro.

You boggle the drama down when yoiu have way too many scenes of Xavier doing nothing but staring and repeating what the little girl says.

Stryker using his son was good, but if you develop that in endless boring scenes then it's useless.

Xavier's death in X-3 was ok. But I thought it was kinda ruined by the Wolverine Juggernaut fight in the background, like you said. And because i thought the Pheonix character was pretty weak. Jean became this entity of supposed rage and unimaginable power but i didn't really get that. She seemed to emotionless and like i said before, zombie like.

So, she kills her boyfriend, she kills her mentor but that doesn't tell you "rage and unimaginable power."

And you never explained how exactly Juggernaut vs Wolverine ruined anything there.

Weak death? Jean Gray feeling bad for a whole movie, making you wonder what's wrong with her and how it will affect her, and then doing a last minute self-sacrifice that kills her... erasing all the plot of her feeling bad and how that would affect her: it never did, she just died for entirely different reasons. And then, we know she didn't actually die, only 5 minutes later.

I think X-3 was bad but not atrocious. But X-2 and X-1 are definitely better films for me.

X2 was a snorefest for most of it. And the mutant condition being the center of it, like in X1 and 3 wouldn't have hurt.

 

[Octoberist]

I agree that X3 is the epitome of studio damage control. While its a bad film, Wolverine is a worse film because Fox didn't learn from their mistakes despite that production having a much longer production period.

 

[El Payaso]

I agree that X3 is the epitome of studio damage control. While its a bad film, Wolverine is a worse film because Fox didn't learn from their mistakes despite that production having a much longer production period.

If more movies would be damaged by studios to the point of being more interesting, having more action and character development than movies freely made by directors, then I'd hate studios much much less.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I agree that X3 is the epitome of studio damage control. While its a bad film, Wolverine is a worse film because Fox didn't learn from their mistakes despite that production having a much longer production period.

I don't know much about the production of Wolverine, I read rumours that they had disagreements with the director, and some of the producers had to mediate, because Fox changed the production on a scene as they didn't like what the director had built.
But, the main thing that was wrong with that movie was the script was wonky.

X3's script suffered because they didn't have certain actors on hand, so they were written out with cameo roles, it had other problems too, but when you have starting off point problems like that, then the movie is hamstrung before you even put pen to paper.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

If more movies would be damaged by studios to the point of being more interesting, having more action and character development than movies freely made by directors, then I'd hate studios much much less.

I enjoy watching X3, but it could have been so much better if not for the production problems.

 

[El Payaso]

X3's script suffered because they didn't have certain actors on hand, so they were written out with cameo roles, it had other problems too, but when you have starting off point problems like that, then the movie is hamstrung before you even put pen to paper.

I enjoy watching X3, but it could have been so much better if not for the production problems.

I guess if you ignore what the original plans were you could watch the movie without missing what is not there. As for cameo-characters all 3 X-Men movies had them.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I guess if you ignore what the original plans were you could watch the movie without missing what is not there. As for cameo-characters all 3 X-Men movies had them.

No, i mean lead characters being reduced to cameos, like Cyclops and Mystique, Cyclops obviously jumped ship with singer, and I read somewhere that Mystique's role was reduced as the actress had a conflicting schedule.
See, the studio would not budge from the set release date and reschedule to a time when all the leads could properly participate, as they wanted to trounce Singer's Superman Returns at the BO in the same summer, due to their falling out.

 

[El Payaso]

No, i mean lead characters being reduced to cameos, like Cyclops and Mystique, Cyclops obviously jumped ship with singer, and I read somewhere that Mystique's role was reduced as the actress had a conflicting schedule.

Man, Storm and Nightcralker were reduced tob that, and it ahs nothing to do with studio intervention but merely the fact that there are too many important characters in the X-Men world and they'll naturally favor some over the rest.

And it's not like Mystique was much more than a cameo character before. But apparently the extra-movie info makes you feel that differently.

See, the studio would not budge from the set release date and reschedule to a time when all the leads could properly participate, as they wanted to trounce Singer's Superman Returns at the BO in the same summer, due to their falling out.

Well, that's all very interesting but if the movie works I cannot give two damns in a row about wehat happened during the production.

 

[CConn]

They are big in the first place, that's why they're able to stand up.

Then it appears you're a period piece yourself.

 

[CConn]

Well, that is out of your circle of friends right? Bryan Singer and Chris Nolan appreciate the movie, and hold it in high regard, I guess you don't hang out with them.

You're kind of missing my point, though. I'm not trying to question STM's creative importance on the genre - I recognize it as much as Singer or Nolan do - I'm saying that it seems like my personal slice of the general audience (friends, coworkers, family, etc.) aren't enthralled by STM from an enjoyment standpoint.

I'm not saying STM is awful because the 20-some people I've heard talk about it didn't like it all that much, but I think it might say something about its longevity. I mean, Nolan, Singer, they were 8 and 13 when STM came out; the prime demographic at the prime point of the movie's lifespan. It's no surprise they're fans of it - I'd be shocked if they weren't. But I question whether the 8 year olds in 1988 or 1995 really end up caring about STM all that much.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

You're kind of missing my point, though. I'm not trying to question STM's creative importance on the genre - I recognize it as much as Singer or Nolan do - I'm saying that it seems like my personal slice of the general audience (friends, coworkers, family, etc.) aren't enthralled by STM from an enjoyment standpoint.

I'm not saying STM is awful because the 20-some people I've heard talk about it didn't like it all that much, but I think it might say something about its longevity. I mean, Nolan, Singer, they were 8 and 13 when STM came out; the prime demographic at the prime point of the movie's lifespan. It's no surprise they're fans of it - I'd be shocked if they weren't. But I question whether the 8 year olds in 1988 or 1995 really end up caring about STM all that much.

I didn't miss your point, you didn't make it until now, how am I supposed to know what age group you are talking about, when all you mention is 'people that you've talked to'?

I'm pretty sure I have read of people on these boards in that age group defending the movie in discussions. I'm amazed you think the movie is held in that kind of regard by the younger generation to the point where it is some kind of generally held thing, when you are just basing that on a handful of people.

I think what happens with these kinds of discussions, is that people who don't like a certain movie will say it is dated, but willfully ignore dated aspects of their own favs. Hell, I recall sitting on the bus going to school talking to my peers about Batman89, male and female, and them being distinctly unimpressed with the film, and that was the generation that 'grew up' with the film.
See, it's kind of like that Vic Reeves quote '88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot'.
You can hold up some kind of evidence because it suits you to say so, and then I can also root around in my memory for something that corresponds to a movie you don't think has dated. But, in the end, neither observation really means much at all.
About the only thing that could gauge such a generation gap of taste would be a poll of a wide demographic of people on one of the geek sites.

 

[CConn]

I didn't miss your point, you didn't make it until now, how am I supposed to know what age group you are talking about, when all you mention is 'people that you've talked to'?

Because I meant pretty much everyone save for that small quotient of adolescent boys whom STM was intended for in 1978. It's just kind of logical that they would always be fans of it. It was a great movie at the time, after all.

I'm pretty sure I have read of people on these boards in that age group defending the movie in discussions. I'm amazed you think the movie is held in that kind of regard by the younger generation to the point where it is some kind of generally held thing, when you are just basing that on a handful of people.

I'm not necessarily saying that. I'm just saying I'm surprised that the consensus I get in the real world differs pretty dramatically from here.

And furthermore, it seems to mesh up with how the media regards STM; the film itself is rarely mentioned in the same sentence as the likes of Star Wars, or Jaws, or other action movies of that time period.

I think what happens with these kinds of discussions, is that people who don't like a certain movie will say it is dated, but willfully ignore dated aspects of their own favs.

I don't really see why that's pertinent. I'm not trying to bash STM, just reciting the various opinions I've heard about the film.

Hell, I recall sitting on the bus going to school talking to my peers about Batman89, male and female, and them being distinctly unimpressed with the film, and that was the generation that 'grew up' with the film.

Again, I don't really see the point of bringing up any other movie.

It appears as though you feel I'm trying to attack STM and are launching your own counters when you really don't need to; I'm not attacking anything.

See, it's kind of like that Vic Reeves quote '88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot'.
You can hold up some kind of evidence because it suits you to say so, and then I can also root around in my memory for something that corresponds to a movie you don't think has dated. But, in the end, neither observation really means much at all.
About the only thing that could gauge such a generation gap of taste would be a poll of a wide demographic of people on one of the geek sites.

I'm not trying to pretend I have any hard facts to claim that STM is dated. Frankly, I wouldn't care enough about the topic to poll the amount of people of diverse background to gain a scientific assessment of the topic. It's really not that important.

What I will disagree with, however, is your claim I'm tainting other people's opinions with my own; I have no reason to try and sully STM's reputation. On this site, people hold it in pretty high regard, and that's find. If people I spoke to in the real world felt the same way, I'd have no problem admitting it.

 

[Dark Raven]

X-Men First Class seems really dated. It seems so 60-ish with their outfits, cars, music and as if it's set in a completely different era. Not modern at all.

 

[El Payaso]

X-Men First Class seems really dated. It seems so 60-ish with their outfits, cars, music and as if it's set in a completely different era. Not modern at all.

............................. no smiley in your post.....?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

X-Men First Class seems really dated. It seems so 60-ish with their outfits, cars, music and as if it's set in a completely different era. Not modern at all.

You're funny.

 

[weezerspider]

I think X-Men and X-Men 2 both aged poorly.